Pascal's Wager Argument

[Betterave]

Jon: “You are trying to reason into faith. Even Pascal says you can’t.”

This is just the opposite of what Pascal says, which shows again, as if it needed showing yet again, that you haven’t read Pensees. What is the wager argument itself but an attempt to help the atheist think his way out of the box he has put himself in?

Yup - that is correct. And so jon will ignore it. His response: “[The atheist] has looked at the evidence and finds it lacking.” In other words, the atheist (jon, in this case) completely ignored Pascal’s argument, which is precisely about what it is reasonable to do in such a situation, where conclusive evidence is lacking.

 

[tonyrey]

You are missing my point - The atheist is being honest to himself. He has looked at the evidence and finds it lacking. It is not a matter of which God us best.

Just as you don’t find the evidence for Hinduism compelling. He has just a difficult time believing in the Christian God as you do believing in Krishna. He has to delude himself to believe. Just as you would have to delude yourself to believe in Krishna.

It has nothing to do with which God is the most Godly. It is what you are willing to believe. Saying “give it the benefit of the doubt” is saying trust me rather than yourself.

jon, would you agree that every human being has moments of doubt? To rule out utterly and completely the possibility that God exists is quite unreasonable because it implies that one is infallible (in at least one respect - and if one why not others?!). Even a chink in the atheist’s armour is sufficient to justify Pascal’s argument. He didn’t guarantee success but gamblers never do - if they are realistic…

And I don’t mean success in finding God…

 

[jonfawkes]

jon, would you agree that every human being has moments of doubt? To rule out utterly and completely the possibility that God exists is quite unreasonable because it implies that one is infallible (in at least one respect - and if one why not others?!). Even a chink in the atheist’s armour is sufficient to justify Pascal’s argument. He didn’t guarantee success but gamblers never do - if they are realistic…

And I don’t mean success in finding God…

Correct we all have moments of doubt, is a crisis of faith enough to make you into an atheist? Why would you think it works in reverse?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*It has nothing to do with which God is the most Goddly. It is what you are willing to believe. Saying “give it the benefit of the doubt” is saying trust me rather than yourself. *

No, he’s saying trust god rather than yourself. Why would you as a Catholic object to an atheist deciding that he will trust God rather than himself? Do you want the atheist to remain an atheist because he would be true to himself even if he false to God?

If that is your argument, it’s not at all logical. The atheist says Maybe I’m wrong, acts as if maybe he’s wrong and starts to pray on the chance there might be something to it, later discovers there is something to it … and you act like you’re going berserk at his failure to stick to his atheist guns.

What does that make you? Hmm?

*Correct we all have moments of doubt, is a crisis of faith enough to make you into an atheist? Why would you think it works in reverse? *

I **did **have a crisis of faith, and it did make me into an atheist. Fortunately, I came to my senses!

 

[jonfawkes]

Yup - that is correct. And so jon will ignore it. His response: “[The atheist] has looked at the evidence and finds it lacking.” In other words, the atheist (jon, in this case) completely ignored Pascal’s argument, which is precisely about what it is reasonable to do in such a situation, where conclusive evidence is lacking.

Thanks for falsely labeling me - 8th commandment ?

I just don’t find it compelling argument for faith. We gone over the reasons why, and what Pascal suggests to remedy faithlessness.

It is a parents argument to a child. It’s good for you. Try it, you might like it. Well keep trying it until you like it.

It’s not the way to talk to other adults. Sorry, I think Pascal fails.

 

[tonyrey]

jon, would you agree that every human being has moments of doubt? To rule out utterly and completely the possibility that God exists is quite unreasonable because it implies that one is infallible (in at least one respect - and if one why not others?!). Even a chink in the atheist’s armour is sufficient to justify Pascal’s argument. He didn’t guarantee success but gamblers never do - if they are realistic…

A crisis of faith is enough to make us reconsider our views. Unexamined beliefs - or nonbeliefs - are not worth having. Pascal didn’t guarantee success but he knew we have nothing to lose by presenting his argument. A hardened atheist can ignore or reject it but so what? Is it absurd?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*It has nothing to do with which God is the most Goddly. It is what you are willing to believe. Saying “give it the benefit of the doubt” is saying trust me rather than yourself. *

No, he’s saying trust god rather than yourself. Why would you as a Catholic object to an atheist deciding that he will trust God rather than himself? Do you want the atheist to remain an atheist because he would be true to himself even if he false to God?

If that is your argument, it’s not at all logical. The atheist says Maybe I’m wrong, acts as if maybe he’s wrong and starts to pray on the chance there might be something to it, later discovers there is something to it … and you act like you’re going berserk at his failure to stick to his atheist guns.

What does that make you? Hmm?

*Correct we all have moments of doubt, is a crisis of faith enough to make you into an atheist? Why would you think it works in reverse? *

I **did **have a crisis of faith, and it did make me into an atheist. Fortunately, I came to my senses!

From the atheists perspective there is no God to trust. There is only Pascal.

I am saying it is a bad argument because it presupposes the existence of God. It is an argument from faith.

I don’t wish anyone to be an atheist, I just don’t see this as a good way of bringing them around.

 

[jonfawkes]

A crisis of faith is enough to make us reconsider our views. Unexamined beliefs - or nonbeliefs - are not worth having. Pascal didn’t guarantee success but he knew we have nothing to lose by presenting his argument. A hardened atheist can ignore or reject it but so what? Is it absurd?

I’m not saying don’t examine your believes. We all should. Pascal isn’t saying that though.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

I don’t wish anyone to be an atheist, I just don’t see this as a good way of bringing them around.

How** would** you bring an atheist around?

 

[jonfawkes]

Don’t worry about insulting me (I hope we can all take it for granted that our purpose here is not to insult each other). Worry about making a stupid and obviously fallacious argument.

Love is not possible without thought and love is not irrational. Love must have an object, and this object must be grasped in thought, it must be understood. Love without an object (that is understood) is not love - it is nothing. This is a very basic concept in the Christian tradition and it should be perfectly obvious to anyone, I should think. Love is also not an emotion in the Christian tradition - again, this is basic stuff.

I’ve been waiting to respond, because I’m not really sure how to. It misses the point so grossly, I’m at a loss. Yes the subject requires an object, it’s good grammar but that’s not what we are talking about.

Say I give you two types of frozen dessert to choose from, vanilla ice cream and orange sorbet. You can give me reasons why you prefer one over the other, “vanilla is more creamy, I like the texture better, it’s sweeter etc.” the reason behind the preference is a mystery and without logic. Why do you prefer creamy? You can give other reasons “I like the mouth feel, it’s smoother, etc” but it comes down to, you just do.

Love is like that - you just do… or you don’t. You don’t get there by reason.

[BIBLEDRB]John 13:34-35[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not saying don’t examine your believes. We all should. Pascal isn’t saying that though.

It is the inevitable result of abandoning atheism even as an experiment. The emptiness of life without God soon becomes evident to a person who sees life in the context of objective goodness, freedom, justice, purpose and love - which have no rational basis in an amoral, purposeless universe. Even though Pascal believed the heart has its reasons reason does not know he did not reject the value of reason - as we can see from his Pensees.

 

[jonfawkes]

It is the inevitable result of abandoning atheism even as an experiment. The emptiness of life without God soon becomes evident to a person who sees life in the context of objective goodness, freedom, justice, purpose and love - which have no rational basis in an amoral, purposeless universe. Even though Pascal believed the heart has its reasons reason does not know he did not reject the value of reason - as we can see from his Pensees.

You’re making a presupposition, that religious practice cures atheism. I know that Pascal values reason, but also concedes that it isn’t the way to faith.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*You’re making a presupposition, that religious practice cures atheism. I know that Pascal values reason, but also concedes that it isn’t the way to faith. *

This is not quite correct. Pascal spends a good deal of* Pensees *rationally developing a case for why, of all the world religions, Christianity is the only one that is reasonable.

If you just examine the table of contents for Pensees, you would see in what areas he will make his case: miracles, prophecies of OT fulfilled in the NT, perpetuity of the Church from Adam and Eve through Abraham and Moses to Christ and beyond, excellence of moral teachings, etc.

It’s true that Pascal does not believe a rational argument can be made that will persuade a convinced atheist that God exists, but he does not ever say that reason cannot guide us to rationally select the best of all possible religions once we are persuaded that it is in our interest to give ourselves to God.

 

[Betterave]

Thanks for falsely labeling me - 8th commandment ?

You really are an… piece of work. Context, man, context. There’s no point in pretending to read and reply to stuff when you constantly ignore context.

I just don’t find it compelling argument for faith. We gone over the reasons why, and what Pascal suggests to remedy faithlessness.

Yeah; we’ve gone over and over how you don’t understand Pascal, how you repeatedly and obstinately misrepresent him, but you insist on pretending to be some kind of knowledgeable and rational critic.

It is a parents argument to a child. It’s good for you. Try it, you might like it. Well keep trying it until you like it.

No it isn’t.

It’s not the way to talk to other adults. Sorry, I think Pascal fails.

You fail. Constantly pretending to understand stuff that you obviously don’t understand… not the way to talk to anybody. Sorry.

 

[Betterave]

I’ve been waiting to respond, because I’m not really sure how to. It misses the point so grossly, I’m at a loss. Yes the subject requires an object, it’s good grammar but that’s not what we are talking about.

Say I give you two types of frozen dessert to choose from, vanilla ice cream and orange sorbet. You can give me reasons why you prefer one over the other, “vanilla is more creamy, I like the texture better, it’s sweeter etc.” the reason behind the preference is a mystery and without logic. Why do you prefer creamy? You can give other reasons “I like the mouth feel, it’s smoother, etc” but it comes down to, you just do.

Love is like that - you just do… or you don’t. You don’t get there by reason.

[BIBLEDRB]John 13:34-35[/BIBLEDRB]

jon, you obviously know nothing about Catholic thought, so why do you pretend to??

I never suggested we were talking about grammar. Your insinuation that I did is idiotic. I really think it shows you not only don’t understand, you also have no interest in understanding.

Thought is not reducible to reasoning. Apprehension and judgment precede reasoning and are also species of thought. Love is a form of desire and presupposes a judgment about the object loved. If you like vanilla ice cream, that’s nice, but that has nothing to do with love, nothing to do with the Christian virtue of charity, nothing to do with the God who is love.

 

[Betterave]

Please note: I have no issue with those who are simply ignorant; it is those who are ignorant but who obstinately and arrogantly pretend to understand and refuse to learn that are offensive.

John 9: Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

 

[jonfawkes]

jon, you obviously know nothing about Catholic thought, so why do you pretend to??

I never suggested we were talking about grammar. Your insinuation that I did is idiotic. I really think it shows you not only don’t understand, you also have no interest in understanding.

Thought is not reducible to reasoning. Apprehension and judgment precede reasoning and are also species of thought. Love is a form of desire and presupposes a judgment about the object loved. If you like vanilla ice cream, that’s nice, but that has nothing to do with love, nothing to do with the Christian virtue of charity, nothing to do with the God who is love.

I’ll pray for you.

 

[tonyrey]

It is the inevitable result of abandoning atheism even as an experiment. The emptiness of life without God soon becomes evident to a person who sees life in the context of objective goodness, freedom, justice, purpose and love - which have no rational basis in an amoral, purposeless universe. Even though Pascal believed the heart has its reasons reason does not know he did not reject the value of reason - as we can see from his Pensees.

Religious practice doesn’t cure atheism nor did Pascal think it did. He believed reason can provide a basis for faith and presented his argument in the hope that some unbelievers would be persuaded to take a fresh look at Christianity and put it to the test. “You have everything to gain and nothing to lose” is the essence of his wager.

 

[jonfawkes]

Religious practice doesn’t cure atheism nor did Pascal think it did. He believed reason can provide a basis for faith and presented his argument in the hope that some unbelievers would be persuaded to take a fresh look at Christianity and put it to the test. “You have everything to gain and nothing to lose” is the essence of his wager.

Reason is what got the atheist in this mess, it’s not going to get him out. It’s like screwing for chastity.

 

[Betterave]

I’ll pray for you.

I’ll do the same for you. Peace brother.