Pascal's Wager Argument

[Catmando]

Sorry to but in; but what I find disturbing about Pascal’s Wager is that to use it you have to go on the assumption that it cannot be known God is real or not, and by extension that the Church is the true Church. A believer who uses this argument seems to have to use it as a last resort; and in that case, even if it were successful in converting all the world’s pragmatic agnostic atheists, they’d be converted to nothing more than pragmatic agnostic Catholics. Catholics are meant to be gnostic theists, no? If so, it’s not much of a victory.

In other words; I don’t much care if Pascal’s Wager is right or not. I don’t think it’s a valid argument for any gnostic theist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cat

**In other words; I don’t much care if Pascal’s Wager is right or not. I don’t think it’s a valid argument for any gnostic theist. **

Unless you have read* Pensees* in its entirety, and not just the brief part about the wager argument, I can see why you don’t much care for the argument. By itself it raises many questions, but those questions are answered in some depth elsewhere in Pensees.

Since you are already a Catholic, it doesn’t much matter whether you find the argument appealing or not. It is directed at atheists, not you. And if they don’t like it, that’s probably because they wouldn’t like any argument.

On their deathbeds, hopefully they will be singing a different tune.

 

[jonfawkes]

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?

The validity of the Ecumenical movement is a different discussion. I am only discussing how Pascal shows the “superiority” of Christianity in relation to other religions. He judges all religion by using Christianity as the yardstick, so anything that isn’t Christianity falls short.

“My car has 4 wheel drive, so it’s a better car than one that doesn’t have four wheel drive”

“But I live in a mild climate and I’m more concerned with gas millage, I don’t need four wheel drive”

“My car is obviously superior because it has four wheel drive”

 

[Peepers]

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.”

Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**I am only discussing how Pascal shows the “superiority” of Christianity in relation to other religions. He judges all religion by using Christianity as the yardstick, so anything that isn’t Christianity falls short. **

He does not use Christianity as a yardstick. He uses reason.

He made sure of that by surrounding the “wager argument” with hundreds of pages explaining in rational detail why Christianity is the most reasonable of religions to believe in compared to all the others.

Don’t you agree?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

I am only discussing how Pascal shows the “superiority” of Christianity in relation to other religions. He judges all religion by using Christianity as the yardstick, so anything that isn’t Christianity falls short.

He does not use Christianity as a yardstick. He uses reason.

He made sure of that by surrounding the “wager argument” with hundreds of pages explaining in rational detail why Christianity is the most reasonable of religions to believe in compared to all the others.

Don’t you agree?

No, I think he uses the tenets and qualities of Christianity and judges the other religions by saying they don’t share them so they must be flawed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**No, I think he uses the tenets and qualities of Christianity and judges the other religions by saying they don’t share them so they must be flawed. **

As a Catholic, you don’t agree that Christianity is the most reasonable of religions?

On what grounds?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

**No, I think he uses the tenets and qualities of Christianity and judges the other religions by saying they don’t share them so they must be flawed. **

As a Catholic, you don’t agree that Christianity is the most reasonable of religions?

On what grounds?

I don’t think faith is based on reason, neither does Pascal.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

I don’t think faith is based on reason, neither does Pascal.

Then how would an atheist know which faith is the true one? How would he know to choose Christianity over any other faith if he was looking for God? Would he be using his rational powers to choose, or do you think he would be reduced to guessing?

By the way, if Pascal did not believe faith could be found by reasoning, why did he spend a whole book trying to find a way to help the atheist reason himself toward God?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

I don’t think faith is based on reason, neither does Pascal.

Then how would an atheist know which faith is the true one? How would he know to choose Christianity over any other faith if he was looking for God? Would he be using his rational powers to choose, or do you think he would be reduced to guessing?

By the way, if Pascal did not believe faith could be found by reasoning, why did he spend a whole book trying to find a way to help the atheist reason himself toward God?

They can’t. Per Pascal -

From 233

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him. Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; * and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense.*

Pensées wasn’t a book per se it more collection of notes, thoughts jotted down over time, for a book he intended to write but never did. The notes were published post posthumously in a collection called Pensées.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

Pensées wasn’t a book per se it more collection of notes, thoughts jotted down over time, for a book he intended to write but never did. The notes were published post posthumously in a collection called Pensées.

Yes, we know that, but these thoughts nevertheless constitute a book, and you seem to have a copy.

The passage you cite, #233, is a rather long one. The brief part you cite only talks about our inability to understand (rationalize) God as He is in His infinite Self. Pascal then goes on to offer the wager argument as a rational reason to yield ourselves to God, since none of the other proofs are air tight so far as the atheist is concerned. He goes on to make a very rational case for the wager argument. You have surely read these pages (only 2 or 3) in their entirety, and therefore it seems disingenuous of you to pretend that Pascal is not trying to reason the atheist into choosing God.

And if you have read the entire Pensees, it would seem even more disingenuous of you to argue that Pascal was not making a case for the Christian God over any other.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

Pensées wasn’t a book per se it more collection of notes, thoughts jotted down over time, for a book he intended to write but never did. The notes were published post posthumously in a collection called Pensées.

Yes, we know that, but these thoughts nevertheless constitute a book, and you seem to have a copy.

The passage you cite, #233, is a rather long one. The brief part you cite only talks about our inability to understand (rationalize) God as He is in His infinite Self. Pascal then goes on to offer the wager argument as a rational reason to yield ourselves to God, since none of the other proofs are air tight so far as the atheist is concerned. He goes on to make a very rational case for the wager argument. You have surely read these pages (only 2 or 3) in their entirety, and therefore it seems disingenuous of you to pretend that Pascal is not trying to reason the atheist into choosing God.

And if you have read the entire Pensees, it would seem even more disingenuous of you to argue that Pascal was not making a case for the Christian God over any other.

Good thing I’m not claiming the things you are arguing against.

Pascal appeals to self interest, it is in the best interest of the atheist to choose the Christian God because the payoff and consequences are infinite if He does exist. Pascal says that we can’t know the existence of God through reason.

The argument comes from a Christian context. The concept of God is a Christian one. You have to have faith that that concept of God is correct or even plausible.

If you can use reason to conceive of another God that doesn’t reward and punish us based on faith. (God created us all, why does he need our belief, why would he create just to punish, etc) The wager is useless in this other concept of God. “God” won’t punish us for non-belief. It is not reason that puts forth the Christian God but faith.

Again Pascal uses Christianity to argue for Christianity. Anything else won’t do, it’s not Christianity.

He uses prophecy as a touch point for validity of the Christian faith because Christianity has “fulfilled” prophecy. If that is not important to you, it’s not a selling point. No one has set up a religion around Nostradamus.

You also have to have faith that the prophecy has been fulfilled (Jews vs Christians) they look at the same information and come to different conclusions. Again it is in the context of Christianity that the “selling points” are valid. You have to value Christianity’s precepts to value Christianity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**You also have to have faith that the prophecy has been fulfilled (Jews vs Christians) they look at the same information and come to different conclusions. Again it is in the context of Christianity that the “selling points” are valid. You have to value Christianity’s precepts to value Christianity. **

To say this is to deny that anyone who is not a Christian could ever be converted to Christianity. Patently false. Millions have been converted not becasue they were already Christian, but because they could see the sweet reasonableness of Christianity from outside the pale.

Ever heard of “Jews for Christ”? How did they come to Christianity without seeing in Christ the fulfillment of prophecies? So not all Jews “look at the same information and come to different conclusions.”

By the way, how would you introduce atheists to Christ, assuming you have any interest in doing so? You obviously don’t believe in reasoning with them, so what device would you use?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

**You also have to have faith that the prophecy has been fulfilled (Jews vs Christians) they look at the same information and come to different conclusions. Again it is in the context of Christianity that the “selling points” are valid. You have to value Christianity’s precepts to value Christianity. **

To say this is to deny that anyone who is not a Christian could ever be converted to Christianity. Patently false. Millions have been converted not becasue they were already Christian, but because they could see the sweet reasonableness of Christianity from outside the pale.

Ever heard of “Jews for Christ”? How did they come to Christianity without seeing in Christ the fulfillment of prophecies? So not all Jews “look at the same information and come to different conclusions.”

By the way, how would you introduce atheists to Christ, assuming you have any interest in doing so? You obviously don’t believe in reasoning with them, so what device would you use?

Nope not what I’m saying. Pascal’s wager functions with in the context of Christianity, not all conversions.

Atheists - By example.

Reason and fear don’t cut it. You can’t get there through reason and you don’t fear what you don’t think exists.

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal says that we can’t know the existence of God through reason.

But he obviously believes we have good **reasons **to believe

The argument comes from a Christian context. The concept of God is a Christian one…
Again Pascal uses Christianity to argue for Christianity. Anything else won’t do, it’s not Christianity.

Not necessarily. The basic concept is shared by Jews and Muslims. Hindus also believe in the Supreme Being and Karma.

You have to value Christianity’s precepts to value Christianity.

Christianity’s precepts are shared by the main religions of the world and are the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Peepers]

jonfawkes

I don’t think faith is based on reason, neither does Pascal.

Then how would an atheist know which faith is the true one? How would he know to choose Christianity over any other faith if he was looking for God? Would he be using his rational powers to choose, or do you think he would be reduced to guessing?

By the way, if Pascal did not believe faith could be found by reasoning, why did he spend a whole book trying to find a way to help the atheist reason himself toward God?

An atheist would know that there is no true faith, by definition or he wouldn’t be an atheist. Therefore, he would not know to choose Christianity over any other faith, and he would not be looking for God. If he were an atheist, then his rational powers would have led him to atheism, and no guesswork would be involved. Did I miss something, or were just rambling without having a point to make?

Which version of Pensees do you prefer?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Christianity’s precepts are shared by the main religions of the world and are the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I find that highly doubtful, using the 10 commandments alone we have opposition to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, two fundamental rights that many nation’s today value highly and would surely miss if it were taken away.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**Nope not what I’m saying. Pascal’s wager functions with in the context of Christianity, not all conversions.

Atheists - By example.

Reason and fear don’t cut it. You can’t get there through reason and you don’t fear what you don’t think exists. **

Your answer is vague and evasive in the extreme.

By example? How is that not yet another way for the atheist to use his reasoning powers when judging the worth of Christianity?

I take it you think deathbed conversions are futile since they involve real reason and fear and the gamble that maybe after all there is a God and “I’d better be ready for the reckoning”?

“That passion may not harm us, let us act as if we had only eight hours left to live.” Blaise Pascal, Pensees

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For those who are interested, Pascal’s appeal to the atheist to reason according to the wager argument is located here, #233 in particular.

oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Pascal/pascal_pensees_III.html

However, #233 should not be taken as the entire appeal. We should read the whole of Pensees to see how Pascal believed the wager argument could be fortified by other appeals to reason, such as the very reasonableness of Christianity compared to other religions.

The appeal of Christianity to those who have lived with other religions is evident, not just by the giving of good example (many Christians do not even give a good example because they only pay lip service to their religion) but by the appeal of the teachings and the good sense of how these teachings should lead to the good life.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

**Nope not what I’m saying. Pascal’s wager functions with in the context of Christianity, not all conversions.

Atheists - By example.

Reason and fear don’t cut it.** You can’t get there through reason and you don’t fear what you don’t think exists.

Your answer is vague and evasive in the extreme.

By example? How is that not yet another way for the atheist to use his reasoning powers when judging the worth of Christianity?

I take it you think deathbed conversions are futile since they involve real reason and fear and the gamble that maybe after all there is a God and “I’d better be ready for the reckoning”?

“That passion may not harm us, let us act as if we had only eight hours left to live.” Blaise Pascal, Pensees

What is vague about leading a life worth emulating?

I think if the only reason you’d follow Christ is out of fear; you’ve missed the point entirely.