Pascal's Wager Once More

[JohnDamian]

JohnDamien

You never answered the question I posed to you at the end of post # 51. Was Jesus Christ a liar along with Pascal?

Sorry; I missed that part.

No; Jesus was not a liar.

However; Pascal is not advocating Christ; he is advocating indulging in the sin of deciet for a relitivistic purpose. His “wager” is soundly against Church teaching on morality; as it seperates us from God and prevents us from having the Sacraments.

John, interesting comments but… How can you separate fear of hell from hatred of sin, if you understand that sin is what leads to hell? And then how can you separate avoiding sin from hatred of sin? And finally how have you managed to join avoiding sin with indulgence in a lie? That seems plainly contradictory and was surely not what Pascal was recommending. Specifically what lie(s) do you think Pascal was advocating?

Firstly; see this analogy; avoiding drinking alcahol is not the same as hating alcahol. We must hate sin for an act of contrition to occur; the perfecter of that act being the love of God; and the lesser perfecter being the fear for ourselves. However; the unqualified act; prior to perfection nessecarily pressuposes a hatred of sin. Without this hatred of Sin we can make no Contrition; as the perfecter is only an accidental predicate.

Secondarily; a person who pursues the Sacraments out of fear alone does not have the correct disposition to recieve them – ex opere operantis the efficacy of the Sacraments is witheld. This is clearly a bearing of false witness to oneself and to ones brothers and sisters against the eighth commandment.

Pascal is encouraging people to pursue Sacraments without the correct disposition; so in effect his is encouraging people to place themselves not only in grave (possibly mortal) sin; but preventing the person from cultivating the correct disposition of the faith; so that they may have contrition; so that they may have efficacy in the Sacraments. Pascal’s “wager” diminishes the value of the Sacrament’s, and encourages people to take them in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. In such a capacity; he is a scoundrel.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

His “wager” is soundly against Church teaching on morality; as it seperates us from God and prevents us from having the Sacraments.

His wager does not prevent us from having the sacraments. Atheism does prevent us from having the sacraments. Pascal’s wager disposes to the atheist that he should come closer to God, not separate from Him.

You still haven’t answered the question in post # 51. Is Christ offering the carrot and the stick or not? That is all Pascal is doing with the atheist. There is no lie here at all. Despise God and you will lose everything “get the stick”. Reject Jesus and you will get the stick. Those are Jesus’ own words, not Pascal’s.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

John,

 You aren't thinking logically. An atheist who decides to "cash in" on the wager would first have to enter into an RCIA program before baptism. While taking the necessary steps to join the church, he/she will be surrounding themselves with people who are in the proper disposition to receive the sacraments, will educate the atheist on matters of faith and morals, and will provide positive influence on the development of his/her soul...watering the seed so to speak. Human beings are social animals and we tend to assimilate to each other and form social groups. Good things happen when you surround yourself with good people. Their graces can rub off or become contagious. The atheist may initially join RCIA out of fear of hell, and then blossom into a full appreciation and love of God. This is what we, as supporters of the wager, hope for. This can only be done (a true conversion) by the grace of God, but God's grace isn't as effective to an individual when he/she is not surrounded by people who are in full communion with the Holy Spirit. In other words, God very often, in the form of the Holy Spirit, works through other people to reach out to the lost.

You assume people cannot change, and that they will “gamble till the grave” when, I’m sure God won’t allow this. If God sees the someone take the necessary steps to seek Him out, he will reveal Himself to that person via natural or supernatural means–this comes from your hero Aquinas. God wills all men to be saved (Timothy) via what ever means available, and with God all things are possible. Don’t doubt God, and don’t pretend to have the arrogance that God did not work through Pascal to save souls or that Pascal is a scoundrel…that’s uncharitable. I’m sure Blaise is in heaven right now laughing at this conversation.

 

[JohnDamian]

JohnHis wager does not prevent us from having the sacraments. Atheism does prevent us from having the sacraments. Pascal’s wager disposes to the atheist that he should come closer to God, not separate from Him.

Pascals wager encourages incredulity for eternal reward; this is repugnant.

You still haven’t answered the question in post # 51. Is Christ offering the carrot and the stick or not? That is all Pascal is doing with the atheist. There is no lie here at all. Despise God and you will lose everything “get the stick”. Reject Jesus and you will get the stick. Those are Jesus’ own words, not Pascal’s.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

It is not acknowledging Jesus before others when one’s actions yearn only for material reward.

You aren’t thinking logically. An atheist who decides to “cash in” on the wager would first have to enter into an RCIA program before baptism. While taking the necessary steps to join the church, he/she will be surrounding themselves with people who are in the proper disposition to receive the sacraments, will educate the atheist on matters of faith and morals, and will provide positive influence on the development of his/her soul…watering the seed so to speak. Human beings are social animals and we tend to assimilate to each other and form social groups. Good things happen when you surround yourself with good people. Their graces can rub off or become contagious. The atheist may initially join RCIA out of fear of hell, and then blossom into a full appreciation and love of God. This is what we, as supporters of the wager, hope for. This can only be done (a true conversion) by the grace of God, but God’s grace isn’t as effective to an individual when he/she is not surrounded by people who are in full communion with the Holy Spirit. In other words, God very often, in the form of the Holy Spirit, works through other people to reach out to the lost.

You raise a good point dostoyevskyfan; however it is palpably clear that the essence of Pascals thought is to promote a divergence from belief to praxis; which itself constitutes a grave sin against the eighth commandment. I do see that some good may come of a person who is initially selfish immersing themselves in community such as in RCIA; however this mild good does not justify a grave sin against the eighth commandment; to say so would be moral relitivism. The means (in this case selfish and dishonest) do not justify the ends (no matter how good).

You assume people cannot change, and that they will “gamble till the grave” when, I’m sure God won’t allow this. If God sees the someone take the necessary steps to seek Him out, he will reveal Himself to that person via natural or supernatural means–this comes from your hero Aquinas. God wills all men to be saved (Timothy) via what ever means available

To say God want’s people to be “what ever means available” when combined with omnipotence would essentially mean we would be robbed of free will as this “means” is a potential contrary to becomming saved. Nb; Aquinas - a good academic though he was is certainly not my hero

Don’t doubt God, and don’t pretend to have the arrogance that God did not work through Pascal to save souls or that Pascal is a scoundrel…that’s uncharitable. I’m sure Blaise is in heaven right now laughing at this conversation.

I admit that saying Pascal was a scoundrel was somewhat uncharitable. However; I give him credit as an intelligent individual and I cannot see how he could reconcile such an absurd relitivism against the teachings of the Doctors of the Church like Peter Damian; Augustine; Aquinas and so forth. It boggles the mind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John,

Pascal was merely paving the way for the atheist to ultimately find perfect contrition, the contrition that you say Pascal denied was necessary. If you can find such a passage in Pascal, please let me know. Pascal never says that we stop growing spiritually at the level of waging that God exists.

Rather, what Pascal proposed to the atheist in the wager argument is no less than what the Catechism of the Catholic Church approves as a first step toward salvation. See the last part of the last sentence below.

*1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.

1453 The contrition called “imperfect” (or “attrition”) is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.52 *

 

[Betterave]

Firstly; see this analogy; avoiding drinking alcahol is not the same as hating alcahol. We must hate sin for an act of contrition to occur; the perfecter of that act being the love of God; and the lesser perfecter being the fear for ourselves. However; the unqualified act; prior to perfection nessecarily pressuposes a hatred of sin. Without this hatred of Sin we can make no Contrition; as the perfecter is only an accidental predicate.

Secondarily; a person who pursues the Sacraments out of fear alone does not have the correct disposition to recieve them – ex opere operantis the efficacy of the Sacraments is witheld. This is clearly a bearing of false witness to oneself and to ones brothers and sisters against the eighth commandment.

Pascal is encouraging people to pursue Sacraments without the correct disposition; so in effect his is encouraging people to place themselves not only in grave (possibly mortal) sin; but preventing the person from cultivating the correct disposition of the faith; so that they may have contrition; so that they may have efficacy in the Sacraments. Pascal’s “wager” diminishes the value of the Sacrament’s, and encourages people to take them in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. In such a capacity; he is a scoundrel.

Well, no - see Charlemagne’s quote from the CCC: a sufficient disposition of contrition for the sacrament of penance is fear of hell, and if you think of the baptismal formula it is necessary to *renounce *sin, not necessarily to *hate *it with all of your being - the latter standard would imply that only true saints could be baptised! In the context here, hating sin is necessary only in the sense of renouncing it, i.e., resolving to avoid it (as a matter of obedience to God).

Also you did not answer my question: how could Pascal advocate avoiding sin by indulging in a lie? That’s nonsensical.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, no - see Charlemagne’s quote from the CCC: a sufficient disposition of contrition for the sacrament of penance is fear of hell, and if you think of the baptismal formula it is necessary to renounce sin, not necessarily to hate it with all of your being - the latter standard would imply that only true saints could be baptised! In the context here, hating sin is necessary only in the sense of renouncing it, i.e., resolving to avoid it (as a matter of obedience to God).

Fearing hell per se presupposes a belief here; not a probabalistic gambit; ergo it would not constitute a contrition of any sort under CCC 1453. For an individual already in belief of hell; such a contrition would be valid; however if the ex opere operantis function of the penitent is only probabalistic in nature; that individual lacks the disposition to procure efficacy in the Sacraments.

Also you did not answer my question: how could Pascal advocate avoiding sin by indulging in a lie? That’s nonsensical.

I shall try to be clear; Pascal encourages us to probabalistically gamble against our dispositions; which calls upon us to act against out own beliefs; which in turn constitutes a grave sin against the eighth commandment; insofar as in acting in the wager as an atheist our act’s witness contrary to our present nature. The chance that the individual might be stirred or otherwise open themselves to the faith is irrelevant to the equasion; as encouraging people to witness against their own dispositions necessarily elicits a grave sin; which cannot be advocated for any end (even if the end is supposed greater) for this would constitute relitivism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I shall try to be clear; Pascal encourages us to probabalistically gamble against our dispositions; which calls upon us to act against out own beliefs; which in turn constitutes a grave sin against the eighth commandment; insofar as in acting in the wager as an atheist our act’s witness contrary to our present nature. The chance that the individual might be stirred or otherwise open themselves to the faith is irrelevant to the equasion; as encouraging people to witness against their own dispositions necessarily elicits a grave sin; which cannot be advocated for any end (even if the end is supposed greater) for this would constitute relitivism. *

O.K. With what exactly do you spike your tea?

If we choose God rather than no God, how can that be a sin? If we are disposed to a sinful life on the principle that there is no God and therefore there is no sin,sin and then we act against our disposition, is that also a sin? If we are disposed to believe in God for selfish reasons, is that a sin? If our disposition leads us in time and by the grace of God to sincere reception of the sacraments, is that a sin?

A disposition is nothing more than a preference, and we can change our preferences any time we want, as long as these changes lead us to God, and not *away *from God. Your argument seems to be saying that a disposition to atheism must be protected, even though the atheist may have doubts about his own disposition, or else why would he want to make the leap of faith?

Are you actually saying that atheists should not be persuaded to abandon their own disposition to unbelief, because if they did begin to believe (for whatever imperfect reason) they would be sinning?

Isn’t this to make a god of our dispositions, rather than to make our dispositions surrender to God?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I shall try to be clear; Pascal encourages us to probabalistically gamble against our dispositions; which calls upon us to act against out own beliefs; which in turn constitutes a grave sin against the eighth commandment; insofar as in acting in the wager as an atheist our act’s witness contrary to our present nature. The chance that the individual might be stirred or otherwise open themselves to the faith is irrelevant to the equasion; as encouraging people to witness against their own dispositions necessarily elicits a grave sin; which cannot be advocated for any end (even if the end is supposed greater) for this would constitute relitivism.

Technically in order to make Pascal’s wager in the first place, one would have to transition from strong atheism to a position of philosophical agnosticism…correct? One would have to accept the possibility that hell exists in order to wager to avoid it. In this sense, there is no “witness or testimony against their own disposition” because they are in a state of doubt and playing with probability. In this state, the individual is unsure whether or not reception of the sacraments in a state of doubt is itself a “grave sin” because they are in doubt about what constitutes “grave sin” or if “sin” really exists. They assume that it does exist and take the necessary steps to get rid of it…avoiding it and going to confession. They do not have full knowledge of the concept of “mortal sin” itself and therefore cannot commit it since to be in that state requires full knowledge of the concept itself.

But lets assume for the sake of your position that the “gambler”, for lack of a better term, remains in a state of strong atheism while joining the church and receiving the sacraments to avoid a hell they don’t believe exists just for the sheer absurdity of it all–the sheer absurdity and randomness of existence; because not joining the church and receiving the sacraments to avoid a hell they don’t believe exists is just as valid and worthwhile as the contrary, due to the fact that every action is ultimately arbitrary, futile, devoid of meaning, and even the subjective “invented meaning” of life that temporarily exists while alive that is so often used by such individuals to make a negative claim on the philosophical term, nihilism, terminates at the grave along with consciousness itself, these people also cannot possibly be in a state of “grave sin” by the definition of grave sin itself. This is the existential convert.

I don’t know what relativism has anything to do with what we are talking about. Could you please explain that? Does the spelling “relitivism” somehow change the meaning of the term I’m thinking of?

The way I see it and in my experience, realistically, one doesn’t just take the “leap of faith” from atheism to Catholicism. It is a very slow, gradual, and organic growth from strong atheism, to weak atheism, to philosophical agnosticism, to professing agnostic, to RCIA, to baptized Catholic who attends the the Novus Ordo mass, to daily mass/tridentine mass attendance. Is this not really how it works, unless you are the apostle Paul and are blessed by some kind of supernatural grace? Do you have any evidence from real life to the contrary??

 

[JohnDamian]

If we choose God rather than no God, how can that be a sin? If we are disposed to a sinful life on the principle that there is no God and therefore there is no sin,sin and then we act against our disposition, is that also a sin? If we are disposed to believe in God for selfish reasons, is that a sin? If our disposition leads us in time and by the grace of God to sincere reception of the sacraments, is that a sin?

It is only sinful in as much as it elicits a grave sin against the eighth commandment; that is to say it is only sinful in as much as it elicits a volition of praxis in a contrary way to the disposition of the intellect. However; this is not a per se universal occurance; however the general presentation of the “wager” per se is an advocation of praxis contrary to the intellect. Which constitutes contrarity and a sin against the eighth commandment.

A disposition is nothing more than a preference, and we can change our preferences any time we want, as long as these changes lead us to God, and not away from God. Your argument seems to be saying that a disposition to atheism must be protected, even though the atheist may have doubts about his own disposition, or else why would he want to make the leap of faith?

I am not saying the position of Atheist must be protected; but I am saying that eliciting a praxis contrary to the intellect; as is implicit in the “wager” constitutes a grave sin; and does not promote or foster per se a disposition required ex opere operantis for the efficacy of the Sacraments. By eliciting volitions of the intellect against the positive act of the will we are degrading the formal unicity therein; and a contrarity is formed. Now; the wager per se act’s upon praxis rather than conception; which is contrary to the disposition required for efficacy in the Sacraments. Thus; by setting the praxis before the conception; Pascal is disposing a contrarity that is (significantly) potentially prohibitative of efficacy in Baptism. This is unnacceptable.

Technically in order to make Pascal’s wager in the first place, one would have to transition from strong atheism to a position of philosophical agnosticism…correct? One would have to accept the possibility that hell exists in order to wager to avoid it.

That is an in general presupposition; it can be presupposed that the individual is acting from agnosticism; however such a presupposition incorrectly predicates the conception as an essential rather than accidental characteristic of the reader of the “wager”. The sheer probabalistic nature even in the case of the prior; necessarily disposes an individual contrary to sacramental efficacy; one is not disposed against hell; but against the possibility of a possible hell; this is clearly distinct.

They do not have full knowledge of the concept of “mortal sin” itself and therefore cannot commit it since to be in that state requires full knowledge of the concept itself.

Absolutely; which is why I have been using the term grave sin; rather than mortal: Gravity being one of the three prequisites of a mortal sin; so it is significantly greater than a per se venial sin; but substantially less than a mortal sin.

I don’t know what relativism has anything to do with what we are talking about. Could you please explain that? Does the spelling “relitivism” somehow change the meaning of the term I’m thinking of?

My appalling spelling is an accidental characteristic of my position.

The way I see it and in my experience, realistically, one doesn’t just take the “leap of faith” from atheism to Catholicism. It is a very slow, gradual, and organic growth from strong atheism, to weak atheism, to philosophical agnosticism, to professing agnostic, to RCIA, to baptized Catholic who attends the the Novus Ordo mass, to daily mass/tridentine mass attendance.

This is certainly the case; however all the wager does is dispose against the probabalistic conception of a possible hell for the thinker; it does not elicit in him the disposition required for efficacy; even under CCC1453. The problem I have with the wager is it places praxis above conception; and necessarily therein runs the risk of eliciting individuals to procure sacraments without the disposition required. The “wager” per se is a danger to the individuals recieving the sacrements; and it stunts and damages positive growth towards them; by it’s absurd emphasis on praxis. To cite “Follow the way by which they began; by acting *as if *they believed”.

Do you have any evidence from real life to the contrary??

As we know; unless we have a simple idea of the thing in itself; we shall never infer anything about it scientifically; that is to say; scientific knowlege can only know about an effect through it’s cause. It is clear from the conceived effect; that the cause of the wager is detrimental to right disposition.

This certainly is a challenging discussion…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

This certainly is a challenging discussion…

It would be even more challenging if you would just please please please tell me what you put in your blasted tea!

I am a simple man, and just cannot overcome the language barrier, unless I get drunk on scholasticism. The stuff you are drinking is at least 8 centuries old!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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.

When Pascal penned the “wager”, he was in a position of knowing himself that God existed with absolute certainty. He had his experience of “Fire” of which he left the well known parchment sewn into his cloak.

"In the year of grace, 1654, on Monday, 23rd of November, Feast of St Clement, Pope and Martyr, and others in the Martyrology. Vigil of St Chrysogonus, Martyr, and others.
From about half past ten in the evening until about half past twelve.

Fire!
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,
Not of the philosophers and scholars.
Certitude. Certitude. Feeling. Joy. Peace.
God of Jesus Christ.
“Thy God and my God.”
Forgetfulness of the world and of everything, except God.
He is to be found only in the ways taught in the Gospel.
Greatness of the Human Soul.

“Righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee,
But I have known Thee.”

Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy. …" etc.

So when Pascal wrote the wager, he wasn’t writing from a detached scholastic viewpoint, but from the situation of someone who knew with absolute certainty that God existed.

By virtue of the same personal certainty, he knew the fate for those who resisted God.

The wager was a plea for them to save themselves, basically.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bob

*The wager was a plea for them to save themselves, basically. *

Yes, because Pascal surely knew that atheists, undeveloped spiritually, must believe first that they can save themselves before they can be brought around to the notion that only the grace of God can save them.

 

[Anselm33]

When Pascal penned the “wager”, he was in a position of knowing himself that God existed with absolute certainty. He had his experience of “Fire” of which he left the well known parchment sewn into his cloak.

Thank you bob. That was fine and says it all.

 

[ab75]

I will have to say if heAven and hell are the way we imagine them as 2 complete absolutes of perfectionfor eternity and it makes our life so insignificant. Match that with the greatest act of love being to give up your life for another and the fact that so many kids fall away makes me sometimes feel like taking your kids life after baptism and accepting he’ll so they can have eternal life is the most lovingthing you can do.

Obviously I would never do this, but it is the hardest block for me to intellectually accept that we’ll watch the majority of souls being tormented forever.

 

[JohnDamian]

John

This certainly is a challenging discussion…

It would be even more challenging if you would just please please please tell me what you put in your blasted tea!

I am a simple man, and just cannot overcome the language barrier, unless I get drunk on scholasticism. The stuff you are drinking is at least 8 centuries old!

Hehe; one part Aquinas; two parts Peter Damian; three parts Bonaventure and twenty parts Scotus.

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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ab75

*Obviously I would never do this, but it is the hardest block for me to intellectually accept that we’ll watch the majority of souls being tormented forever. *

Just as intellectually hard to accept why anybody would choose hell forever when they could choose heaven forever.

But there it is.

 

[ab75]

ab75

*Obviously I would never do this, but it is the hardest block for me to intellectually accept that we’ll watch the majority of souls being tormented forever. *

Just as intellectually hard to accept why anybody would choose hell forever when they could choose heaven forever.

But there it is.

To ensure those I love don’t have to endure it. I love and trust God to much to act, but it’s also the reason that if traditional teaching is correct, and few are saved, abortion is the most merciful act committed.

However I couldn’t be more pro- life, but that is thinking for this world, not eternity.

 

[ab75]

To ensure those I love don’t have to endure it. I love and trust God to much to act, but it’s also the reason that if traditional teaching is correct, and few are saved, abortion is the most merciful act committed.

However I couldn’t be more pro- life, but that is thinking for this world, not eternity.

Also, just to be clear, I completely trust God to help us raise our kids to reach their potential, I just think
this personally shows me that pope jp2 was on base when he indicated he’ll isn’t a “place” and we shouldn’t let biblical imagery to cause anxiety. That doesn’t mean it’s not serious or real, just not something the humankind can fully grasp.

 

[Betterave]

It is only sinful in as much as it elicits a grave sin against the eighth commandment; that is to say it is only sinful in as much as it elicits a volition of praxis in a contrary way to the disposition of the intellect. However; this is not a per se universal occurance; however the general presentation of the “wager” per se is an advocation of praxis contrary to the intellect. Which constitutes contrarity and a sin against the eighth commandment.

So you say… but what makes you think Pascal says this or that it is a realistic psychological possibility? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Pascal is quite clear that the wager (on Jesus Christ) is for those who are rational enough to see that atheism may be false and who care enough about themselves to be genuinely concerned about the corresponding possible liability of their going to hell.

You are supposing that it is possible to acknowledge - to squarely face - the real possibility of going to hell/missing out on heaven without actually caring which way one actually goes. For those who really don’t care either way, the wager won’t be any kind of encitement to action anyway, false or otherwise. 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.