Pascal's Wager Argument

[Peepers]

With due respect, you either indeed did forget my original point, or you never understood it, and since you are obviously prone to settling for mediocrity, certainly in the arguments you are offering here (you ‘forget’ what my point was, but accuse me of committing a non sequitur anyway?), I’ll leave it at that.

Apparently you forgot what you posted, yourself. My recollection was correct (I just reviewed the relevant posting). The ability to evaluate a logical argument made by Augustine, Anselm, or anyone else, does not rely on being that person. Quite the contrary is true. None of those arguments have withstood the test of modern logic, certainly not after Godel and Kant. Your critique of those who have achieved intellectual success in the same thread in which you utterly fail to make a logical point is rather pitiful.

 

[Betterave]

Apparently you forgot what you posted, yourself. My recollection was correct (I just reviewed the relevant posting).

So you can’t claim to have forgotten my point any more. That leaves never understood.

The ability to evaluate a logical argument made by Augustine, Anselm, or anyone else, does not rely on being that person. [And of course I said that it did, right? ] Quite the contrary is true.

LOL! Oh, is it? Please explain.

None of those arguments have withstood the test of modern logic, certainly not after Godel and Kant. Your critique of those who have achieved intellectual success in the same thread in which you utterly fail to make a logical point is rather pitiful.

Again, you are settling for mediocrity here: you continue in the same vein of making ambitiously sweeping claims with no argument whatsoever backing them up. So please go ahead and try to actually explain what you mean with this grandiose but oh-so-vague reference to “the test of modern logic.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

**Yes, we use our intelligence, our senses, our emotions, our intuition, our experience, and probably other faculties which I fail to mention. Fortunately for all of us, intelligence alone is neither sufficient, nor is it required for faith. **

And perhaps intelligence actually can be used against faith judging by the number of so-called intellectuals who use it that way.

 

[Peepers]

So you can’t claim to have forgotten my point any more. That leaves never understood.

LOL! Oh, is it? Please explain.

Again, you are settling for mediocrity here: you continue in the same vein of making ambitiously sweeping claims with no argument whatsoever backing them up. So please go ahead and try to actually explain what you mean with this grandiose but oh-so-vague reference to “the test of modern logic.”

I am not going to engage you at your level. You’re just too boring and too impressed with yourself to interest me. We wouldn’t get anywhere, anyway.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

**Yes, we use our intelligence, our senses, our emotions, our intuition, our experience, and probably other faculties which I fail to mention. Fortunately for all of us, intelligence alone is neither sufficient, nor is it required for faith. **

And perhaps intelligence actually can be used against faith judging by the number of so-called intellectuals who use it that way.

Yes, I agree with you Charlemagne. Intelligence can impede our spiritual growth. My own experience was that I was selected as part of a special program of supposedly the top 0.1% of a very large school system, a year of calculus by 8th grade… Access to a first tier university by 10th grade, and so on… I was very impressed with myself (too stupid to realize that it was only the luck of the genetic draw). It was not until I went to an ivy league school and became one of the masses, and in fact not the smartest kid around, that I gained some humility. Leaving that for a while to serve in the Marines taught me a lot about real humanity. It was not until I was able to be an enlisted grunt with comrades in arms that I could shed enough vanity to accept God. Intellect can be a defense against living a spiritually and emotionally fulfilling life, and those two things are what give value to life, and beyond.

 

[tonyrey]

The moral basis of Christianity is not the Jewish decalogue but the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity implicit in the teaching of Jesus and in his attitude to women, children and Gentiles.

Citations?

Then there’s the issue of slavery that is still commanded within the New Testament, I’m sorry but a moral system that denigrates individuals to property, women included, is not in line with moral systems recommended in todays society.

Citations?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;7806948:

I think there us some disconnect. I am not speaking to what Pascal wrote in the wager but rather what you wrote about the wager.

My point is that Pascal believed we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his arguments (including the wager) to non-believers even though he didn’t explicitly state that belief in everything he wrote.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes;7807415:

My point is that Pascal believed we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his arguments (including the wager) to non-believers even though he didn’t explicitly state that belief in everything he wrote.

My point is he didn’t say it in anything he wrote. The idea of “nothing to lose and everything to gain” is what he says about living a life of faith, not presenting his argument. You are representing your idea as his.

 

[jonfawkes]

Citations?

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 5:18[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 16:17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Betterave]

I am not going to engage you at your level. You’re just too boring and too impressed with yourself to interest me. We wouldn’t get anywhere, anyway.

Well you certainly didn’t engage with me at ‘my’ level, but I at least wanted to give you a chance to. Take care.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**My point is he didn’t say it in anything he wrote. The idea of “nothing to lose and everything to gain” is what he says about living a life of faith, not presenting his argument. You are representing your idea as his. **

You persist in betraying your ignorance of the whole plan of Pensees. The whoile book was to be a defense of the Catholic faith to all comers … atheists, Protestants, Hindu, Muslim, etc. It’s because you are myopic about reading only 233 and you see nothing beyond 233 that you are so hard on Pascal.

Or maybe also because you were trained by the Jesuits, who also were very hard on Pascal?

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

**My point is he didn’t say it in anything he wrote. The idea of “nothing to lose and everything to gain” is what he says about living a life of faith, not presenting his argument. You are representing your idea as his. **

You persist in betraying your ignorance of the whole plan of Pensees. The whoile book was to be a defense of the Catholic faith to all comers … atheists, Protestants, Hindu, Muslim, etc. It’s because you are myopic about reading only 233 and you see nothing beyond 233 that you are so hard on Pascal.

Or maybe also because you were trained by the Jesuits, who also were very hard on Pascal?

You are not addressing what I speaking to. I never said that Pensees isn’t an apologetic document.

What I am addressing is Tony’s statement -

That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
They are only believers in name. Their failure doesn’t affect Pascal’s argument.

Pascal didn’t say “here are my thoughts, go forth and prosthelytize using them. You have nothing to lose by doing so my fellow Catholic.”

Which is what Tony is saying in the above statement. It’s not correct and it is misleading. That’s all I am addressing.

 

[tonyrey]

You are not addressing what I speaking to. I never said that Pensees isn’t an apologetic document.

What I am addressing is Tony’s statement -

That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

Pascal didn’t say “Here are my thoughts, go forth and proselytize using them” because he knew it is the duty of every Christian to share the Good News of the Gospels with those do not believe. He wouldn’t have been very impressed if he knew we thought his apologetics were not to be used to support that teaching.

 

[jonfawkes]

Pascal didn’t say “Here are my thoughts, go forth and proselytize using them” because …

But yet, that’s what you are saying here

That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
They are only believers in name. Their failure doesn’t affect Pascal’s argument.

 

[tonyrey]

But yet, that’s what you are saying here

I am not saying that is what Pascal said but what he believed - which is a logical consequence of his Catholic faith…

 

[tonyrey]

            *Citations?*

Jesus also said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but fulfil them.”

Jesus was pointing out that their teaching was incomplete and imperfect without His example and precepts. He often said “But I say to you…”, demonstrating that His message of Love is far more important than the Law. Our loving Father in heaven is a far cry from vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh, primitively supposed to demand the slaughter of animals in reparation for human sins. Jesus quoted Hosea:

“I want mercy not sacrifice” and added:

“I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

 

[jonfawkes]

Jesus also said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but fulfil them.”

Jesus was pointing out that their teaching was incomplete and imperfect without His example and precepts. He often said “But I say to you…”, demonstrating that His message of Love is far more important than the Law. Our loving Father in heaven is a far cry from vindictive, bloodthirsty Yahweh, primitively supposed to demand the slaughter of animals in reparation for human sins. Jesus quoted Hosea:

“I want mercy not sacrifice” and added:

“I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 5:20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Betterave]

I am not going to engage you at your level. You’re just too boring and too impressed with yourself to interest me. We wouldn’t get anywhere, anyway.

It’s rather telling, I suspect, that those who are inclined to make such bombastically presumptuous assertions about the achievements of modern logic in dismantling old theological arguments for some reason never take up the invitation to explain their views and instead stick with a repetition of the same trite, dogmatic platitudes, usually liberally padded with silly ad hominem attacks. To me, that’s boring. And disappointing (I always get my hopes up: “Maybe this guy will actually have something interesting to say in defense of his position and we can all learn something! …or not.”).

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus also said:
*
"Do not think that I have come*

That confirms my point! The justice Jesus has in mind is that which is sublimely consistent with mercy:

“Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us…”

Neither more nor less… in striking contrast to the belief:

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”…

 

[jonfawkes]

That confirms my point! The justice Jesus has in mind is that which is sublimely consistent with mercy:

“Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us…”

Neither more nor less… in striking contrast to the belief:

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”…

Your original point was

The moral basis of Christianity is not the Jewish decalogue but the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity implicit in the teaching of Jesus and in his attitude to women, children and Gentiles.

Exceeding the O.T. doesn’t mean discounting it. On a ladder you have to use the lower rungs to get to the higher. They’re both important.

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 19:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]