Pascal's Wager Once More

[Anselm33]

Hello all-
I’ve looked at the previous thread on this topic and it didn’t seem to offer answers to the questions I have–1) an infinite reward (utility) raises problems in any sort of decision analysis theoretic context; for example one can use a mixed strategy with a non-zero probability of wagering on God (again, as an example, use a coin toss to decide, and the expectation value will still be infinite); 2) what actions should “wagering on God” entail? Pascal, in the Pensees that discuss, this advises the non-believer who wants to bet, to go to Mass, etc. …Can one go through the motions of belief without belief as given by grace? 3) should “wagering on God” involve betting only on the Catholic faith? Objections to the wager have been given in the literature that rely on a whole host of deities on which to bet. 4) What are the values/utilities that the atheist or agnostic holds dearer than that of possible eternal salvation? Replies that address these questions thoughtfully, whether from the perspective of a believer or non-believer are eagerly awaited.

 

[JohnDamian]

Ex opere operantis denies the wager.

The disposition of the individual is essential in both sacraments and sacrementals; if the disposition is mercenary as implicit in the wager; the efficacy of the sacraments is negated.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Ex opere operantis denies the wager.

The disposition of the individual is essential in both sacraments and sacrementals; if the disposition is mercenary as implicit in the wager; the efficacy of the sacraments is negated.

Pascal doesn’t think that one can “choose” what to believe, although critics always assume that he does. Rather, he says you should “fake it till you make it”, a la Aristotle. Go to church, and see if the faith comes. If God is all-powerful, and you are open to belief, God will give you the power to believe, and the sacraments will do their work.

As far as “mercenary” motives go, a person acting on faith is not mercenary.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Ex opere operantis denies the wager.

The disposition of the individual is essential in

both

sacraments

and sacrementals; if the disposition is mercenary as implicit in the wager; the efficacy of the sacraments is negated.

I believe you have misstated the teaching of the Church, which holds that the sacraments are effective ex opere operato.
Their efficacy, however, may be *ex opere operantis *-- If the receipient is not properly disposed at the time of the sacrament, its graces may be withheld until such time as the recipient becomes properly disposed to receive them.

tee

 

[JohnDamian]

I believe you have misstated the teaching of the Church, which holds that the sacraments are effective ex opere operato.

tee

I am sorry; but you are confusing Ex opere operato with Ex opere operantis. In the same way as a sacramental operates Ex opera operantis; the efficacy of Sacraments pressupposes disposition;

According to CCC 1131; “…They [Sacraments] Bear fruit in those who recieve them with the required dispositions”

You are right to point out that ex opere operato the grace of the minister is irrelevant; but the disposition of the recipient is. Many people get confused on this point so don’t worry.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I am sorry; but you are confusing Ex opere operato with Ex opere operantis. In the same way as a sacramental operates Ex opera operantis; the efficacy of Sacraments pressupposes disposition;

According to CCC 1131; “…They [Sacraments] Bear fruit in those who recieve them with the required dispositions”

You are right to point out that ex opere operato the grace of the minister is irrelevant; but the disposition of the recipient is. Many people get confused on this point so don’t worry.

No need to apologize for confusion on my part, for there is none – Skip back to CCC 1128:

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

Perhaps you and I and/or the Church are merely emphasizing different points?

The sacraments are *ex opere operato *-- They are worked by their being worked. If a person, eg, is Confirmed by the bishop, even if he not be properly disposed, the recipient becomes Confirmed and cannot be Confirmed again.

However: If he not be properly disposed, he may not receive the graces of the sacrament until such time, if any, that he becomes properly disposed.

tee

 

[JohnDamian]

However: If he not be properly disposed, he may not receive the graces of the sacrament until such time, if any, that he becomes properly disposed.

tee

Absolutely. It is not per se from the work done alone. But through the disposition of the individual. In the same way as Sacramentals work Ex opere operantis; without the disposition the efficacy is delayed until such a time (if there is such a time) as the disposition of the individuals is appropriate.

As certain Sacraments leave indellible marks; it is necessarily the case that these cannot be replicated; as as soon as the disposition is present in the individual the efficacy is restored. However; it is not done through the work alone.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Not much time to comment today, but of all the arguments for believing in God, this, as far as I know, is the only one Bertrand Russell did not attack. As an expert logician, one would have expected him to take a stab at demolishing Pascal if he had seen some reason to do so.

 

[Anselm33]

Ex opere operantis denies the wager.
The disposition of the individual is essential in both sacraments and sacrementals; if the disposition is mercenary as implicit in the wager; the efficacy of the sacraments is negated.

I find your reply surprising and disturbing. Pascal goes on to say that practice will lead (eventually) to a deep and rationally based belief. Are you saying (I’m ignoring the Latin) that if one bets on heavenly reward (God), practices all the Christian virtues–charity, morality, etc.–that he/she is still doomed to Hell? That if one wills to belief, even though it may come hard, one is still an unbeliever? This seems to me to be a fideistic attitude. One of the great things about Catholic faith (to me) is that it travels on the two wings of faith and reason (to quote John Paul II). Further, to paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas (I don’t remember the exact quote) there are certain things we know by both faith and reason (that there is a God); there are some things that we know by faith alone (e.g the Holy Trinity). That which we know by both faith and reason confirms that known by faith alone.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not much time to comment today, but of all the arguments for believing in God, this, as far as I know, is the only one Bertrand Russell did not attack. As an expert logician, one would have expected him to take a stab at demolishing Pascal if he had seen some reason to do so.

Actually, as Hitchens points out here, he did respond to Pascal’s wager. If confronted with his maker, he said he’d point out that God didn’t give us enough evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck
*
Actually, as Hitchens points out here, he did respond to Pascal’s wager.*

Hitchens points out no such thing. Listen to Hitchens again. He doesn’t cite Russell’s remarks as a direct answer to Pascal’s wager. In fact, I have surveyed much of Russell’s writings and have never seen him address Pascal directly. If you have found such a passage, please let us know. But don’t be taking Hitchens as a spokesman for Russell when he is only pretending that this would be Russell’s answer to Pascal.

When Russell insists that he would tell God there was not enough evidence, he is not even touching Pascal’s argument. Hitchens is too shallow to realize that. Pascal’s argument is not based on evidence at all. It is based on personal self interest being advanced by taking no chances with unbelief. Hitchens then segues (neatly sidesteps) Russell’s remark by getting into the point that God should be able to forgive an honest assessment that God does not exist. Why is that an argument? God might just as well answer that Pascal’s argument was reason enough to believe. Or God might have answered that the fool in his heart says there is no God. In other words, Hitchens fooled himself … which translated into the bottom line means that he lied to himself when he said there is no God.

“Thou shalt no bear false witness” … not only to others, but to yourself. In this case, not a white lie, but a colossal one indicating you want nothing to do with God … wish granted! Hellzapoppin!

 

[Betterave]

Moonstruck
*
Actually, as Hitchens points out here, he did respond to Pascal’s wager.*

Hitchens points out no such thing. Listen to Hitchens again. He doesn’t cite Russell’s remarks as a direct answer to Pascal’s wager. In fact, I have surveyed much of Russell’s writings and have never seen him address Pascal directly. If you have found such a passage, please let us know. But don’t be taking Hitchens as a spokesman for Russell when he is only pretending that this would be Russell’s answer to Pascal.

When Russell insists that he would tell God there was not enough evidence, he is not even touching Pascal’s argument. Hitchens is too shallow to realize that. Pascal’s argument is not based on evidence at all. It is based on personal self interest being advanced by taking no chances with unbelief. Hitchens then segues (neatly sidesteps) Russell’s remark by getting into the point that God should be able to forgive an honest assessment that God does not exist. Why is that an argument? God might just as well answer that Pascal’s argument was reason enough to believe. Or God might have answered that the fool in his heart says there is no God. In other words, Hitchens fooled himself … which translated into the bottom line means that he lied to himself when he said there is no God.

“Thou shalt no bear false witness” … not only to others, but to yourself. In this case, not a white lie, but a colossal one indicating you want nothing to do with God … wish granted! Hellzapoppin!

Nice post. I’d wager you know what you’re talking about on this one.

 

[Betterave]

1. what actions should “wagering on God” entail? Pascal, in the Pensees that discuss, this advises the non-believer who wants to bet, to go to Mass, etc. …Can one go through the motions of belief without belief as given by grace?

Of course one can. And I have no doubt that many many people take this path to arrive at grace. There is nothing wrong with a mercenary disposition. Why do mercenaries always get such a bad rap?

1. should “wagering on God” involve betting only on the Catholic faith? Objections to the wager have been given in the literature that rely on a whole host of deities on which to bet.

No, there is no reason to make such a restriction. It seems to me that according to the wager it is simply foolish not to seek to know God.

1. What are the values/utilities that the atheist or agnostic holds dearer than that of possible eternal salvation? Replies that address these questions thoughtfully, whether from the perspective of a believer or non-believer are eagerly awaited.

Ban on discussing atheism.

 

[greylorn]

Hello all-
I’ve looked at the previous thread on this topic and it didn’t seem to offer answers to the questions I have–1) an infinite reward (utility) raises problems in any sort of decision analysis theoretic context; for example one can use a mixed strategy with a non-zero probability of wagering on God (again, as an example, use a coin toss to decide, and the expectation value will still be infinite); 2) what actions should “wagering on God” entail? Pascal, in the Pensees that discuss, this advises the non-believer who wants to bet, to go to Mass, etc. …Can one go through the motions of belief without belief as given by grace? 3) should “wagering on God” involve betting only on the Catholic faith? Objections to the wager have been given in the literature that rely on a whole host of deities on which to bet. 4) What are the values/utilities that the atheist or agnostic holds dearer than that of possible eternal salvation? Replies that address these questions thoughtfully, whether from the perspective of a believer or non-believer are eagerly awaited.

You are overthinking the problem, and even worse, doing it from a conventional perspective. I posted on one PW thread last year,maybe before, and might even have initiated a thread. Find my solution there.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck
*
Actually, as Hitchens points out here, he did respond to Pascal’s wager.*

Hitchens points out no such thing. Listen to Hitchens again. He doesn’t cite Russell’s remarks as a direct answer to Pascal’s wager. In fact, I have surveyed much of Russell’s writings and have never seen him address Pascal directly. If you have found such a passage, please let us know. But don’t be taking Hitchens as a spokesman for Russell when he is only pretending that this would be Russell’s answer to Pascal.

It doesn’t matter whether he purposefully addresses Pascal directly or not. Discussing what you would say to your maker when you turned out to be wrong about his existence is still a response to that subject, and Russell spoke many times on the subject of lack of evidence to back up his a-religious stance.

It is based on personal self interest being advanced by taking no chances with unbelief.

Exactly, and it has about as much chance of fooling an omnipotent and omniscient God as you or I do of being the first man to travel to the Galaxy in Andromeda.

Hitchens then segues (neatly sidesteps) Russell’s remark by getting into the point that God should be able to forgive an honest assessment that God does not exist. Why is that an argument?

It is based on the notion that God is compassionate and values honesty and integrity. If God is not, then why are you worshipping him?

God might just as well answer that Pascal’s argument was reason enough to believe.

Pascal seemed to think so.

Or God might have answered that the fool in his heart says there is no God. In other words, Hitchens fooled himself … which translated into the bottom line means that he lied to himself when he said there is no God.

Flowery, semi-eloquent sentiments, yet vague and meaningless.

“Thou shalt no bear false witness” … not only to others, but to yourself. In this case, not a white lie, but a colossal one indicating you want nothing to do with God … wish granted! Hellzapoppin!

How can you bear false witness if you tell what to the best of your knowledge is the truth?

It is Blaise Pascal’s disciples who are bearing false witness when they make fawning supplication to a being that they do not believe exists and it is very hard to believe that an entity with the power and intelligence that has been attributed to God would fall for such a shabby and shallow confidence trick.

It is Pascal himself and his followers who are quite literally suggesting making an attempt to bear false witness directly to God himself. I’d say that’s a pretty dangerous game to play, far more dangerous than simply not being able to believe in God.

 

[Anselm33]

It is Blaise Pascal’s disciples who are bearing false witness when they make fawning supplication to a being that they do not believe exists and it is very hard to believe that an entity with the power and intelligence that has been attributed to God would fall for such a shabby and shallow confidence trick.

It is Pascal himself and his followers who are quite literally suggesting making an attempt to bear false witness directly to God himself. I’d say that’s a pretty dangerous game to play, far more dangerous than simply not being able to believe in God.

I’m not sure you understand what Pascal was saying. If you go back to Pensees, where he advises the unbeliever who prudentially “bets on God”, to follow practices of faith, he (Pascal) suggests that a prudentially based faith will come, if one practices faith. As the biblical quote goes, “I believe Lord, help Thou my unbelief.”, I think you attribute to God human characteristics of petty judgment, when you say that God will look on efforts to achieve faith as a “confidence trick”. Indeed, if you do believe that there is a possibility of an afterlife, that gives a non-zero probability that God exists, so the two features are not in fact independent (in the probabilistic sense of independent).
Also, sorry for asking what values atheists and agnostics might prefer to a belief in God…I didn’t realize what the ban on discussing atheism entailed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

It is based on the notion that God is compassionate and values honesty and integrity. If God is not, then why are you worshipping him?

Dishonesty does not deserve compassion.
*
How can you bear false witness if you tell what to the best of your knowledge is the truth? *

That is a cop-out. The best of our knowledge offers no proof that God does not exist. Even if there were no evidence either way, it is more judicious to believe than not. That is Pascal’s argument. We don’t get a free pass for nobility by comforting ourselves with the illusion that God does not exist based on no evidence whatever, and then expecting God to deny one’s fondest wish … which is to have nothing more to do with Him through all eternity.

Wish granted.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Anselm

I think you attribute to God human characteristics of petty judgment, when you say that God will look on efforts to achieve faith as a “confidence trick”.

Agreed. And that is why even deathbed conversions should not be regarded as confidence games. On our deathbed God has given us the opportunity to say yea or nay one last time. The urgency of that moment might make it seem like Pascal’s wager up close and personal. But who knows what goes on in the heart of a deathbed convert? If the moment is not sincere, God will know, even if we ourselves don’t.

 

[Betterave]

How can you bear false witness if you tell what to the best of your knowledge is the truth?

Moon, yes, you have misunderstood Pascal’s argument. In its most general form his argument is that to the best of our knowledge 1) it is possible that God exists, and 2) that given this possibility it is foolish not to try to learn to know Him.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’m not sure you understand what Pascal was saying. If you go back to Pensees, where he advises the unbeliever who prudentially “bets on God”, to follow practices of faith, he (Pascal) suggests that a prudentially based faith will come, if one practices faith. As the biblical quote goes, “I believe Lord, help Thou my unbelief.”

So what you are saying is that Pascal’s penser was an imperative for the atheist who simply could not believe to feign belief in the hope that one day he would have some kind of epiphany before his death?

I think you attribute to God human characteristics of petty judgment, when you say that God will look on efforts to achieve faith as a “confidence trick”. Indeed, if you do believe that there is a possibility of an afterlife, that gives a non-zero probability that God exists, so the two features are not in fact independent (in the probabilistic sense of independent).

I don’t know about other people, but speaking to myself I cannot try to believe in God. For one thing, I don’t see how I could be certain which of the multitude of proposed deities I should favour to try to believe in. For another, the things I have seen in my life have convinced me beyond any hope of epiphany that there can be no God.

Also, sorry for asking what values atheists and agnostics might prefer to a belief in God…I didn’t realize what the ban on discussing atheism entailed.

I think that if I practiced a belief in God despite not believing in God, something that around forty percent of the clergy do in the Anglican Church including the Archbishop of Canterbury in order to have a beautiful house and company car laid on, I’d be guilty of hypocrisy.

I have nothing against anyone who genuinely believe in God, but atheists who profit from a pretense at belief in God are, to me, a particularly dishonest and shabby bunch.