Pascal's Wager Argument

[Betterave]

You also said, “the consequences cannot stand alone”. Just to be clear, by this do you mean that there needs to be evidence for the postulated scenario as well as consequences?

Yes, in a sense (the interpretation of the term ‘evidence’ can be controversial). I posted this quote from William James’ “The Will to Believe” on another thread recently. Hopefully it will clarify the sense in which “the consequences cannot stand alone” and ‘evidence’ is required:

Next, let us call the decision between two hypotheses an option. Options may be of several kinds. They may be:

1, living or dead;
2, forced or avoidable;
3, momentous or trivial;
and for our purpose we may call an option a gennine option when it of the forced, living, and momentous kind.

1. A living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones. If I say to you: “Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,” it is probably a dead option, because for you neither hypothesis is likely to be alive. But if I say: " Be an agnostic or be Christian," it is otherwise: trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief.
2. Next, if I say to you: " Choose between going out with your umbrella or without it," I do not offer you a genuine option, for it is not forced. You can easily avoid it by not going out at all. Similarly, if I say, " Either love me or hate me," " Either call my theory true or call it false," your option is avoidable. You may remain indifferent to me, neither loving nor hating, and you may decline to offer any judgment as to my theory. But if I say, " Either accept this truth or go without it," I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative. Every dilemma based on a complete logical disjunction, with no possibility of not choosing, is an option of this forced kind.
3. Finally, if I were Dr. Nansen and proposed to you to join my North Pole expedition, your option would be momentous; for this would probably be your only similar opportunity, and your choice now would either exclude you from the North Pole sort of immortality altogether or put at least the chance of it into your hands. He who refuses to embrace a unique opportunity loses the prize as surely as if he tried and failed. Per contra, the option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise. Such trivial options abound in the scientific life. A chemist finds an hypothesis live enongh to spend a year in its verification: he believes in it to that extent. But if his experiments prove inconclusive either way, he is quit for his loss of time, no vital harm being done.

It will facilitate our discussion if we keep all these distinctions well in mind.

 

[Betterave]

Thanks all for tolerating my first post…

Thanks for posting. Good post, in fact.

In any case, I’ve never really liked Pascal’s Wager, seems to skeptical of anyone’s ability to actually ground their faith in any reasonable, rationalistic manner- In other words, I don’t like the insinuation that my faith cannot have any logical grounding to it beyond this decision at the fork in the trail, and that I’m fooling myself if I think otherwise.

I don’t think Pascal is saying it can’t have any ‘logical’ grounding - I guess it depends what you mean by ‘logical’… Certainly he’s appealing to more than just some arbitrary decision - “unknown 1 or unknown 2 - choose!” - at a fork in the road.

And really, does it ever work? The few determined agnostics/atheists that I’ve tried it on have simply retorted with “that’s no reason to believe” (which, really, who can argue this point if you can really know nothing True about the Faith) or went into some crazy probablistic reasoning that watching the analogous TV was actually far better than preparing for the risk that the sneaky stabber was going to come into the room…

The problem is, the agnostics/atheists you tried it on may have been determined and ready with a retort, but it seems to me they were wrong and their retorts appear to have been based on misunderstanding the argument Pascal offered.

 

[Candide_West]

Are you familiar with Kant’s antinomies of reason? I think these are similar exercises in reasoning.

No, I’m afraid I haven’t read that one yet. In truth I’m still early in my philosophical education. That is one of the major reasons I came to this site, to discuss interesting subjects and try my views against others. I’m reading around at the same time but to date haven’t reached Kant*

pascal claims that the heart has reasons, however, and this might sound suspiciously fluffy or irrational, but I think it is something that we can all recognize as being true. There is necessarily a basic foundation or orientation for all formal ratiocination that must originate outside of the formal process of ratiocination itself

There are a couple points which spring to mind from the above. At one level there is the need for at least some axioms in order to start building a system of reason. With which I agree I think most people do although I have seen people arguing against acceptance of any on this site.

However, I’m not sure that pascal would have been referring to these. The heart is usually used to refer to emotions and intuitions. I think it’s more likely that pascals was aiming for intuitions. That’s what his phrasing implies to me at least. While these may be useful, since they enable us to skip ahead of the plodding of organised thought. they can also be deceptive, influenced as they are by instinct, pre-existing expectations, our emotional response, what we want to be true and probably a hundred other factors.*

They are also difficult to defend in rational argument unless they can at least be corroborated.*
*

True, you have no other reason… but so what?

You identified the lack of a specified time limit as a significant difference between the sneaky stabber and your investment scenario to demonstrate a forced choice. I was demonstrating that since the time limit is part of the hypothesis in both cases, and you can always create time limited scenarios time the cows come home. Putting a hypothetical time limit on a hypothetical situation doesn’t provide a reason to believe it is valid and hence offers no reason to act on the scenario.*

He’s in the room? Okay, in that case I’m pretty sure you’ve changed the sneaky stabber scenario. In this case, where he is real and is in the room, surely you ought to do something about it? Hence the parallel.

I’ve just been back to post 754 to check because I wasn’t sure. But the original actually had him already poised behind me. Of course I had no reason to believe he was there but i did do something about it and it turned out on checking that he wasn’t there. Phew. of course he could be now…

In general, some decisions are forced and some are not. In this case the decision is forced. This is partly because of the time limit (and more generally because of the ethically charged nature of the decision), but also because the options present an exclusive dichotomy.

I think really this is coming down to a question of semantics. To you once the time limit expires you are fixed and “don’t know” is not yes. Therefore the answer was definitively “no”. Or at least effectively “no”.*To me the time limit has expired and the question simply remains unresolved. It may be however that there is no longer an opportunity to answer reach a definitive answer.

Hopefully it now has been covered adequately.

Agreed, we seem to have looped around somewhat.

But once we have looked at the full slates, the wager itself is supposed to be compelling. It is not simply an appeal to toss reason and believe; it is an attempt to appeal to the force of a deeper level of reason-giving.

Indeed, however as far as I can see the wager introduces nothing aside from comparison of the potential consequences in the available resultant conditions. This was my point, that you can construct similar scenarios all day long but unless the evidence is compelling (whatever form the evidence takes) then it is unreasonable to behave as if they are true.

Considered at this level of abstraction, yes, they are quite similar. But I think the similarity ends at this level.

Perhaps in view of building a common understanding I can paraphrase how I understand the argument in the wager and we see if we can get to an agreed position to work from? I’ll put it in a separate post as this is getting rather long.*

 

[Candide_West]

Yes, in a sense (the interpretation of the term ‘evidence’ can be controversial). I posted this quote from William James’ “The Will to Believe” on another thread recently. Hopefully it will clarify the sense in which “the consequences cannot stand alone” and ‘evidence’ is required:

Yep, definately agree about “evidence” being a controversial term. But as long as we use it in the broadest sense then it looks as if we have agreement here…?

Thanks for the material on decision points, most interesting. However I’m not convinced that what is being defined is what I would call a genuine option. For example I don’t believe that a decision must be momentus in order to be genuine. The vast majority of choices we make are trivial by this definition.*

Secondly, it appears that the first two are linked. For example in the second option if you have not reached a forced option then you have just not included all the available options. Equally if none of the options are live then you have clearly not included all the available options.

Perhaps what is really being defined is a true dichotomy? The terms seem to fit better with that than merely defining a genuine option. Please let me know if I’ve missed something.

Thanks, I’m very much enjoying the conversation.

 

[Candide_West]

As I mentioned in my last post. Here is my understanding of pascals wager. Please let me know if you agree or otherwise. And we can modify to reach an agreed statement of what it says in simple terms.*

Background - The christian God either exists or does not exist. The evidence is not compelling in either direction.*

The hypothesis - I have until the time i die to decide to believe (and therefore behave in the manner specified by the religion). The available options and consequences are;

The christian God exists & I am Christian - I go to heaven - major win.
The christian God exists & I am not Christian - I go to hell - epic fail

No God exists & I am Christian - when I die I stop.
No God exists and I am not Christian - when I die I stop.

Conclusion - The results are much more extreme in the “God exists” outcomes. It is therefore prudent to work on the assumption of gods existence and be religious. Therefore I should believe in God, hence be Christian.

 

[Betterave]

You’ve given me a lot to respond to, but maybe this is a good starting point.

As I mentioned in my last post. Here is my understanding of pascals wager. Please let me know if you agree or otherwise. And we can modify to reach an agreed statement of what it says in simple terms.*

Background - The christian God either exists or does not exist. The evidence is not compelling in either direction.*

The hypothesis - I have until the time i die to decide to believe (and therefore behave in the manner specified by the religion).

Rather: I must decide now whether I should believe or not. The decision faces me now. A decision requires a moment of clarity. I have one now. I may not not have one later. So I should make the decision now (as soon as I am able - this kind of ‘now’ need not be a particularly short period of time). There may be future ‘nows’ given to me - moments of clarity where I am able to think through what I should do - but there may not be. There might be other trains coming, but there might not be, and this one is possibly leaving any minute - so either try to get on or risk missing the chance altogether (and maybe you’ll take this risk because you’re convinced the train isn’t going anywhere - but see below).

The available options and consequences are;

The christian God exists & I am Christian - I can hope to go to heaven - major win.
The christian God exists & I am not Christian (and I have rejected Christ) - I go to hell - epic fail

No God exists & I am Christian - when I die I stop.
No God exists and I am not Christian - when I die I stop.

Conclusion - The results are much more extreme in the “God exists” outcomes. It is therefore prudent to work on the assumption of gods existence and be religious. Therefore I should believe in God, hence be Christian.

Close, but the point is not so much to simply assume that God exists, but to see (a) that faith in God offers a live option (a genuine option) and (b) that the outcomes associated with faith in God are better than the outcomes associated with rejecting God. Thus, it is prudent to seek to know God, which is accomplished by seeking to receive the gift of God’s grace which leads to faith and knowledge. (To continue the train analogy, you don’t know if the train is actually going anywhere, but you can either wait on the platform or wait on the train. So why not just wait on the train? Is there any good reason for choosing to just stand there on the platform?)

 

[Candide_West]

You’ve given me a lot to respond to, but maybe this is a good starting point.

Rather: I must decide now whether I should believe or not. The decision faces me now. A decision requires a moment of clarity. I have one now. I may not not have one later. So I should make the decision now (as soon as I am able - this kind of ‘now’ need not be a particularly short period of time). There may be future ‘nows’ given to me - moments of clarity where I am able to think through what I should do - but there may not be. There might be other trains coming, but there might not be, and this one is possibly leaving any minute - so either try to get on or risk missing the chance altogether (and maybe you’ll take this risk because you’re convinced the train isn’t going anywhere - but see below).

Ok, not sure that I’m entirely on board with needing to decide now. After all, assuming I am still alive tomorrow surely I can repent tomorrow (assuming it is genuine). For that matter I’m not convinced that the term “decide” really works in this instance. After all, I didn’t “decide” to become an atheist, I just realised I was one (probably a long time after I effectively was one). In any case I’ll try a re-statement below to see if we can reach an agreed starting point. After all I’m aiming at a statement of what Pascals wager is for the moment. Whether it works or not really comes after that.

Close, but the point is not so much to simply assume that God exists, but to see (a) that faith in God offers a live option (a genuine option) and (b) that the outcomes associated with faith in God are better than the outcomes associated with rejecting God. Thus, it is prudent to seek to know God, which is accomplished by seeking to receive the gift of God’s grace which leads to faith and knowledge. (To continue the train analogy, you don’t know if the train is actually going anywhere, but you can either wait on the platform or wait on the train. So why not just wait on the train? Is there any good reason for choosing to just stand there on the platform?)

Hmmmm, afraid I’m not quite sure how to edit the last bit to hit what you’ve written above but I’ll take a shot. Let me know what you think.

Background - The christian God either exists or does not exist. The evidence is not compelling in either direction.

The hypothesis - The decision to believe or not believe is forced and the available options and consequences are as follows:

The christian God exists & I am Christian - I can hope to go to heaven - major win.
The christian God exists & I am not Christian (and I have rejected Christ) - I go to hell - epic fail

No God exists & I am Christian - when I die I stop.
No God exists and I am not Christian - when I die I stop.

Conclusion - The consequences of belief vs. lack of belief are extreme in the “God exists” options and have no affect on the “No God exists” side. Thus it is prudent to follow the advisable option (Christian faith) in the area where consequences are actually affected (especially given the magnitude). Therefore I should believe in God, hence be Christian.

Let me know if this works any better or please feel free to edit. Really this is just getting us to a starting point so we have a common understanding of what Pascals wager is saying rather than talking at crossed purposes.

 

[Betterave]

Ok, not sure that I’m entirely on board with needing to decide now. After all, assuming I am still alive tomorrow surely I can repent tomorrow (assuming it is genuine). For that matter I’m not convinced that the term “decide” really works in this instance. After all, I didn’t “decide” to become an atheist, I just realised I was one (probably a long time after I effectively was one). In any case I’ll try a re-statement below to see if we can reach an agreed starting point. After all I’m aiming at a statement of what Pascals wager is for the moment. Whether it works or not really comes after that.

I think you’ve missed my point, which is that (a) you might not be alive tomorrow, so given the stakes it is unwise to deliberately delay, and (b) the ability to repent does not follow immediately from the fact that one is alive, any more than the ability to, e.g., go skating does. The only reasonable position, then, is: if you can deal with it now, you should.

Hmmmm, afraid I’m not quite sure how to edit the last bit to hit what you’ve written above but I’ll take a shot. Let me know what you think.

I’ll just tweak this a bit, bolding where I do so:

Background - The christian God either exists or does not exist. The evidence is not compelling in either direction.

The hypothesis - The decision to believe or not believe is forced (and live - James, whose terms these are, treats live-or-dead as a purely subjective matter; for Pascal, however, it is objectively unreasonable to simply dismiss this option, to consider it dead) and the available options and consequences are [roughly] as follows:

The christian God exists & I am Christian - I can hope to go to heaven - major win.
The christian God exists & I am not Christian (and I have rejected Christ) - I go to hell - epic fail

No God exists & I am Christian - when I die I stop.
No God exists and I am not Christian - when I die I stop.

Conclusion - The consequences of belief vs. lack of belief are extreme in the “God exists” options and have no affect on the “No God exists” side. Thus it is prudent to follow the advisable option (Christian faith) in the area where consequences are actually affected (especially given the magnitude). Therefore I should seek to believe in God, hence be Christian. (Pascal does not assume an ability to simply believe whatever one wishes.)

Let me know if this works any better or please feel free to edit. Really this is just getting us to a starting point so we have a common understanding of what Pascals wager is saying rather than talking at crossed purposes.

Agreed. Hopefully that does the trick?

 

[Betterave]

I think you’ve missed my point, which is that (a) you might not be alive tomorrow, so given the stakes it is unwise to deliberately delay, and (b) the ability to repent does not follow immediately from the fact that one is alive, any more than the ability to, e.g., go skating does. The only reasonable position, then, is: if you can deal with it now, you should.

If this isn’t convincing, I thought of another analogy that might illustrate it. Suppose you’ve just bought a very expensive painting (a proverbial “pearl of great price”) and it seems to have been delivered to your house and is sitting outside - but it has a cloth over it, so there’s a chance it’s actually something else. Are you going to leave it there overnight because you’re not sure what it is and you don’t have your scissors handy to remove the cloth with? Sure, it might still be there in the morning, and maybe the morning after that too, indefinitely… But it also might get stolen, it might get rained on, it might get blown into the mud or trampled by stampeding elephants, etc. And the thing is, if anything like that does happen, it’s kind of your fault. You should have brought it inside as soon as you got the chance, even though it was covered with a cloth.

 

[Peepers]

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?

I think that belief in God is a matter of faith, which may be supported or arrived at through the facts of one’s life experience. However, trying to prove much about God with a mental exercise or thought experiment is not much more than a form of self gratification. My capabilities are too limited to know God, or to reason about God’s nature.

As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

It is trivial to shoot logical holes in Anselm, and even to use his own logic to “prove” that God does not exist.

Augustine was more challenging, but it turned out to be easy for Kant.

My point is that faith is what leads us to God, not a mental exercise which greater minds can see through. We are too limited in our individual mental faculties to make such a proof on using thought alone.

 

[tonyrey]

I think that belief in God is a matter of faith, which may be supported or arrived at through the facts of one’s life experience. However, trying to prove much about God with a mental exercise or thought experiment is not much more than a form of self gratification. My capabilities are too limited to know God, or to reason about God’s nature.

As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

It is trivial to shoot logical holes in Anselm, and even to use his own logic to “prove” that God does not exist.

Augustine was more challenging, but it turned out to be easy for Kant.

My point is that faith is what leads us to God, not a mental exercise which greater minds can see through. We are too limited in our individual mental faculties to make such a proof on using thought alone.

If we are too limited in our individual mental faculties to make such a proof by using thought alone we are too limited to disprove the existence of God. Then our experience of life with recognition of its immense value and essentially purposeful nature together with the reality of good and evil are sound reasons to believe and trust in God.

 

[Betterave]

My capabilities are too limited to know God, or to reason about God’s nature.

That seems like a true statement. Therefore the rest of these statements below should be judged in light of that one:

As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

It is trivial to shoot logical holes in Anselm, and even to use his own logic to “prove” that God does not exist.

Augustine was more challenging, but it turned out to be easy for Kant.

My point is that faith is what leads us to God, not a mental exercise which greater minds can see through. We are too limited in our individual mental faculties to make such a proof on using thought alone.

If, despite your limited capabilities for reasoning, you’d like to actually try to think through any of these, please say so and perhaps I’ll be able to help you.

 

[Peepers]

That seems like a true statement. Therefore the rest of these statements below should be judged in light of that one:
As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

It is trivial to shoot logical holes in Anselm, and even to use his own logic to “prove” that God does not exist.

Augustine was more challenging, but it turned out to be easy for Kant.

My point is that faith is what leads us to God, not a mental exercise which greater minds can see through. We are too limited in our individual mental faculties to make such a proof on using thought alone.If, despite your limited capabilities for reasoning, you’d like to actually try to think through any of these, please say so and perhaps I’ll be able to help you.

Betterave, is your point that you can prove God logically, and without resorting to faith? That would make you the first person in history to do so. Please proceed…

 

[Domer1997]

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?

I studied Pascal’s idea in my first Philosophy class at Notre Dame during my sophomore year. Everytime I tend to question my faith I think back to Pascal’s reasoning and it does help me (and always has helped me) through trying times. To me it makes perfect sense. We cannot disprove God…ever, no matter how hard man tries…it cannot be done. Life is better and fuller and serves a greater purpose believing in a creator! So, go with it! It sounds superficial, but it has gotten me through some difficult times when I question where God is in my life!
God Bless!!!

 

[Peepers]

I studied Pascal’s idea in my first Philosophy class at Notre Dame during my sophomore year. Everytime I tend to question my faith I think back to Pascal’s reasoning and it does help me (and always has helped me) through trying times. To me it makes perfect sense. We cannot disprove God…ever, no matter how hard man tries…it cannot be done. Life is better and fuller and serves a greater purpose believing in a creator! So, go with it! It sounds superficial, but it has gotten me through some difficult times when I question where God is in my life!
God Bless!!!

I was fortunate enough to attend a university with a well known divinity school, which while it was a graduate school, often had seminars, panels and lectures open to the public. I found them thought provoking, and faith affirming. There is nothing like that where I live now.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, is your point that you can prove God logically, and without resorting to faith? That would make you the first person in history to do so. Please proceed…

No, my point is that the truth of this statement - “My capabilities are too limited to know God, or to reason about God’s nature” - depends on who says it. It may be true when you say it (probably not actually); but it would not be true if Augustine or Anselm or Pascal (or even if I) were to say it.

In general, though, my concern is that your sweeping dismissal of such thinkers’ reasonings about God and his nature tends to produce the state of affairs that you claim objectively obtains. IOW, your ‘capabilities’ are not fixed and my worry is that they will tend to shrink to match your low expectations of them.

 

[Peepers]

No, my point is that the truth of this statement - “My capabilities are too limited to know God, or to reason about God’s nature” - depends on who says it. It may be true when you say it (probably not actually); but it would not be true if Augustine or Anselm or Pascal (or even if I) were to say it.

In general, though, my concern is that your sweeping dismissal of such thinkers’ reasonings about God and his nature tends to produce the state of affairs that you claim objectively obtains. IOW, your ‘capabilities’ are not fixed and my worry is that they will tend to shrink to match your low expectations of them.

I had my choice of Harvard or Yale, and chose the latter. I only mention that to show that I don’t think I have low expectations of myself. Perhaps you are right, though. I have rubbed elbows with some rather astute thinkers, and I have some idea of what smart and motivated people are capable of. In the Marines, I learned a good deal about focus, self discipline, and motivation.

There are others more capable than I, and others who are less capable. God will be revealed to me as He chooses. I do my part and leave the rest to Him. I would consider it hubris to think that I can comprehend the “mind” of God, if something even should be called that. I believe that my spiritual journey is a process, and I will realize what I am to know as I go along. I have lived long enough to know that goals are only an objective to strive for. I do my part, and God decides the rest which is beyond my control. I don’t try to be God. This brings me a good deal of peace and equanimity in my life.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

Now you are making a point that was answered much earlier in this thread. I guess the thread is so long that you can’t be blamed for not knowing that, but I also cannot be blamed for not having the patience to go back and find those posts.

This is a very old objection to Pascal which he had already answered in Pensees.

You only get the answer by reading a good deal of Pensees, especially those parts where he compares Christianity to other religions, including the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim religions, and they all come up short next to Christianity.

For example, none of those religions claim to have prophecies fulfilled. None of them claims to have performed miracles as signs of God’s presence among us. Etc. etc.

To use the words of Pascal the Hindu cosmology “is a circle the center of which is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.”

Or as Chesterton put it: “The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, where they will be each other.”

 

[jonfawkes]

Peepers

As a simple case in point, Pascal’s argument only works if my framework is limited to Christianity. From a purely logical point of view, it is just as easy to make the same argument about Vishnu, or any other of thousands of deities.

Now you are making a point that was answered much earlier in this thread. I guess the thread is so long that you can’t be blamed for not knowing that, but I also cannot be blamed for not having the patience to go back and find those posts.

This is a very old objection to Pascal which he had already answered in Pensees.

You only get the answer by reading a good deal of Pensees, especially those parts where he compares Christianity to other religions, including the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim religions, and they all come up short next to Christianity.

For example, none of those religions claim to have prophecies fulfilled. None of them claims to have performed miracles as signs of God’s presence among us. Etc. etc.

To use the words of Pascal the Hindu cosmology “is a circle the center of which is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.”

Or as Chesterton put it: “The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, where they will be each other.”

The comparison is still with in the Christian framework. It is judging the worth of religion based on the Christian model of religion, so of course Christianity “wins”.

It’s like saying the bread I make has honey in it, all proper bread has honey, if a bread doesn’t have honey it must be inferior.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**The comparison is still with in the Christian framework. It is judging the worth of religion based on the Christian model of religion, so of course Christianity “wins”. **

You don’t think there is any way that a dispassionate observer can look at Christianity and say Christianity wins? Then why are you a Catholic? If you think that your being a Catholic is purely a matter of bias without any logical foundation, then you must think every religion is as good as every other religion since all religions are judged within their own “framework.”

That makes you a rather poor candidate for going forth and preaching the Gospel to all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Right?