Pascal's Wager Argument

[davidv]

I’m not sure what you are looking for as proof. It seems self evident to me.

But as an example

POÄNG chair

Article Number: 001.557.80
Width: 66 cm
Height: 19 cm
Length: 74 cm
Weight: 10.2 kg

You know what the measurements are, how are they useful? You need a context.

So? Each of these came from outside you mind = they are objective facts.

As far as I can tell all that you have proven is that you don’t know what “objective” means.

 

[jonfawkes]

So? Each of these came from outside you mind = they are objective facts.

As far as I can tell all that you have proven is that you don’t know what “objective” means.

I’m not disputing that the measurements are objective but rather saying that use of that information is subjective.

 

[grannymh]

I’m not sure what you are looking for as proof. It seems self evident to me.

But as an example

POÄNG chair

Article Number: 001.557.80
Width: 66 cm
Height: 19 cm
Length: 74 cm
Weight: 10.2 kg

You know what the measurements are, how are they useful? You need a context.

Proof? All I am asking for is simple answers to three simple questions found in post 501.

I didn’t specifically ask what the measurements are. I asked if you used a tape measure. If you wish, I could ask the 2nd and 3rd questions this way.
2) Have you ever used the description tag on the chair to check the size of the chair? 3) Is the description tag on the chair objective or subjective according to the dictionary definition(s) of subjective and objective?

 

[jonfawkes]

I did not refer to “objective measurement” or any kind of measuring. I did ask – Have you ever used a tape measure to check the size of the chair? Chair as in the previous question, “Have you ever brought a chair in a furniture store?” Now if you have not ever bought a chair in a furniture store, would it be possible for you, or anyone else reading this thread, to imagine doing so?

Thank you for considering my simple questions in post 501.

Your post was in response to

Today, the concept of objective reasoning is considered only within the context that it is ACTUALLY subjective, and when a preponderance of evidence and agreement occurs, we sometimes refer to it as objective, although we know it is really not.

Were you not addressing that statement?

I’m sorry, I thought by quoting that statement you were addressing it. I didn’t know you were just making an arbitrary statement. My bad

 

[jonfawkes]

Proof? All I am asking for is simple answers to three simple questions found in post 501.

I didn’t specifically ask what the measurements are. I asked if you used a tape measure. If you wish, I could ask the 2nd and 3rd questions this way.
2) Have you ever used the description tag on the chair to check the size of the chair? 3) Is the description tag on the chair objective or subjective according to the dictionary definition(s) of subjective and objective?

I can get the measurements, either through a tape measure or a description, which would be objective. What I did with that information would be subjective based on the context.

 

[grannymh]

Jon:

Definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

Subjective:
Contrasted with objective: dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.
Objective:
Contrasted with subjective: not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact
God bless,
jd

I have noticed that some of the on-line definitions are not as precise as the* American Heritage College Dictionary*. For example.

Subjective. 1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a persons’ mind rather than the external world; a subjective decision." 1b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
In my opinion “proceeding” is a stronger word than contrasted in that it is very descriptive. I would also include personal preferences, emotions, memories, previous knowledge etc. as possibly a part of a subjective decision.

Objective. 1. of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality. 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. 3b. based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
With the exception of definition 1. the spiritual can be considered objective.

 

[grannymh]

Your post was in response to

Were you not addressing that statement?

I’m sorry, I thought by quoting that statement you were addressing it. I didn’t know you were just making an arbitrary statement. My bad

My bad too. I was addressing the first sentence of kbachler’s post 499 and included the rest of the post’s section following his opening statement “Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning.”

My intention is to ask three simple questions. Their answers would demonstrate objective reasoning. How the reasoning is used for decisions, etc., is another topic.

 

[grannymh]

No, My house, your office, your cousins condo all different subjective applications. The measurement of the chair remains the same. The measurements are meaningless without a context.

The fact that the measurement of the chair remains the same is one of the hallmarks of objective reality. While we may think about the context of the chair; for example its location as in a house, office, my balcony, or someone’ basement, none of ;the locations in themselves can change the chair’s measurement. As you said, the measurement of the chair remains the same which is why its existence, wherever that may be, is considered an objective reality.

Obviously, measurements depend on something which is being measured. Perhaps one can think of the chair as the context for the measurements. Even then, the chair remains an objective reality in that its measurements remain the same no matter where it is located or who likes it.

 

[jonfawkes]

The fact that the measurement of the chair remains the same is one of the hallmarks of objective reality. While we may think about the context of the chair; for example its location as in a house, office, my balcony, or someone’ basement, none of ;the locations in themselves can change the chair’s measurement. As you said the measurement of the chair remains the same which is why its existence, wherever that may be, is considered an objective reality.

Experienced subjectively

 

[jonfawkes]

My bad too. I was addressing the first sentence of kbachler’s post 499 and included the rest of the post’s section following his opening statement “Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning.”

My intention is to ask three simple questions. Their answers would demonstrate objective reasoning. How the reasoning is used for decisions, etc., is another topic.

Objective facts are not objective reasoning, reasoning is the “crunching” of the facts not the facts themselves. The reasoning is subjective based on the context.

 

[grannymh]

Experienced subjectively

I added a paragraph to post 526.

Practically speaking one can experience this chair both subjectively and objectively. It is a both-and situation. Post 504, above demonstrates this.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jon and granny

You appear to have hi-jacked my thread on Pascal’s wager. Shouldn’t you start another thread on objective and subjective reasoning?

The honest atheist, who insists there is no proof for God, must also insist there is no proof against God.

That said, if it is possible that God exists, and God does exist, what is more rational: to live as though God exists, or to live as though God does not exist?

I’m waiting for an atheist to answer this question.

 

[jonfawkes]

Although not an atheist I was alluding to Dawkin’s rebuttal with the architect - If you appreciate the building, the architect is irrelevant. You are wasting time that you could be using to appreciate the building.

Richard Dawkins argues for an “anti-Pascal wager” in his book, The God Delusion. “Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.”[23]

Essentially, Dawkins’s argument boils down to debating the right column of Pascal’s Wager theory. Disputing Pascal’s claim that wagering on God’s existence is virtually cost-free, entailing no more than some pious actions and being “faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful”,[9] he claims instead that it leads to an unfulfilled life. This counterclaim, however, requires Dawkins to change the far left column from “belief / unbelief” to “living as”. (Blaise Pascal, an adherent of Jansenism, wrote within the context of sola fide (aka justification by faith apart from works.)) Dawkins also debates the middle column of Pascal’s Wager, in that Dawkins believes a “better, fuller life” in the here and now outweighs the “small chance” of a potentially infinite gain.

 

[grannymh]

Objective facts are not objective reasoning, reasoning is the “crunching” of the facts not the facts themselves. The reasoning is subjective based on the context.

You are so close to understanding objective and subjective.

Yes, objective facts are not objective reasoning. The first is a noun and the second is a verb. Please think about it this way. Objective reasoning is based on objective facts. Objective reasoning in a sense is “crunching” a verb indicating action. Please go back to post 524 above, definition 3b. for objective. Can you see how an objective appraisal is based on observable phenomena? This objective appraisal uses objective facts such as a physical measurement of a physical chair.

As I said earlier, both objective and subjective reasoning are often used together. Practically speaking both objective and subjective reasoning are necessary when buying a chair or the odds are that one will be unhappy with the purchased chair.

When one says that reasoning is subjective based on the context, this means that the context comes from one’s mind rather than from the paper tag with the printed measurements stapled to the underside of the chair. Usually the metal staple is objective to the point that it can cut one’s finger.

Subjective reasoning is based on a variety of contexts, for example, 1.orange is a favorite color. 2. the shape of the chair brings back memories of a childhood living room. 3. the softness of the fabric is soothing to the emotions. 4. previous experience of an orange rug clashing with faded magenta drapes.

 

[jonfawkes]

You are so close to understanding objective and subjective.

Charlemagne II is right this is his thread -

I get what you are saying a round peg will fit in a round hole - but why do you want it to? That is subjective. The motivation is the context. We experience objectivity, subjectively. There is no other way.

If you want to continue, another thread please.

 

[grannymh]

jon and granny

You appear to have hi-jacked my thread on Pascal’s wager. Shouldn’t you start another thread on objective and subjective reasoning?

The honest atheist, who insists there is no proof for God, must also insist there is no proof against God.

That said, if it is possible that God exists, and God does exist, what is more rational: to live as though God exists, or to live as though God does not exist?

I’m waiting for an atheist to answer this question.

Actually, objective and subjective reasoning do relate to Pascal’s wager as you present it above. I was about to tie it all together.

Pascal’s wager as presented above is rather bare of the process in order to arrive at either conclusion. This is because “to live as though God exists” has not been determined. Somewhere above, I wondered if Pascal was referring to a form of Utilitarianism. No answer.

The interesting thing above is the word rational. I am not sure how that word would have been used in the time of Pascal. So are you using the word rational above as in the time of Pascal or as used in the 21st century? If you are using the word rational as used in the 21st century than you have to face the difficulty of objective and subjective reasoning because both are rational.

 

[grannymh]

Charlemagne II is right this is his thread -

I get what you are saying a round peg will fit in a round hole - but why do you want it to? That is subjective. The motivation is the context. We experience objectivity, subjectively. There is no other way.

If you want to continue, another thread please.

This OP sentence (my bold) is what intrigues me. It is why I connect objective reasoning to Pascal’s wager. However, I do consider our interesting conversation as having reached its limit. Thank you for your contribution.

From the OP: The argument resulted from his conclusion that reason was unreliable either to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that therefore believing in God must be an act of the will resulting from the decision to act in the best interest of the self. **What is the best interest of the self? **If we believe and God exists, we have acted in our best interest. If we don’t believe and God exists, we have acted in our worst interest.

Is the OP referring to the best interest of the self in the time of Pascal or in the 21st century?

Our century’s reliance on the philosophy of relativism is one of the attacks on the objective truth of God’s existence. Practically speaking in this century, God is not necessary for a good life due to subjective reasoning regarding the best interest of the self. As I learned in post 499, “Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning.”

In my humble opinion, if Pascal’s wager is going to float in this century, then the disappearance of objective reasoning which is necessary for objective truth (round peg in a round hole), needs to be addressed.

Since my humble opinion has a 50-50 chance of being wrong, I will drop it until another thread develops sometime in the distant future.

Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[jonfawkes]

This OP sentence (my bold) is what intrigues me. It is why I connect objective reasoning to Pascal’s wager. However, I do consider our interesting conversation as having reached its limit. Thank you for your contribution.

Is the OP referring to the best interest of the self in the time of Pascal or in the 21st century?

Our century’s reliance on the philosophy of relativism is one of the attacks on the objective truth of God’s existence. Practically speaking in this century, God is not necessary for a good life due to subjective reasoning regarding the best interest of the self. As I learned in post 499, “Actually, no, there is no such thing as objective reasoning.”

In my humble opinion, if Pascal’s wager is going to float in this century, then the disappearance of objective reasoning which is necessary for objective truth (round peg in a round hole), needs to be addressed.

Since my humble opinion has a 50-50 chance of being wrong, I will drop it until another thread develops sometime in the distant future.

Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

I disagree

This has been covered earlier in the thread but Pascal makes no objective statements - The underlying assumption is “Well we can’t prove God exists, so what’s the harm if we act like there is?” There is no assertion of “objective” facts, like God exists. Other assumptions are we’ll behave poorly if we think that there is no God, and that God will punish us if we acted as if we thought He did not exist, that living as though God exists carries no cost. None are objective facts, but rather subjective assumptions. All Pascal is doing is laying odds. Ask a bookie if **any **bet is a sure thing

 

[grannymh]

I disagree

This has been covered earlier in the thread but Pascal makes no objective statements - The underlying assumption is “Well we can’t prove God exists, so what’s the harm if we act like there is?” There is no assertion of “objective” facts, like God exists. Other assumptions are we’ll behave poorly if we think that there is no God, and that God will punish us if we acted as if we thought He did not exist, that living as though God exists carries no cost. None are objective facts, but rather subjective assumptions. All Pascal is doing is laying odds. Ask a bookie if **any **bet is a sure thing

No wonder I wasn’t impressed when I first heard about Pascal’s wager as a teenager.
I still am not impressed. The one thing about the wager which I have learned by experience is that for some of us, living as though God exists carries a high price tag.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[kbachler]

No wonder I wasn’t impressed when I first heard about Pascal’s wager as a teenager.
I still am not impressed. The one thing about the wager which I have learned by experience is that for some of us, living as though God exists carries a high price tag.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

But dying if God exists comes at an infinitely high price tag, and that is always higher.