Pascal's Wager Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Pascal was a Roman Catholic Jansenist; his concept of belief would have included that it was tied to works.
 
aQman said:
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…)
Click to expand...
God commands us to love Him with all of our heart, all of our soul, all of our strength and all of our mind. That last bit makes no sense if He doesn’t value logic and reason.
 
kbachler said:
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.
Click to expand...
That has the connotation that belief controls action - " If I believe, I will act in accordance with God’s word" - we know that is not the case. It also discounts that with disbelief you can not act morally. Which we know is not the case. Even Jesus points to the “good Samaritan”.

The choice isn’t act morally or not. The choice is " He is or He is not"
 
jonfawkes said:
That has the connotation that belief controls action - " If I believe, I will act in accordance with God’s word" - we know that is not the case. It also discounts that with disbelief you can not act morally. Which we know is not the case. Even Jesus points to the “good Samaritan”.

The choice isn’t act morally or not. The choice is " He is or He is not"
Click to expand...
Yeah dude, but even if we say he is, we’re way stupid about the totality of things. So just sayin ok he is, leaves out what, how , why, and what to do about it. Ain’t no gurantee that just because youre christian that that story is true. It just means you believe it. and that’s cool, but it aint everything. It’ just being christian and it works for some folks.
 
jonfawkes

*The choice isn’t act morally or not. The choice is " He is or He is not" *

But that can’t be the end of the wager. You not only wager that God exists, but that you deserve His mercy and his justice … or else we are not talking about God at all, at least not a personal God.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
jonfawkes

*The choice isn’t act morally or not. The choice is " He is or He is not" *

But that can’t be the end of the wager. You not only wager that God exists, but that you deserve His mercy and his justice … or else we are not talking about God at all, at least not a personal God.
Click to expand...
That is the wager though - he states that God is infinite and can’t be known by finite beings. He’s not bringing in the nature of God into the equation. The wager is in response to earlier “proofs” - he says forget all that what’s the best bet- if there is a heaven I want to go - it’s a c.y.a. mentality. " there might be a big scary father in the sky - why risk pissing him off "
 
kbachler said:
No.

EVERYTHING begins with belief (and/or assumptions - include those in “belief”). From belief, additional truths may be reasoned. Thus 2+2 = 4 is a truth, given that we assume certain beliefs about arithmetic, the set of whole numbers, etc.

“Knowing” is what we have as a result of beliefs and applied reason. Knowing can be extended by adding reasoned knowledge, or by finding that the number of assumptions can be reduced. That is, if we start with 10 assumptions (things we believe) and then find that we only need 4 assumptions and that the other six statements that were previously assumptions can be deduced from the 4, then we only need to believe 4 things, and we now KNOW 6 more things.

On a fundamental level, there must be at least certain minimal number of beliefs.

In a sense, all deductions already contain the information that is made apparent by the deduction. (If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be a proof.) Thus, while the following statement is not a proof, I believe it is indicative that God cannot be proven (deduced) from information in the universe, because God is by definition greater than the universe. Thus, the universe cannot contain the information that “is God” and consequently, there is no deduction which reveals God from the information in the universe. God may be “indicated” by the universe, but not proven.

Coming back to your question, “real knowledge” is deduced from belief (including assumptions), and can only be considered “real” within the context of what is believed.
Click to expand...
So EVERYTHING(?), in particular knowledge, begins in (mere) belief; therefore EVERYTHING, in particular knowledge, ends in (mere) belief?

Looks like another non sequitur.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, physicist, theologian and philosopher devised the Wager Argument. 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. If we believe and God does not exist, we have lost nothing. If we do not believe and God exists, we have lost everything. Therefore, in the absence of definitive logical arguments for or against the existence of God, we should bet on the existence of God, rather than on His non-existence.

Comments?
Click to expand...
CII:

I think that Blaise Pascal’s famous Wager is inextricably involved with predeterminism, although perhaps inadvertently. Considering predeterminism, there are those who say, “Well, you’re either chosen or your not; you’re part of the elect or you’re not. So, why waste time with worship activities? There’s nothing one can do to affect God’s choice.” I say that, while some of that is certainly true, what is wrong is to think that nothing you can do will insure a place with God. The first grace freely granted by God to en-souled mortals is sufficient grace. This is a must-have grace as it is the prerequisite to all of the other graces thereafter freely given, but not wasted. Without sufficient grace, we cannot receive any other grace, such as sanctifying grace, and, therefore, will not be part of the elect.

In the first place we are told not to judge. That also means, not to judge ourselves. Since we are first-level souls (mortals), we cannot know whether or not we are part of the elect group unless we recognize that we are an aggressive seeker of God through every means, habitually. God will not waste any graces. He knows from our beginnings whether or not we will infallibly seek him and love him, i.e, aggressively strive for his graces. Now, to aggressively strive for his graces is to not thwart their reception. We must see to it that we are always properly disposed to them. Prayer, worship and love are precisely that which propagates habituality in humans. Practice makes perfect, as is said. It is all in the actions, the acts of mortals wherein God looks for that infallibility of action. The elect will inevitably conduct themselves such that there is “infallibility” in their actions. (The word, infallible, is used here to mean, without failure, rather than the alternative meaning, which is, without error.)

So, the en-graced mortal is a mortal that will aggressively strive to love God and achieve the Vision, whether throughout life or in life’s final moments with sublime aggressivity. Now, obviously, the more one acts to dispose one’s self to that end, the more one is bound to receive sanctifying grace, which is a grace that is said to be the foundation of charity which some theologians say is a friendship between that soul and God. Charity is the embodiment of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is the habituator, the entitative habit and charity is the manifestation, or operative habit. The former perfects the soul and the later perfects the will. St. Paul tells us, in I Cor. 13:13+, that charity is the greatest of the theological virtues for the basic reason that it explicitly seeks God for his own sake, rather than for the sake of the mortal himself.

So it would certainly make sense to choose to act in a manner that disposes oneself to belief in and love of God (and your neighbor).

God bless,
jd
 
jonfawkes

*That is the wager though - he states that God is infinite and can’t be known by finite beings. He’s not bringing in the nature of God into the equation. The wager is in response to earlier “proofs” - he says forget all that what’s the best bet- if there is a heaven I want to go - it’s a c.y.a. mentality. " there might be a big scary father in the sky - why risk pissing him off " *

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

Doesn’t get any scarier than that. 😉
 
jonfawkes said:
What is the 21st century context that you are missing with Pascal?
Click to expand...
When I first heard the wager, ages ago, I put it in the same category as betting on a horse to “show”. Probably 'cause I had been to my first and only horse race. Never thought of it again.

This time around, I briefly googled Pascal. When I saw he was a contemporary of Descartes in the later part of the Renaissance, the difference between then and now is striking as far as the arenas of intellectual endeavors – especially the arena which demands material evidence for spiritual existence . I would bet that that if that wager were presented to thinking individuals in the context of our 21st century, there would be little response because why bet on a God Whose existence is difficult to prove in the first place.

As for doing something for one’s self interest, the wager’s assumption is pointed to an afterlife which was a current concern as evidenced in the actions of the Catholic Church of that time and previously at Trent. Today, people still have a concept of some kind of afterlife, but it is connected to a fuzzy relationship with a God or a Higher Power. I really don’t think today’s young people could even grasp the idea of the wager and its requirements as explained by CAF posters.

I am not as pessimistic as I sound.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**
 
Charlemagne_II said:
jonfawkes

*The choice isn’t act morally or not. The choice is " He is or He is not" *

But that can’t be the end of the wager. You not only wager that God exists, but that you deserve His mercy and his justice … or else we are not talking about God at all, at least not a personal God.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been in conversation with people whose philosophy of life is that one doesn’t need to go to church for any kind of spiritual contact with God? All one has to do is to be reasonably good, relatively speaking, because that is all that an existent God wants. With their philosophy, heaven is a shoo-in.
 
granny

Have you ever been in conversation with people whose philosophy of life is that one doesn’t need to go to church for any kind of spiritual contact with God? All one has to do is to be reasonably good, relatively speaking, because that is all that an existent God wants. With their philosophy, heaven is a shoo-in.

Yes, I have been in conversation with such people. My experience with them, however, is that they don’t even want to talk about God. So I think if there is a God, and you want nothing to do with God, you get your wish at the end, regardless of how good you think you have been.
 
Betterave said:
So EVERYTHING(?), in particular knowledge, begins in (mere) belief; therefore EVERYTHING, in particular knowledge, ends in (mere) belief?

Looks like another non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Not a non sequitur, but true. All we can have are indications about the likelihood of what we choose to believe.
 
jonfawkes said:
Created by a loving God, Why wouldn’t it be? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
Heaven would not be a shoo-in for those humans who are capable of using their innate abilities of intellect and will. God’s heaven is a two-sided situation. Actually the betting odds for the wager would be one in four. Similar to the odds on a blind date.
 
Heaven is not a shoo-in. Nor is hell. You have to work at getting either! 😃
 
jonfawkes

*If you avoid the work - where does that leave you? Pergitory? *

How long have you been a Catholic? It’s spelled Purgatory! 😉

Anyone who refuses to work is already in a hell of his own making. :rolleyes:

Purgatory is for those who worked, but whose work is not quite done. Yet light is at the end of the tunnel.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
jonfawkes

*If you avoid the work - where does that leave you? Pergitory? *

How long have you been a Catholic? It’s spelled Purgatory! 😉

Anyone who refuses to work is already in a hell of his own making. :rolleyes:

Purgatory is for those who worked, but whose work is not quite done. Yet light is at the end of the tunnel.
Click to expand...
Sorry, typing quickly on my phone - regardless, bad speller and Catholic all my life 🤷

Still doesn’t answer the question though.
 
jonfawkes

Still doesn’t answer the question though.

I guess you forgot your catechism lessons too? Sloth (refusal to work at anything) is one of the seven deadly sins.

deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

You don’t get to Purgatory for a deadly sin … unless you repent sincerely.

But as you know, Purgatory is a temporary condition. The only real choice to be made, according to Pascal, is between Heaven and Hell. Purgatory is not a final state.

Basic Catholicism 101
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top