Pascal's Wager Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes
*
I don’t see how a loving God would not forgive, provided unbelief was the most grievous of their sins. That brings us back to free will. If you believe it ends at death or not. I think God is always ready to welcome us home his Prodigal sons. *

As a Catholic you are certainly being evasive. I 'll ask again and phrase it differently. Do you believe that God will forgive all the sins of an atheist, including atheism, when the atheist cannot repent of his sins (assuming he dies an atheist), or are you going to start up that other argument that you can repent** after** you die?

 

[jonfawkes]

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 3:7-9[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[jonfawkes]

Fear of the afterlife isn’t the path

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 2:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*Fear of the afterlife isn’t the path *

But hope in the afterlife is.

 

[Betterave]

You asked

Originally Posted by Betterave
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?

That is exactly what Pascal recommends. Going through the motions, with the chance that you will begin to believe.

Here is his recommendation again:

Quote:
Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?

Jon, you completely miss the point of “acting as if you believe” - the point isn’t to fool God, it is to open the door to knowing God. This is really a very simple point.

Think of someone doing nice things for someone whom he or she doesn’t like - this is acting as if he or she liked that person. Now that could be wrong or right: which it is depends on the motives grounding it. The motive could be to overcome one’s dislike; or it could be to fool the person (for some reason or other). And in the case of God, it obviously couldn’t be the latter - God cannot be fooled. So can you see now how you’ve been missing the point?

 

[Betterave]

You say:

See my last thread as well. I am secure in my faith, I’m not threatened if others don’t share it.

Then you make these truly ironic (simplistic and unconvincing) claims:

Ha! - Just because I don’t hold Pascal with the same regard as you I’m a borderline atheist - that’s rich.

His wager and suggestions are simplistic, unconvincing and insulting. Sorry I don’t share you admiration. Doesn’t make me less Catholic.

Are you sure you’re not threatened by others not sharing your view? Maybe you would be more open to a rational correction of your views if you really weren’t threatened by those who don’t share them…

 

[Betterave]

This makes two basic assumptions that I know from empirical, albeit anecdotal evidence not to be true.

One, that those that don’t believe haven’t heard.
Two, that all that hear will seek and believe.

Where are those two assumptions made?? (How about, nowhere?)

And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee.

Grant me, O Lord, to know and understand whether first to invoke thee or to praise thee; whether first to know thee or call upon thee. But who can invoke thee, knowing thee not? For he who knows thee not may invoke thee as another than thou art.

It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may come to know thee. But “how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe without a preacher?”

Now, “they shall praise the Lord who seek him,” for “those who seek shall find him,” and, finding him, shall praise him. I will seek thee, O Lord, and call upon thee. I call upon thee, O Lord, in my faith which thou hast given me, which thou hast inspired in me through the humanity of thy Son,

 

[Betterave]

I’ve always found Pascals Wager to be something of an odd approach to religion. It is based on the idea after all that in not knowing the answer to something we should take a definative stance to one side or the other rather than simply saying “don’t know”.

No, it is certainly not based on that general position. It is based on the claim that *in certain situations *we are forced to take a definitive stance - belief in God, or unbelief, being one of those situations (which claim we can discuss as necessary).

The risk / reward ratio argument given by the wager is not helpful on it’s own, after all you can construct any number of similar risk / reward arguments as a cause for whatever behaviour you like. ie if while i’ve been sitting here at my computer a madman has crept into the room with a knife and is poised behind me right now. if i don’t turn around i’m dead, turning around is a totally irrelevant difficulty compared to the value of my life, so i should do it right? right… nope there wasn’t anyone there. but what if now…

So your question is: why is this a bad analogy to Pascal’s wager? It is because you have no reason to think there’s a madman behind you. And if you did think there was such a risk, you wouldn’t just sit there repeatedly turning around, would you? You would try to secure yourself from danger. If there were no way to do so, there’s not much to say: you’d just have to take your chances.

clearly this can rapidly become absurd. because i am postulating a scenario with no reason to believe it is true and then acting on that scenario. The risk reward ratio of any given scenario is irrelevant if we have no reason to believe that the scenario is valid. This is i suspect why the wager seems to make sense for most theists but not for most atheists. Theists believe they have those reasons, atheists do not.

So you’re right (first two sentences above), but you’re wrong, since part of the point of the wager is to point out to the atheist that he does have reasons and that he can do something about securing himself.

 

[jonfawkes]

Jon, you completely miss the point of “acting as if you believe” - the point isn’t to fool God, it is to open the door to knowing God. This is really a very simple point.

Think of someone doing nice things for someone whom he or she doesn’t like - this is acting as if he or she liked that person. Now that could be wrong or right: which it is depends on the motives grounding it. The motive could be to overcome one’s dislike; or it could be to fool the person (for some reason or other). And in the case of God, it obviously couldn’t be the latter - God cannot be fooled. So can you see now how you’ve been missing the point?

Could you point out where I said the point was to fool God?

I said was go through the motions with the hope someday you would believe.

 

[jonfawkes]

Where are those two assumptions made?? (How about, nowhere?)

And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee.

Grant me, O Lord, to know and understand whether first to invoke thee or to praise thee; whether first to know thee or call upon thee. But who can invoke thee, knowing thee not? For he who knows thee not may invoke thee as another than thou art.

It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may come to know thee. But “how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe without a preacher?”

Now, “they shall praise the Lord who seek him,” for “those who seek shall find him,” and, finding him, shall praise him. I will seek thee, O Lord, and call upon thee. I call upon thee, O Lord, in my faith which thou hast given me, which thou hast inspired in me through the humanity of thy Son,

One, that those that don’t believe haven’t heard

It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may come to know thee. But “how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or** how shall they believe without a preacher**?”

Two, that all that hear will seek and believe.

Now, “they shall praise the Lord who seek him,” for “those who seek shall find him,” and, finding him, shall praise him.

 

[Betterave]

Could you point out where I said the point was to fool God?

I said was go through the motions with the hope someday you would believe.

See post 737 and your ensuing objections. ‘Pretending’ implies ‘trying to fool.’ Are you *pretending *not to know that? You can’t *fool *me!

Are you pretending that in post 741 you didn’t claim to summarize Pascal’s argument with the phrase, “Pretend, then maybe you might believe it”? Maybe you fooled *yourself *because you didn’t notice the semantic equivalence between ‘pretending’ and ‘fooling’ here?

 

[Betterave]

You’ll quite possibly find this suggestion terrifically hilarious, but I recommend you take a remedial reading course, jon.

One, that those that don’t believe haven’t heard

"Or how shall they believe without a preacher?” means that those who haven’t heard won’t believe - you got it backwards.

Two, that all that hear will seek and believe.

‘Now, “they shall praise the Lord who seek him,” for “those who seek shall find him,” and, finding him, shall praise him’ - this simply does not say anything about “all that hear.” It says that *all who **seek *shall find and shall praise him. So…

 

[jonfawkes]

See post 737 and your ensuing objections. ‘Pretending’ implies ‘trying to fool.’ Are you *pretending *not to know that? You can’t *fool *me!

Are you pretending that in post 741 you didn’t claim to summarize Pascal’s argument with the phrase, “Pretend, then maybe you might believe it”? Maybe you fooled *yourself *because you didn’t notice the semantic equivalence between ‘pretending’ and ‘fooling’ here?

Pretend that you believe - act as if you believe. You are attempting to fool yourself into believing. Go go through the motions and maybe you might believe. That is what Pascal recommends.

Again where did I say, “fooling God”.

 

[jonfawkes]

You’ll quite possibly find this suggestion terrifically hilarious, but I recommend you take a remedial reading course, jon.

"Or how shall they believe without a preacher?” means that those who haven’t heard won’t believe - you got it backwards.

‘Now, “they shall praise the Lord who seek him,” for “those who seek shall find him,” and, finding him, shall praise him’ - this simply does not say anything about “all that hear.” It says that *all who **seek ***shall find and shall praise him. So…

Paraphrased -

The first premise is Man desires to praise God because he is God’s creation. We will be “restless” until we praise God.

Should we call on God or Praise God? Well to praise God we have to Know God. So we have to call on Him.

How can someone invoke God without knowing God? He needs a preacher.

If he knows God, he can call on God, and then praise Him.

Aquinas says this will be his course of action.

So…

It is a assumed conclusion that people don’t praise God, because they don’t know him, They don’t know Him because they haven’t heard (no preacher). Once they know Him they will praise him because that is why we are made.

 

[Betterave]

Pretend that you believe - act as if you believe. You are attempting to fool yourself into believing. Go go through the motions and maybe you might believe. That is what Pascal recommends.

You really are a clueless Catholic, jon - I’m not trying to insult you, that’s just the truth and you really need to recognize it. Disposing yourself to receive grace - that’s what these ‘motions’ are, that you’re referring to - has nothing to do with “fooling yourself.” Praying for faith is not asking for God to help you fool yourself. A non-believer’s sincere prayer (and in general, search) for faith is itself a response to God’s grace.

Again where did I say, “fooling God”.

LOL! Again, see post 737. Read the whole thing this time. Don’t ignore the context. And again, note the semantic equivalence between “pretending” and “fooling.”

 

[Betterave]

Paraphrased -

The first premise is Man desires to praise God because he is God’s creation. We will be “restless” until we praise God.

Should we call on God or Praise God? Well to praise God we have to Know God. So we have to call on Him.

How can someone invoke God without knowing God? He needs a preacher.

If he knows God, he can call on God, and then praise Him.

Aquinas says this will be his course of action.

So…

It is a assumed conclusion that people don’t praise God, because they don’t know him, They don’t know Him because they haven’t heard (no preacher). Once they know Him they will praise him because that is why we are made.

First, it’s Augustine, not Aquinas.

Second, denying the antecedent is the most basic logical fallacy in the book. That’s what you are doing. Augustine says (or rather, seems to imply): “If they don’t hear (no preacher), then they won’t know (believe).” You conclude that Augustine is saying: “If they do hear, then they will know (believe).”

IOW: You are wrong!

I’m curious, jon: what is your purpose here? What are you after with this endless insistence on the truth of false claims, which you never admit to be false, no matter how clearly this is shown to you?

 

[jonfawkes]

You really are a clueless Catholic, jon - I’m not trying to insult you, that’s just the truth and you really need to recognize it. Disposing yourself to receive grace - that’s what these ‘motions’ are, that you’re referring to - has nothing to do with “fooling yourself.” Praying for faith is not asking for God to help you fool yourself. A non-believer’s sincere prayer (and in general, search) for faith is itself a response to God’s grace.

LOL! Again, see post 737. Read the whole thing this time. Don’t ignore the context. And again, note the semantic equivalence between “pretending” and “fooling.”

Again this is Pascal’s advice to the “non-believer” - not advice to a Catholic, one that says “hey, I’m just not built that way, what am I to do”

He says go through the motions,pretend, try it, you may believe one day. You will quiet you rational objections.

Again, I never said the intention was to fool God. Never.

 

[jonfawkes]

First, it’s Augustine, not Aquinas.

Second, denying the antecedent is the most basic logical fallacy in the book. That’s what you are doing. Augustine says (or rather, seems to imply): “If they don’t hear (no preacher), then they won’t know (believe).” You conclude that Augustine is saying: “If they do hear, then they will know (believe).”

IOW: You are wrong!

I’m curious, jon: what is your purpose here? What are you after with this endless insistence on the truth of false claims, which you never admit to be false, no matter how clearly this is shown to you?

Sorry, Augustine.

Reverse construction doesn’t mean I’m denying the antecedent.

He making the assumptions. It is a very Catholic argument, I don’t disagree with it. I’m just pointing out that it makes Catholic assumptions not shared by everyone, therefore not universally convincing or applicable. If you don’t agree with his initial assumption that man is created to praise God. The rest falls apart. That is true for the subsequent assumptions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*Again, I never said the intention was to fool God. Never. *

Then you are in a logical dilemma. Is he trying to fool himself by accepting God? Not at all, since there is a God … and you do believe in God, don’t you?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*Again, I never said the intention was to fool God. Never. *

Then you are in a logical dilemma. Is he trying to fool himself by accepting God? Not at all, since there is a God … and you do believe in God, don’t you?

This isn’t about ME - it’s about Pascal’s advice to the unbeliever. The unbeliever is to pretend, and perhaps he (the unbeliever) can eventually stop his reason from getting in the way. By ritual acts the unbeliever can stop thinking about the reasons why he doesn’t believe and therefore hopefully believe. So yes, It is a type of self-deceit he is prescribing for the unbeliever with the hope it will become genuine.

It is forcing belief where there is none, where belief is an affront to the unbelievers reason , BECAUSE …Pascal says there is a God one that will punish you if you don’t believe. That is the wager, it is in your self interest to believe. So even if you can’t, try anyway. Try and deceive yourself because it is better for you (the unbeliever) in the long run.