Pascal's Wager Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

No, you misunderstand (or perhaps you believe “sole fide” - ex-Lutheran? ) As Catholics we contend that belief alone doesn’t get you to heaven, which is all PW is betting on. Belief vs Non-Belief. If you believe you get heaven = ∞ happiness, non belief = ∞ punishment. As Catholics we don’t believe it works that way. It’s a flaw of PW.

Look at the bold phrase. Pascal is not just betting on faith as a guarantee of salvation. I don’t think you accurately represent Pascal. Conceding the existence of God from Pascal’s Wager is not in Pascal’s mind what saves you. Belief alone does not save. Where in Pascal’s writings do you find that? **But without belief we are not saved either. ** Pascal is certainly consistent with the OT view that the fool in his heart says there is no God. And so the fool is condemned by his denial.

Indeed, it was Pascal who fought the Jesuits and who sympathized with the Jansenist demand for a return to morality … the very morality that the Jesuits were abandoning with their trick of casuistry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

That’s agood point! There’s lotsa peeps out there who don’t buy a christian god or a muslim, jewish, or hindu, or anything god, and are still spiritual. I thinking this pw stuff doesn’t go far with them.

It may well not go far with them. But Scripture tells us that the fool in his heart says there is no God. I don’t think spirituality goes very far without God, even if the spiritualist congratulates himself that it does.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*No, you misunderstand (or perhaps you believe “sole fide” - ex-Lutheran? ) As Catholics we contend that belief alone doesn’t get you to heaven, which is all PW is betting on. Belief vs Non-Belief. If you believe you get heaven = ∞ happiness, non belief = ∞ punishment. As Catholics we don’t believe it works that way. It’s a flaw of PW. *

Again, I would invite you to read in Pascal’s Pensees, #497, which is titled “Against those who, trusting in the mercy of God, live heedlessly, without doing good works.” The passage is too long to quote in its entirety, but I think you probably have a copy of Pensees? Clearly Pascal does not believe that faith without works is all that is necessary. But works without faith also is useless, even when self-congratulating … and precisely because it **is **self-congratulating.

All goodness comes from God. The man who thinks he is the source of his own goodness is a blasphemer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*It is not objective, faith is subjective to the paradigm that it functions in. So what is “true” for me and functions as a faith doesn’t have to be for one of another faith. None of it can be proven, just accepted. I don’t have to disprove another faith for my faith to be valid for me. *

You don’t have to disprove another person’s faith, but you need to be confident in your own faith. The prophecies that inspired Pascal with conviction were not entirely subjective, as you seem to think. When the weather forecaster says it is going to rain, and it rains, you have in all likelihood not a subjective but an objective basis for making that prediction. When the OT prophecies concern a coming Messiah, and the Messiah comes, why is there not more than mere subjective wish fulfillment that you see he has come? As a Catholic you see the evidence, not just because you are open to it, nor just because you want to see it, but because you can see that it is true. You believe the testimony of those who witnessed it, and you believe the fact that God is active in your very own soul. If others cannot see the prophecy fulfilled, or refuse to see it, or do not want to see it, that is not because it is a mere subjective figment of your imagination. They have their own demons of disbelief to contend with.

 

[aQman]

That’s agood point! There’s lotsa peeps out there who don’t buy a christian god or a muslim, jewish, or hindu, or anything god, and are still spiritual. I thinking this pw stuff doesn’t go far with them.

It may well not go far with them. But Scripture tells us that the fool in his heart says there is no God. I don’t think spirituality goes very far without God, even if the spiritualist congratulates himself that it does.

Hey “big charlie,” howya doin? I’m kind of seeing that even people of your religion sound like theyre seem to have a bigger picture of things than you’re looking at. I mean, if you’re looking at something like thins, don’t you want to be more scientific than religious? I mean it’s great if you have something to believe in, great. But if a bunch of people are in a room trying to solve a puzzle, do they use logic or do they use their religion? I mean no one cares about your sunday stuff if youre doing a puzzle. Loosen up, dude!

Thanks, granny, its your guys’s book that says were all in his image and likeness. Youre cool.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

But if a bunch of people are in a room trying to solve a puzzle, do they use logic or do they use their religion? I mean no one cares about your sunday stuff if youre doing a puzzle. Loosen up, dude!

Gotcha, dude!

But if the puzzle they are trying to solve is God, why can’t they use logic** and** religion?

 

[aQman]

But if a bunch of people are in a room trying to solve a puzzle, do they use logic or do they use their religion? I mean no one cares about your sunday stuff if youre doing a puzzle. Loosen up, dude!

Gotcha, dude!

But if the puzzle they are trying to solve is God, why can’t they use logic** and** religion?

Ain’t no logic gonna work on the big guy, man. Go bash your head on a brick wall. You’ll get results sooner. Get that damned logic out of the way. Hey, how come I don’t feel “got?” ( damn, no smileiuys…)

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

No, you misunderstand (or perhaps you believe “sole fide” - ex-Lutheran? ) As Catholics we contend that belief alone doesn’t get you to heaven, which is all PW is betting on. Belief vs Non-Belief. If you believe you get heaven = ∞ happiness, non belief = ∞ punishment. As Catholics we don’t believe it works that way. It’s a flaw of PW.

Look at the bold phrase. Pascal is not just betting on faith as a guarantee of salvation. I don’t think you accurately represent Pascal. Conceding the existence of God from Pascal’s Wager is not in Pascal’s mind what saves you. Belief alone does not save. Where in Pascal’s writings do you find that? **But without belief we are not saved either. ** Pascal is certainly consistent with the OT view that the fool in his heart says there is no God. And so the fool is condemned by his denial.

Indeed, it was Pascal who fought the Jesuits and who sympathized with the Jansenist demand for a return to morality … the very morality that the Jesuits were abandoning with their trick of casuistry.

That is the wager though - from 233

“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*No, you misunderstand (or perhaps you believe “sole fide” - ex-Lutheran? ) As Catholics we contend that belief alone doesn’t get you to heaven, which is all PW is betting on. Belief vs Non-Belief. If you believe you get heaven = ∞ happiness, non belief = ∞ punishment. As Catholics we don’t believe it works that way. It’s a flaw of PW. *

Again, I would invite you to read in Pascal’s Pensees, #497, which is titled “Against those who, trusting in the mercy of God, live heedlessly, without doing good works.” The passage is too long to quote in its entirety, but I think you probably have a copy of Pensees? Clearly Pascal does not believe that faith without works is all that is necessary. But works without faith also is useless, even when self-congratulating … and precisely because it **is **self-congratulating.

All goodness comes from God. The man who thinks he is the source of his own goodness is a blasphemer.

He offers good works as a solution to sloth - exhorted by mercy.

1. Against those who, trusting to the mercy of God, live heedlessly, without doing good works. – As the two sources of our sins are pride and sloth, God has revealed to us two of His attributes to cure them, mercy and justice. The property of justice is to humble pride, however holy may be our works, et non intres injudicium, etc.; and the property of mercy is to combat sloth by exhorting to good works, according to that passage: "The goodness of God leadeth to repentance, and that other of the Ninevites: “Let us do penance to see if peradventure He will pity us.” And thus mercy is so far from authorising slackness that it is on the contrary the quality which formally attacks it; so that instead of saying, “If there were no mercy in God we should have to make every kind of effort after virtue,” we must say, on the contrary, that it is because there is mercy in God that we must make every kind of effort.

See, Not too long - just irrelevant to the wager

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

It is not objective, faith is subjective to the paradigm that it functions in. So what is “true” for me and functions as a faith doesn’t have to be for one of another faith. None of it can be proven, just accepted. I don’t have to disprove another faith for my faith to be valid for me.

You don’t have to disprove another person’s faith, but you need to be confident in your own faith. The prophecies that inspired Pascal with conviction were not entirely subjective, as you seem to think. When the weather forecaster says it is going to rain, and it rains, you have in all likelihood not a subjective but an objective basis for making that prediction. When the OT prophecies concern a coming Messiah, and the Messiah comes, why is there not more than mere subjective wish fulfillment that you see he has come? As a Catholic you see the evidence, not just because you are open to it, nor just because you want to see it, but because you can see that it is true. You believe the testimony of those who witnessed it, and you believe the fact that God is active in your very own soul. If others cannot see the prophecy fulfilled, or refuse to see it, or do not want to see it, that is not because it is a mere subjective figment of your imagination. They have their own demons of disbelief to contend with.

Again, not everyone thinks the Messiah has come, based on the same scripture. It is subjective interpretation that makes a case one way or the other.

Again, you don’t see the subjectiveness of your argument. Because you believe you see -

You believe the testimony of those who witnessed it, and you believe the fact that God is active in your very own soul.

You are trying to discount other faiths by saying, paraphrased - if they don’t see what I see it’s their problem. I have the truth.

If others cannot see the prophecy fulfilled, or refuse to see it, or do not want to see it, that is not because it is a mere subjective figment of your imagination. They have their own demons of disbelief to contend with.

 

[grannymh]

Again, not everyone thinks the Messiah has come, based on the same scripture. It is subjective interpretation that makes a case one way or the other.

Again, you don’t see the subjectiveness of your argument. Because you believe you see -

Subjectiveness of an argument and objectiveness of an argument are not either-or positions.

You are trying to discount other faiths by saying, paraphrased - if they don’t see what I see it’s their problem. I have the truth.

It is my general observation that “objective Truth” exists whether or not I know it.
Because of our human nature, all of us can seek “objective Truth.” So, in a sense, choosing to seek or not to seek truth is a problem that we all face.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[jonfawkes]

Subjectiveness of an argument and objectiveness of an argument are not either-or positions.

Yes, there are “objective” truths with in the context of a subjective faith.

Jesus is the Messiah is an objective truth within Christianity. It is true for Christians whether non Christians believe it or not.

Jesus is not the Messiah is an objective truth within Judaism. It is true for Jews whether non Jews believe it or not.

Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, there are “objective” truths with in the context of a subjective faith.

Jesus is the Messiah is an objective truth within Christianity. It is true for Christians whether non Christians believe it or not.

Jesus is not the Messiah is an objective truth within Judaism. It is true for Jews whether non Jews believe it or not.

Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.

May I tweak this a bit.

Jesus actually exists; therefore this is objective reality. He is the only One who reconciled all human beings to God through His sacrifice on the Cross. It does not matter if He is called the Messiah or something else. Some religions refer to Jesus as a prophet among prophets. What matters is that Jesus is the Savior of all.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church as the means of bringing all people, throughout the ages, to God. While there are now many “religions” the Catholic Church is the one which maintains the teachings of Jesus Christ through Catholic dogmas, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Seven Sacraments. Jesus Christ, Himself, is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist.

Regarding this comment in post 590. “Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.” (emphasis mine)

When speaking of God, there is not a separate their truth nor a separate your truth nor a separate my truth. An objective truth is not influenced by the context. The “context” such as a religious group or tradition does not change an universal objective truth. When people do deviate from basic truths, then their group faith would become a subjective faith subject to the what the group thought was important or not important for the times.

Descriptions such as messiah or holy prophet or itinerant carpenter, are descriptions of the existence of Jesus. Descriptions can come from subjective reasoning or from objective reasoning. The objective reasoning is that Jesus’ salvific actions are meant for all people in every context, including atheism, regardless of how He is described.

Jesus Christ died for all. Since all people are called to share in the life of God, Catholicism holds that the Holy Spirit offers this possibility to all --in a way known to God. We should never underestimate the power of God to touch a soul. Seeking God and desiring to live according to God, to the best of one’s knowledge and abilities, is key. It is up to God, not us, to judge people.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

Note: When I return, I would like to understand Pascal’s wager in comparison with 21st century living.

 

[jonfawkes]

May I tweak this a bit.

Jesus actually exists; therefore this is objective reality. He is the only One who reconciled all human beings to God through His sacrifice on the Cross. It does not matter if He is called the Messiah or something else. Some religions refer to Jesus as a prophet among prophets. What matters is that Jesus is the Savior of all.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church as the means of bringing all people, throughout the ages, to God. While there are now many “religions” the Catholic Church is the one which maintains the teachings of Jesus Christ through Catholic dogmas, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Seven Sacraments. Jesus Christ, Himself, is truly present in the Catholic Eucharist.

Regarding this comment in post 590. “Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.” (emphasis mine)

When speaking of God, there is not a separate their truth nor a separate your truth nor a separate my truth. An objective truth is not influenced by the context. The “context” such as a religious group or tradition does not change an universal objective truth. When people do deviate from basic truths, then their group faith would become a subjective faith subject to the what the group thought was important or not important for the times.

Descriptions such as messiah or holy prophet or itinerant carpenter, are descriptions of the existence of Jesus. Descriptions can come from subjective reasoning or from objective reasoning. The objective reasoning is that Jesus’ salvific actions are meant for all people in every context, including atheism, regardless of how He is described.

Jesus Christ died for all. Since all people are called to share in the life of God, Catholicism holds that the Holy Spirit offers this possibility to all --in a way known to God. We should never underestimate the power of God to touch a soul. Seeking God and desiring to live according to God, to the best of one’s knowledge and abilities, is key. It is up to God, not us, to judge people.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

Note: When I return, I would like to understand Pascal’s wager in comparison with 21st century living.

Yes, in the context of Catholicism In the context of Judaism …not so much.

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

The Church acknowledges that Jewish faith strives after a similar truth. It is that last sentence that gives context - it is a Catholic Context. Paraphrased “we know Jesus is the Messiah, they just don’t understand”

Like the story of the Blind men and the elephant - we hold “our” truth to be THE truth - the truth is God is infinite and is not bound by our truths. Be happy on the road you’re on. Let your brother walk his own. We’re all going to the same place.

As it says in the CCC in reference to Muslims -

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

What is the 21st century context that you are missing with Pascal?

 

[aQman]

When speaking of God, there is not a separate their truth nor a separate your truth nor a separate my truth. An objective truth is not influenced by the context. The “context” such as a religious group or tradition does not change an universal objective truth. When people do deviate from basic truths, then their group faith would become a subjective faith subject to the what the group thought was important or not important for the times.

Descriptions such as messiah or holy prophet or itinerant carpenter, are descriptions of the existence of Jesus. Descriptions can come from subjective reasoning or from objective reasoning. The objective reasoning is that Jesus’ salvific actions are meant for all people in every context, including atheism, regardless of how He is described.

Hey that’s good stuff. But ya gotta tell me: if you make a picture of all possible people ever, before and after, and maybe even on other planets, can you abstract out that salvific stuff into other storeis that work if you don’t use the name us “c.e.” of a.d." ers use? Or non christians? Or mystics? or whatever? I mean, if the pattern is there and someone uses it, what’s the dif?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*Yes, there are “objective” truths with in the context of a subjective faith.

Jesus is the Messiah is an objective truth within Christianity. It is true for Christians whether non Christians believe it or not.

Jesus is not the Messiah is an objective truth within Judaism. It is true for Jews whether non Jews believe it or not.

Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.*

**I’m afraid you are hopelessly confused about the difference between objective and subjective. **

Either The Jew is wrong about Christ fulfilling the prophecies, or the Christians are wrong. They cannot both be “objectively” right.

*See, Not too long - just irrelevant to the wager *

**Au contraire. Most relevant to the wager. Pascal is on record as saying that you cannot be saved by mere faith without works. The Wager only says you cannot be saved without faith. The two are not mutually exclusive. We start with faith, and then move on to charity, which is what faith commands ( read the last verses of Matthew 25).

Charity (works) is the result of mercy and justice pervading our nature by the grace of God. ** Pascal said so in the passage you kindly typed in for us (post 587)

 

[kbachler]

I will check with my scientist friends. But it seems to me that induction is used to extrapolate larger conclusions than the basic known conclusion of a particular scientific research project. I certainly may be mistaken. But it seems to me that first evidence is presented and examined six ways to Sunday and then a conclusion by induction is known.

Often in an introduction to a research paper, the theory to be proved is presented. So in that sense the conclusion known from the evidence proves the theory which would be deduction. The interesting thing is that often the evidence is chosen to support the theory and then tests are run to see if the known evidence really does what the researchers think it will.

The scientist knows what he is seeing under the proverbial microscope. The correct interpretation is what may or may not be known.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

Yes, but “proves” here has a different meaning. As an example, consider the argument of whether smoking causes lung cancer. Have we proven this? Absolutely not. There is no “proof” of smoking causing lung cancer.

Now, have we “reasonably proven” it with an inductive logic context? That means, can we demonstrate a significant correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and also eliminate other causes of lung cancer to such an extent TO BELIEVE reasonably that smoking causes lung cancer and that the happenstance is not just a random correlation?

Absolutely.

But this “proof” is STILL a belief, NOT a proof. Its a very reasonable belief, but a belief nonetheless.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

*Prior to 1900 people might ask “Is light a wave or a particle?” and expect you to choose one or the other. Today one might say “Light is a wave or a particle” and be quiet comfortable with the description - or even go so far to coin a term like “wavicle”. *

Prior to 1900 most astronomers of the agnostic or deist bent (including Einstein) would have assured you that the universe is most likely eternal and infinite. But that was philosophy, not physics, since there was no way of proving it. Later even Einstein came to the recognition that the universe was created and finite with the demonstration of the Big Bang … which was physics, not philosophy. Einstein’s view of the nature of the universe changed because physics changed. But as you know, physics may not be through changing.

“Wavicle” may some day discovered to be popsicle!

But philosophical principles are not demonstrated by the most recent rage in philosophy. That there are very likely more atheists today than there were 200 years ago doesn’t prove that the latest rage against God is correct and the earlier rage for God was incorrect.

Most people don’t know philosophical history, and so are repeating pre-Hegel and pre-Kant errors.

If there are more atheists today, it is likely because there are more people today.

To me, the unfortunate thing today is I think more Christians today are mystics; this is a failing of all churches, and particularly of the Catholic Church in some countries. It’s something that I truly wish the Church would address.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*Yes, there are “objective” truths with in the context of a subjective faith.

Jesus is the Messiah is an objective truth within Christianity. It is true for Christians whether non Christians believe it or not.

Jesus is not the Messiah is an objective truth within Judaism. It is true for Jews whether non Jews believe it or not.

Both are seeking truth, both have found their truth, in their own context. Both lead them to God.*

**I’m afraid you are hopelessly confused about the difference between objective and subjective. **

Either The Jew is wrong about Christ fulfilling the prophecies, or the Christians are wrong. They cannot both be “objectively” right.

*See, Not too long - just irrelevant to the wager *

Au contraire. Most relevant to the wager. Pascal is on record as saying that you cannot be saved by mere faith without works. The Wager only says you cannot be saved without faith. The two are not mutually exclusive. We start with faith, and then move on to charity, which is what faith commands ( read the last verses of Matthew 25).

Charity (works) is the result of mercy and justice pervading our nature by the grace of God. Pascal said so in the passage you kindly typed in for us (post 587)

I think you are terrible confused about faith -

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."31 "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."32

Jews and Christians don’t have to agree - 10,000 difficulties …

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

Even Pascal agrees

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.

Pascal only puts forth God “is or is not” in his wager not our acts or lack of,

Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then?

He is or is not - that is the choice - you can’t defer or rationalize the choice - all good comes from “he is” all suffering from “he is not”

 

[kbachler]

That is a weakness of PW - you can believe and still be morally reprehensible and still go to hell. Belief ≠ salvation.

This isn’t a weakness of Pascal’s wager. The wager is that you should believe and live your life as though God exists because the cost of doing so is low relative to prospective gain of eternal life, so that the expected value of the bet is large. One must live in such a way to gain eternal life, or the bet makes no sense because it’s based on the prospective gain (which is theoretically infinite.)

One might even argue that God constructed life this way as a point in order that we would believe in Him. The fact that there IS such a wager possible is an argument that God exists.