S
STT
Guest
His suggestion is not practical since many religions exist. This is correct since there is more than one rational choice among existing religions. So one has to bet on options which are equally likely.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
You are good when you know what good is and do good. One cannot know what good is when there are conflicts between religions. One asks killing for God and in another God dies for us.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I always thought Pascals Wager was meant to be humorous. 
S
snarflemike
Guest
Pascal’s Wager is about belief or non belief in God. It is not about choosing a religion. That can come later.
S
STT
Guest
The belief on God cannot take you anawhere good.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
When Pascal presented his argument to the gamblers he knew in Paris in the 1650s, he didn’t have to worry whether some of them might be Muslims, or Buddhists, or even Protestants. If they practiced a religion at all, it was Catholicism. His argument is a simple confrontation between religion and irreligion, but he had no need to take into consideration any religious belief other than those of the Catholic Church. He was writing for real people who were living in a certain place at a certain time. He wasn’t writing for posterity.
P
PetraG
Guest
I like the version of Pascal’s Wager that shows up in C.S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair:
“One word, Ma’am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”
― Puddleglum the Marshwiggle
“One word, Ma’am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you’ve been saying is quite right, I shouldn’t wonder. I’m a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won’t deny any of what you said. But there’s one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we’re leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that’s a small loss if the world’s as dull a place as you say.”
― Puddleglum the Marshwiggle
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Just to clarify: Pascal’s Wager was first published posthumously. There probably was no literal presentation of the idea to gamblers in Paris. As I gather, the work wasn’t in a finished form when he died.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
There is nothing unpractical about it.
Even if there really was no good way to choose among religions, it would still be possible to choose randomly. That is still better than atheism.
All we need for that is that choosing a wrong religion would not make things worse than choosing atheism.
Or we can extend, modify Pascal’s Wager, looking at differences between religions.
Finally, the first step of Pascal’s Wager is to check if we can make a choice “by truth”, checking which option is most likely to be true. The “Pascal’s Wager proper” is only for the case when that step does not give us an answer.
Last edited:
S
STT
Guest
So you beleive that God praises people for their gamlings no matter what religion they choose?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The origins of the Wager are well attested. Pascal was on friendly terms with the Duc de Roannez, who was keenly interested in science and was also a strong supporter of the Jansenists of Port-Royal. It was Roannez who financed the publication of Pascal’s Provincial Letters in 1656. In Roannez’ circle of leisured aristocrats, cards and dice were an important activity and it was to answer the gamblers’ questions about betting that Pascal first began work on his probability theory. Prominent among these friends was the writer Antoine Gombaud, known as the Chevalier de Méré, who later claimed to have originated probability theory himself.
Many of the aristocratic card players in Roannez’ circle mocked Pascal for the intensity of his religious enthusiasm following his dramatic “second conversion” in 1654. It was these gamblers that Pascal sought to convert by appealing to their interest in the mathematics of betting. The notes on the subject that were found among his papers after his death in 1662, at the age of 39, were incorporated into the much larger volume of manuscripts that he had been working on for his planned Apology, although these notes — now known as “The Wager” — were at least two years older than the Apology papers. All these papers together were published posthumously under the title Pensées, financed once again by the Duc de Roannez.
Last edited:
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Only if one buys into the assertion that the cost of attempting to follow a religion is insignificant. Pascal makes that assertion but many would disagree.
As I understand it, the work Pensees attempts to cover the usual objections such as claims of other gods. The wager presumes one is on the fence about the Christian faith, imo.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
As commonly presented the wager is insulting to God and/or the person. Either,
God can be fooled by one who goes through the motions and pretends to believe.
Or
The person can arbitrarily “make” themselves sincerely believe on a whim. Or following a set of rituals will make one believe what they previously viewed as false.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Yes, I think that is a valid criticism of the Wager. It’s analogous, in that way, to a hellfire sermon. A preacher warns his congregation that if they believe in God and submit to his will, they will go to heaven when they die, but if they stubbornly refuse to believe and carry on living their worldly lives with nothing but selfish aims, they will burn eternally in hell. If someone in that congregation is sufficiently terrified by the prospect of hell that he decides to become a believer, is he just “pretending” to believe? In a way, I suppose he is. So is Pascal’s gambler. In both cases, he thinks to himself, “I see now that it’s in my long-term interest to believe in God so, yes, that’s what I’m going to do.”
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
This. Pascal was a brilliant mathematician and approached the subject from the point of view of probability theory.
M
MPat
Guest
I don’t see how the word “praises” fits here, and I don’t believe that the choice makes no difference.
But I see no reason to think that “gambling” on a wrong religion has to be worse than “gambling” on atheism.
That is, choosing to worship Odin because one wants to go to Valhalla is not better than choosing to become Catholic, but it is better than choosing atheism because one likes one’s vices and bad habits.
And…?
Can’t you at least gather enough courage to make that claim yourself?
Yes, Pascal’s Wager is addressed to someone who has concluded that he has no idea if God exists, no (other) good reason to choose any of the options.
If an atheist thinks that he has good arguments showing that God doesn’t exist, Pascal’s Wager does not apply to him right away. But then, so many atheists can’t even gather enough courage to assert that they believe God doesn’t exist… Pascal’s Wager certainly applies to them.
I guess someone who chooses atheism for no good reason can see it as insulting. But then, are you sure the “insult” is not well deserved in that case?
For that matter, your insight is rather impressive: many atheists just proclaim that Pascal’s Wager is insulting to God, not noticing the possibility it might be “insulting” to them instead…
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
There’s a question of terminology here. An atheist, strictly speaking, is someone who believes there is no God. If he’s not sure, if he thinks maybe there is a God and maybe there isn’t, then he’s a doubter, and possibly an agnostic, but not an atheist.
- Status