Pascal's Wager Argument

[Raawwly]

This thread was at the top of the list when I signbed on. It is kind of mind boggling that people still take Pascal’s wager seriously!!

 

[Elizabeth502]

One could be in heaven and choose to leave

When I comment upon this statement of yours, I do so not out of animus (lack of charity). I do so out of fraternal correction and factual correction. What you just stated above is heresy, brother. This was just reaffirmed the other day on EWTN. Once we are in heaven, we cannot choose not to love God, we cannot choose evil, and we cannot choose to leave. Nor will anyone want to: t’s not a matter of “why one would”; simply a matter of our souls will have been so purified that our wills will be in perfect alignment and union with God. We are not “free to leave” heaven.

Yes catechism is the guide, not the rules.

Again I ask you: Who taught you this? Because their teaching is in error if they told you that the doctrines enumerated in the catechism are mere “guides” which we are free to choose or dispose of, to our liking. Matters of doctrine are definitive. They are not suggestions.

 

[Betterave]

This thread was at the top of the list when I signbed on. It is kind of mind boggling that people still take Pascal’s wager seriously!!

Yeah; who knew there were still any intelligent, intellectually engaged people in the world! Truly a revelation!

 

[jonfawkes]

When I comment upon this statement of yours, I do so not out of animus (lack of charity). I do so out of fraternal correction and factual correction. What you just stated above is heresy, brother. This was just reaffirmed the other day on EWTN. Once we are in heaven, we cannot choose not to love God, we cannot choose evil, and we cannot choose to leave. Nor will anyone want to: t’s not a matter of “why one would”; simply a matter of our souls will have been so purified that our wills will be in perfect alignment and union with God. We are not “free to leave” heaven.

Again I ask you: Who taught you this? Because their teaching is in error if they told you that the doctrines enumerated in the catechism are mere “guides” which we are free to choose or dispose of, to our liking. Matters of doctrine are definitive. They are not suggestions.

Ha - EWTN is now binding Church doctrine - what was the basis of their statement - you’ve given their reason but not the basis.

Where in church doctrine does it say that free will is limited?

I didn’t say catechism is opti

 

[jonfawkes]

When I comment upon this statement of yours, I do so not out of animus (lack of charity). I do so out of fraternal correction and factual correction. What you just stated above is heresy, brother. This was just reaffirmed the other day on EWTN. Once we are in heaven, we cannot choose not to love God, we cannot choose evil, and we cannot choose to leave. Nor will anyone want to: t’s not a matter of “why one would”; simply a matter of our souls will have been so purified that our wills will be in perfect alignment and union with God. We are not “free to leave” heaven.

Again I ask you: Who taught you this? Because their teaching is in error if they told you that the doctrines enumerated in the catechism are mere “guides” which we are free to choose or dispose of, to our liking. Matters of doctrine are definitive. They are not suggestions.

Ha - EWTN is now binding Church doctrine - what was the basis of their statement - you’ve given their reason but not the basis.

Where in church doctrine does it say that free will is limited?

I didn’t say catechism is optional just not the whole story - we are in the second edition

 

[Elizabeth502]

Ha - EWTN is now binding Church doctrine - what was the basis of their statement - you’ve given their reason but not the basis.

When the Catholic ordained theologians on EWTN, who are vetted for their legitimacy, restate Church doctrine, you can take it to the bank. They’re not developing new doctrine, merely summarizing it or restating it.

I didn’t say catechism is optional just not the whole story - we are in the second edition.

Third time now: Who told you that the doctrines enumerate in the catechism are ‘not the whole story’ and somehow evolving [because we’re “only” in the second edition]? The explanations are sometimes elaborated on in later editions (just as in papal encyclicals, bishops’ documents, etc.), but the essential doctrine of free will, the finality of choice at the end of human life, are permanent doctrines. These are not doctrines you have a choice to believe or not believe, as a Catholic.

 

[jonfawkes]

When the Catholic ordained theologians on EWTN, who are vetted for their legitimacy, restate Church doctrine, you can take it to the bank. They’re not developing new doctrine, merely summarizing it or restating it.

Third time now: Who told you that the doctrines enumerate in the catechism are ‘not the whole story’ and somehow evolving [because we’re “only” in the second edition]? The explanations are sometimes elaborated on in later editions (just as in papal encyclicals, bishops’ documents, etc.), but the essential doctrine of free will, the finality of choice at the end of human life, are permanent doctrines. These are not doctrines you have a choice to believe or not believe, as a Catholic.

OK, let’s simplify - show me where the Church teaches that Free Will is limited to our corporeal existence.

“I saw it on a TV show” is not an answer.

 

[Elizabeth502]

OK, let’s simplify - show me where the Church teaches that Free Will is limited to our corporeal existence.

“I saw it on a TV show” is not an answer.

You are misstating what I said. First of all, I did not state that. Second of all, theological discussions on EWTN, by ordained theologians, are not "a [secular, popular] “TV show.’”

I have shown you already, in the quotes I provided, where the Catholic Church teaches that Free Will is limited to our corporeal existence. Read them.

The Catechism is not a popular TV show. The Catechism is not an opinion piece by random theologians. It is the product of the Magisterium, which we are obliged to follow.

 

[Godfollower]

OK, let’s simplify - show me where the Church teaches that Free Will is limited to our corporeal existence.

“I saw it on a TV show” is not an answer.

Let’s start with Scripture.

And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Matthew 25:46.

“Life everlasting,” by definition, doesn’t end. Jesus didn’t say “The just will enter into a really cool life unless and until they decide to leave;” He said they will enter into a permanent existence with God. So your thesis – that someone in Heaven can choose to leave it – is incompatible with our understanding of Heaven.

As for non-Scriptural references, the Church’s teaching about free will can be found in the Catechism:

As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1732.

We have free will – the possibility of choosing between good and evil – until freedom is bound to God (that is, until we enter Heaven).

This also makes sense logically. Free will is the capacity to choose between acting and not acting, or between different actions. But choice requires time (acting means changing existence at time A to a different existence at time B; whereas “not acting” inherently assumes that one moves from time A to time B without doing anything). And God is outside time. Once we enter Heaven and are joined with God, choice is impossible, and we are actually unable to sin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rawwlly
*
This thread was at the top of the list when I signbed on. It is kind of mind boggling that people still take Pascal’s wager seriously!! *

Welcome to Catholic Answers.

Why is it mind boggling that people take Pascal’s Wager seriously?

 

[jonfawkes]

You are misstating what I said. First of all, I did not state that. Second of all, theological discussions on EWTN, by ordained theologians, are not "a [secular, popular] “TV show.’”

I have shown you already, in the quotes I provided, where the Catholic Church teaches that Free Will is limited to our corporeal existence. Read them.

The Catechism is not a popular TV show. The Catechism is not an opinion piece by random theologians. It is the product of the Magisterium, which we are obliged to follow.

The Catechism is a teaching document not a proclamation of the Magesterium. It is not Canon law and so is subject to interpretation and is not the final word on Catholicism. It is a teaching Guide. There are things that we are obligated to follow in the Catechism but not because they are in the Catechism.

The footnotes that accompany the catechism you quote 1021 are:

Luke 16:22

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried,

Luke 23:43

He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Matt 16:26

What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?

2 Cor 5:8

Yet we are courageous, and we would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord.

Phil 1:23
I am caught between the two. I long to depart this life and be with Christ, (for) that is far better.

Heb 9:27

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,

Heb 12:23

and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,

None put a time line on free will - Heb 9:27 comes the closest. But there is no immediacy to the time line. For example - I am born and I die. There is a life in between.

So could you point to Canon Law or a Council Declaration that says that free will is limited.

 

[jonfawkes]

As for non-Scriptural references, the Church’s teaching about free will can be found in the Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1732.

We have free will – the possibility of choosing between good and evil – until freedom is bound to God (that is, until we enter Heaven).

This also makes sense logically. Free will is the capacity to choose between acting and not acting, or between different actions. But choice requires time (acting means changing existence at time A to a different existence at time B; whereas “not acting” inherently assumes that one moves from time A to time B without doing anything). And God is outside time. Once we enter Heaven and are joined with God, choice is impossible, and we are actually unable to sin.

Godfollower :

Your catechism is different (or you are misrepresenting it) mine reads

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Which reads until we give up our free will, we have free will. We have to choose to give it up. It isn’t taken.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Catechism is a teaching document not a proclamation of the Magesterium. It is not Canon law and so is subject to interpretation and is not the final word on Catholicism. It is a teaching Guide. There are things that we are obligated to follow in the Catechism but not because they are in the Catechism.

I didn’t say that we are obliged because they are in the Catechism. I said specifically that when the Catechism proclaims doctrine (and I pointed out where it does, on this issue), that doctrine is deifnitive. There is nothing I have posted so far, from the Catechism, that you, a Catholic, are not obliged to follow. Canon law has nothing to do with this, nor does Canon law contradict doctrine espoused in the Catechism. Canon law follows from doctrine.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;7660551:

Let’s start with Scripture.

Matthew 25:46.

“Life everlasting,” by definition, doesn’t end. Jesus didn’t say “The just will enter into a really cool life unless and until they decide to leave;” He said they will enter into a permanent existence with God. So your thesis – that someone in Heaven can choose to leave it – is incompatible with our understanding of Heaven.

As for non-Scriptural references, the Church’s teaching about free will can be found in the Catechism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church ¶ 1732.

We have free will – the possibility of choosing between good and evil – until

freedom is bound to God (that is, until we enter Heaven).

This also makes sense logically. Free will is the capacity to choose between acting and not acting, or between different actions. But choice requires time (acting means changing existence at time A to a different existence at time B; whereas “not acting” inherently assumes that one moves from time A to time B without doing anything). And God is outside time. Once we enter Heaven and are joined with God, choice is impossible, and we are actually unable to sin.

Godfollower :

Your catechism is different (or you are misrepresenting it) mine reads

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Which reads until we give up our free will, we have free will. We have to choose to give it up. It isn’t taken.

I’m not sure I understand you. My quotation of the Catechism appears to be word-for-word the same as yours. I said:

As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

And you said:

As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

So we appear to have the very same copy of the Catechism.

As for the interpretation of that passage, it’s very straightforward. You asked whether the Church teaches that a person who has been allowed into Heaven can then choose to leave, arguing that free will continues even after we’ve been permitted into Heaven. I quoted this passage to point out that the Church teaches that free will – the ability to choose between good and evil – ends once we’re bound to the ultimate good (that is, God).

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m not sure I understand you. My quotation of the Catechism appears to be word-for-word the same as yours. I said:

And you said:

So we appear to have the very same copy of the Catechism.

As for the interpretation of that passage, it’s very straightforward. You asked whether the Church teaches that a person who has been allowed into Heaven can then choose to leave, arguing that free will continues even after we’ve been permitted into Heaven. I quoted this passage to point out that the Church teaches that free will – the ability to choose between good and evil – ends once we’re bound to the ultimate good (that is, God).

You added it after I had posted - My quote of your post shows what I was referring to. Originally you just had

We have free will – the possibility of choosing between good and evil – until freedom is bound to God (that is, until we enter Heaven).

Which is your paraphrasing.

Regardless - I read it ( the actual catechism) - until we give up our free will, we still have it. Seems straight forward to me.

 

[jonfawkes]

I didn’t say that we are obliged because they are in the Catechism. I said specifically that when the Catechism proclaims doctrine (and I pointed out where it does, on this issue), that doctrine is deifnitive. There is nothing I have posted so far, from the Catechism, that you, a Catholic, are not obliged to follow. Canon law has nothing to do with this, nor does Canon law contradict doctrine espoused in the Catechism. Canon law follows from doctrine.

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.15

So give me the church doctrine that we are bound that you are pointing to with the catechism.

 

[Godfollower]

You added it after I had posted - My quote of your post shows what I was referring to. Originally you just had

Which is your paraphrasing.

Regardless - I read it ( the actual catechism) - until we give up our free will, we still have it. Seems straight forward to me.

Well, no; your quotation simply dropped my internal quote – just as your post 732 dropped the two internal quotes from the Catechism. I haven’t edited Post 726. Apparently it was simply a misunderstanding.

But, in any event, I got onto this thread to answer your question about whether we have free will once we’re in Heaven. Have I answered it satisfactorily? Between Scripture and the Catechism, I thought I had helped.

 

[Godfollower]

Rawwlly
*
This thread was at the top of the list when I signbed on. It is kind of mind boggling that people still take Pascal’s wager seriously!! *

Welcome to Catholic Answers.

Why is it mind boggling that people take Pascal’s Wager seriously?

Pascal’s Wager says that, if there are only two possibilities (afterlife of either Heaven or Hell or no afterlife at all), then I’m better off believing in Heaven because, if I believe in Heaven and am wrong and there’s no afterlife, I’m not hurt; whereas, if I believe in no afterlife and am wrong, then I end up in Hell; so I’m better off believing in Heaven.

The fallacy of Pascal’s Wager is that it’s a false premise. If you’re only going through the motions of Christianity because you’re making a wager that the afterlife might exist, then you aren’t doing God’s will; you’re just pretending. And apparently you’re betting that God won’t realize that you don’t really mean it.

That’s incompatible with Christian theology. That’s why I agree that Pascal’s Wager can’t be taken seriously as an argument in favor of believing in God.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You asked whether the Church teaches that a person who has been allowed into Heaven can then choose to leave, arguing that free will continues even after we’ve been permitted into Heaven. I quoted this passage to point out that the Church teaches that free will – the ability to choose between good and evil – ends once we’re bound to the ultimate good (that is, God).

In fact the environment of Heaven excludes evil, by definition. It is the very reason why those who have not yet attained spiritual purity are not permitted into heaven. Heaven and imperfection are mutually exclusive. Heaven and evil are mutually exclusive.

 

[Betterave]

Pascal’s Wager says that, if there are only two possibilities (afterlife of either Heaven or Hell or no afterlife at all), then I’m better off believing in Heaven because, if I believe in Heaven and am wrong and there’s no afterlife, I’m not hurt; whereas, if I believe in no afterlife and am wrong, then I end up in Hell; so I’m better off believing in Heaven.

The fallacy of Pascal’s Wager is that it’s a false premise. If you’re only going through the motions of Christianity because you’re making a wager that the afterlife might exist, then you aren’t doing God’s will; you’re just pretending. And apparently you’re betting that God won’t realize that you don’t really mean it.

That’s incompatible with Christian theology. That’s why I agree that Pascal’s Wager can’t be taken seriously as an argument in favor of believing in God.

But your construal of the wager is fallacious: it’s a straw man. Obviously Pascal isn’t recommending simply going through the motions, not really meaning it, and merely pretending to do God’s will (whatever that would entail). Where did you get that idea from?