Pascal's Wager Once More

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anselm33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ab75

…abortion is the most merciful act committed

Then why isn’t it listed by Christ among the major corporal works of mercy?

Feed the hungry.

Shelter the homeless.

Visit the sick.

Kill the unborn.

Etc.Etc.

I know you’re kidding:thumbsup:
 
Betterave

… such a person must still understand, even in a coldly calculating way, that God requires not just lip service, and therefore this person will necessarily make an act of the will to receive the sacraments with the right disposition because that is the only rational thing to do

Now you’re cooking! 👍
 
Betterave said:
And for the unlikely case you imagine of someone who takes the wager without any spontaneous affective involvement, such a person must still understand, even in a coldly calculating way, that God requires not just lip service, and therefore this person will necessarily make an act of the will to receive the sacraments with the right disposition because that is the only rational thing to do - and the Church teaches that this act of will is constitutive of a right disposition.
Click to expand...
Now here you make an excellent point. In fact; your argument is certainly more perfect than that of Pascals wager which clearly states:
Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said
Click to expand...
Which does not elicit an act of the will; which is a necessary element in the effacity of the Sacraments.

Your point/argument is clear and makes sense, Pascals however does not. Perhaps we should be using Betterave’s Wager; or at the very least some updated and modified version of original (which certainly does not suffice).

👍
 
John

*But seriously; the wager does not add up with the efficacy of sacraments. *

Every Catholic I know doubts his own faith from time to time. The Tempter is ever present and persistent. The sacraments are there to help us overcome that doubt and confirm us in our faith. That is all that Pascal is saying to the atheist. Doubt if you must, but if you act to receive the sacraments, your doubts may be overcome.
 
Pascal’s wager was long ago found to be absurd. The form of the argument can be applied to any proposition and so therefore is meaningless. For example,
  1. If you believe that there is an elf at the base of the Washington monument you will recieve infinite reward. If you do not believe that there is an elf at the Washington monument you will go to hell.
  2. If proposition 1 is true and you believe it you will recieve infinite rewardand avoid hell.
  3. If proposition 1 is false and you believe it,nothing bad will happen to you.
  4. Therefore, it is logical to believe that there is an elf at the base of the Washington monument.
    However, I hate Pascal’s wager because it reduces spirituality to the level of the mundane. It is a Skinnerian (reward and punishment) version of Christ’s message. Suppose Al Capone thought, along the lines of Pascal’s wager. Of course (being greedy and smart) he would believe in God. But not out of love but because of personal gain. Also, the idea of believing something because it benefits you but not because it is the truth is very unbiblical.
 
wittgenstein

Pascal was not an absurd man in the habit of foisting absurd ideas on others. He had thought all this through very carefully, and it’s evident you haven’t. Your example of George Washington is, I grant you, absurd. But it’s not Pascal’s wager.
**
Also, the idea of believing something because it benefits you but not because it is the truth is very unbiblical. **

There is no inconsistency here as you seem to think. The truth has always been beneficial to mankind. The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament constantly offers benefits for believing that He truly exists and is to be adored. You think such a God is absurd? Good grief, did you think your parents were also absurd because they offered you rewards and punishments for believing or not believing them when they told you the truth? :confused:
 
Many great philosophers have made absurd arguments. I never claimed that he was consistently absurd. Pascal’s wager has been recognized, not just by me,but also the majority of academically validated philosophers as absurd and for the reason I gave. Any proposition(even elves at the Washington monument) when applied to the form of Pascal’s wager will result in the absurd conclusion that that proposition is worthy of belief.
 
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that God is absurd,I said that Pascal’s argument is absurd.
Suppose someone gave an absurd argument in favor of Unitarianism ( I am Unitarian). I would still call that argument absurd!
 
I never claimed that if a proposition is beneficial it must be false or absurd. I did however, claim that Pascal’s wager is exclusively about believing a proposition because it is beneficial. The wager never considers the truth of the proposition.
 
Continuation of post 88
The majority of Catholic philosophers reject Anselm’s ontological argument. That does not mean that they do not believe in God and/or believe that Anselm was not a brilliant man. They simply reject his argument.
Even Aquinas rejected the ontological argument. The point of this post and 88 is that rejecting an argument does not mean rejecting its conclusion. For example,
  1. Paris is in France.
  2. Obama is president of the USA.
  3. Therefore I am from North Carolina.
    I accept the conclusion. I am from North Carolina. However, I reject the argument because it is absurd.
 
wittgenstein

**Pascal’s wager has been recognized, not just by me,but also the majority of academically validated philosophers as absurd and for the reason I gave. **

Your source? I doubt that you personally have consulted a majority of academically validated philosophers. You certainly never consulted me! 😃

**Any proposition(even elves at the Washington monument) when applied to the form of Pascal’s wager will result in the absurd conclusion that that proposition is worthy of belief. **

Now this is really absurd. Elves at the Washington monument is totally irrelevant to the wager of saving your immortal soul.

I did however, claim that Pascal’s wager is exclusively about believing a proposition because it is beneficial. The wager never considers the truth of the proposition.

You apparently have not read Pensees. Pascal says up front, before he even starts the wager argument, that you cannot prove the truth of the proposition that God exists (nor can you disprove it). He is concerned about whether it is safer to believe it is true than to believe it is not true. We always act (so far as possible and when we are in our right minds) to benefit our own interests, to play it safe. Since we cannot know there is no God, it is foolish to risk all on believing that. That is all Pascal is claiming. It is an eminently reasonable claim and the one claim that many an atheist has come to think is not so absurd when he is on his deathbed.

The majority of Catholic philosophers reject Anselm’s ontological argument.

So do I. But how did Anselm get in the middle of this thread?
 
It does not have to be elves at the Washington monument, it can be ANY proposition. The form of Pascal’s argument is invalid. It is easy to show that by using the example of elves at the Washington monument (logic 101).
For example suppose I am unsure that the argument,

“1. All smurfs are splots
2. That is not a smurf
3. Therefore it is not a splot.”

is valid. I then reduce it to the form of the argument
  1. P+Q ( there is no arrow key so “+” will have to substitute )
  2. -P
  3. therefore -Q
    When we substitute dog for P and mammal for Q we can clearly see that the argument is invalid.
  4. All dogs are mammals.
  5. That is not a dog
  6. Therefore it is not a mammal.
    Clearly this is an invalid argument because one can be pointing at a cow.
 
How did Anselm get into the argument? Read the explanation at post 90!
 
Continuation of post 92
Note that we are talking about validity not truth. Pascal’s wager is not about truth. It is about self interest.
There is a difference between validity and truth. For example, here is an argument that is valid and true.
  1. All men are mortal.
  2. Socrates was a man.
  3. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
    Here is an argument that is invalid but true,
  4. Paris is in France.
  5. Obama is the president of the USA
  6. Therefore, Michigan is part of the USA
    Here is a valid argument that is not true.
  7. All Martians eat snakes.
  8. Bob is a Martian
  9. Therefore Bob eats snakes.
 
Since the truth of a proposition does not enter into Pascal’s wager’s argument, ANY proposition can be substituted.
For example, if one accepts the logical form of Pascal’s wager,one must accept the following argument.
  1. If you believe in Odin you will enter Vallhalla.
  2. If proposition 1 is true and you believe in Odin you will be rewarded.
  3. If proposition 1 is false and you believe in Odin nothing bad will happen to you.
  4. Therefore, it is logical to believe in Odin.
 
wittgenstein
**
Since the truth of a proposition does not enter into Pascal’s wager’s argument, ANY proposition can be substituted.
For example, if one accepts the logical form of Pascal’s wager,one must accept the following argument.
  1. If you believe in Odin you will enter Vallhalla.
  2. If proposition 1 is true and you believe in Odin you will be rewarded.
  3. If proposition 1 is false and you believe in Odin nothing bad will happen to you.
  4. Therefore, it is logical to believe in Odin. **
Again, it’s apparent that you have not read Pensees.

The Wager Argument is only part of Pascal’s reasoning. The original title of his book was supposed to be “A Vindication of Christianity.” This means that there are many other arguments brought forth in his notes that tie Christianity into the Wager Argument, as opposed to the various mythologies of the world such as the Norse mythology you have referenced.

Yes, a person who worshiped Odin could us this argument, but then he would have to prove that if there is a deity, he would have to be more likely the Norse deity than the Christian one. History has proven to give Christ the victory over Odin, Zeus, and other ancient deities.

You are making the same mistake many people make when they discuss the Wager Argument. They isolate it from the rest of Pascal’s thought. When you do that, you get only half the argument as opposed to the whole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top