Pascal's Wager Redux

[Randy_Carson]

Pascal argued:

A. Either God exists or He does not, and either you choose to believe Him or you do not.
B. When you combine these two truths, there are only four logical possibilities.

1. 
   *]You believe in God, and He exists.
   *]You believe in God and He does not exist.
   *]You don’t believe in God, and He exists.
   *]You don’t believe in God, and He does not exist.
   
   C. If you believe in God, and you’re right, you will enjoy unimaginable happiness forever.
   D. If you believe in God, and you’re wrong, you will never know you were wrong. When you die, you will simply cease to exist.
   E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.
   F. If you don’t believe in God, and you are right, you will never know you were right. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. Further, you will not even have the satisfaction of knowing that you were right.
   G. These are the only four reasonable outcomes. You will be in one of these four situations after death.
   H. At present, you have partial control over the outcome.
   I. You cannot abstain from choosing.
   J. The believer has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The non-believer has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing.
   K. Not believing is the most foolish option.
   L. Therefore, believing in God is the safest course of action.

 

[STT]

Pascal argued:

A. Either God exists or He does not, and either you choose to believe Him or you do not.
B. When you combine these two truths, there are only four logical possibilities.

1. 
   *]You believe in God, and He exists.
   *]You believe in God and He does not exist.
   *]You don’t believe in God, and He exists.
   *]You don’t believe in God, and He does not exist.
   
   C. If you believe in God, and you’re right, you will enjoy unimaginable happiness forever.
   D. If you believe in God, and you’re wrong, you will never know you were wrong. When you die, you will simply cease to exist.
   E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.
   F. If you don’t believe in God, and you are right, you will never know you were right. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. Further, you will not even have the satisfaction of knowing that you were right.
   G. These are the only four reasonable outcomes. You will be in one of these four situations after death.
   H. At present, you have partial control over the outcome.
   I. You cannot abstain from choosing.
   J. The believer has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The non-believer has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing.
   K. Not believing is the most foolish option.
   L. Therefore, believing in God is the safest course of action.

1. 
   I have problem with E. How could you justify that?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

One can not simply will oneself into belief. I can’t believe politician X even if his or her promises would benefit me. I can’t will myself to believe female celebrity Y is into 43-year-old guys who work in tech support even if that would give me a great level of optimism

“E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.” also underlines something which I call The Problem of Punishment For Reasonable Disbelief. Even though I am not a Christian the issue of a god is nebulous enough that I think a reasonable person can be a Christian (or a slew of other faiths). Some may not think so, but I suspect that some believers would say a reasonable person can be an atheist even if they disagree with that person.

In short, a reasonable person can be punishment (if E were true) could be punished eternally for being reasonable and just coming to a different reasonable conclusion.

 

[Bradski]

As Mike says, you don’t have a choice whether to believe or not.

If I give you some evidence about anything - the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods…whatever, you will either consider the evidence to be reasonable or not. So you will either accept it or reject it to a certain extent. That then defines your belief about the matter.

It is impossible to believe something if you have rejected evidence about it and equally impossible to disbelieve something if you accept the evidence.

Randy believes in God because he accepts a certain amount of evidence for His existence. Mike doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t find the evidence compelling. Neither of them have a choice in the matter whatsoever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have problem with E. How could you justify that?

I begin by pointing out that Jesus, who is God, said the following:

Matthew 25:31-46

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

One can not simply will oneself into belief. I can’t believe politician X even if his or her promises would benefit me. I can’t will myself to believe female celebrity Y is into 43-year-old guys who work in tech support even if that would give me a great level of optimism

Perhaps. But you can act in accordance with one set of principles as opposed to another. You can behave as if God existed rather than simply going on about your business as if he does not. How? Go to church. Pray. Give to the poor. And so forth. IOW, you can DO those things that scripture tells us to do simply because you think it might be possible that God exists even if you are not sure that He really does. Such behavior will not fail to have an effect upon the will and emotions which would lead one to a true faith position.

“E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.” also underlines something which I call The Problem of Punishment For Reasonable Disbelief. Even though I am not a Christian the issue of a god is nebulous enough that I think a reasonable person can be a Christian (or a slew of other faiths). Some may not think so, but I suspect that some believers would say a reasonable person can be an atheist even if they disagree with that person.

In short, a reasonable person can be punishment (if E were true) could be punished eternally for being reasonable and just coming to a different reasonable conclusion.

I disagree; I do not think that a person can reasonably be an atheist; I think that most (if not all atheists) have a problem with reasoning objectively. Since we were created by God for God, I do not think it is possible for anyone to deny that God exists without having some agenda of their own at work.

It might be reasonable for an ignorant person to be an atheist for a finite period of time, but an honest person who is willing to seek God sincerely should move beyond this stage relatively quickly.

 

[Bradski]

It might be reasonable for an ignorant person to be an atheist for a finite period of time, but an honest person who is willing to seek God sincerely should move beyond this stage relatively quickly.

If you are ignorant of God, then you cannot be an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God (all gods to be more accurate). You cannot actively disbelieve in something without having knowledge of that something.

And if you don’t believe something exists, why on earth would you want to seek it out?

Bizarre…

 

[puzzledtoo]

In my opinion E is only true if in the Christian viewpoint of god is true.I read a post from one of our Jewish posters that where he wrote we that we are not damned to begin with so there is no reason to be saved(paraphrase).
There are so many different beliefs out there about god or gods that I’m sure not all believe if one doesn’t believe in god that one is damned for eternity. Judaism and Deism(writing as someone who no extremely little of either)are a couple.
I believe in a divine presence. or the divinity in each of us(god?). In the way I view “god” there is no room for eternal damnation from some supreme being.
E does not apply.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Perhaps. But you can act in accordance with one set of principles as opposed to another. You can behave as if God existed rather than simply going on about your business as if he does not. How? Go to church. Pray. Give to the poor. And so forth. IOW, you can DO those things that scripture tells us to do simply because you think it might be possible that God exists even if you are not sure that He really does. Such behavior will not fail to have an effect upon the will and emotions which would lead one to a true faith position.

This raises further questions:

1. Would God not know I am going through the motions?
2. What benefit would come if I, someone who doesn’t believe there is enough evidence of the Catholic god, get from praying or going to church other than going through motions? Giving to the poor I already do. That can be done independently of being a Christian.
3. You say that going to Church and praying to the god of Catholicism will affect my will and emotions towards Catholicism. (You also included giving to the poor as something that will lead one to Catholicism, but that is not the case.) But let’s say that going to church regularly and praying increases the chances I (re-)take up Catholicism. Wouldn’t the same possibility of conversion also occur if I immersed myself in a different faith? If I were to move to Saudi Arabia and I regularly went to a mosque and prayed to Allah, I might also convert to Islam. The same is true for following other faith practices. This shows that if attending a Catholic church (something I did in my formative years) and praying nudged one toward Catholicism, then it isn’t because Catholicism is the “true faith position” but because the power of familiarity, repetition, and ritual (of any faith position)has on the psyche.
4. If I were to go through the motions and regularly attend a Catholic Church and prayed, but still found the faith incredibly wanting would I not still be eternally punished for a reasonable disbelief?
5. Why should I go through the motions of just Catholicism? Other faith traditions also have their own verisons of Pascal’s Wager. Catholicism and Christianity in general is certainly by no means unique in that regard.

I disagree; I do not think that a person can reasonably be an atheist; I think that most (if not all atheists) have a problem with reasoning objectively. Since we were created by God for God, I do not think it is possible for anyone to deny that God exists without having some agenda of their own at work.

Despite your assertion I can reason objectively and have gone into this with an open mind. I hope the many posts I’ve made on CAF can attest to that. It’s just that the responses to questions and statements that I and other non-Christians have made have been insufficient to put it mildly. Even if I were to follow the practices of only the largest faith traditions that would be too much to make sure I was doing right by all possible gods.

It might be reasonable for an ignorant person to be an atheist for a finite period of time, but an honest person who is willing to seek God sincerely should move beyond this stage relatively quickly.

Again despite your assertions I am neither ignorant nor dishonest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As Mike says, you don’t have a choice whether to believe or not.

If I give you some evidence about anything - the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods…whatever, you will either consider the evidence to be reasonable or not. So you will either accept it or reject it to a certain extent. That then defines your belief about the matter.

It is impossible to believe something if you have rejected evidence about it and equally impossible to disbelieve something if you accept the evidence.

Randy believes in God because he accepts a certain amount of evidence for His existence. Mike doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t find the evidence compelling. Neither of them have a choice in the matter whatsoever.

I think the crux of the matter is the degree to which one is certain of one’s position. Here, atheism is at its weakest point, for no one can prove a negative. Without absolute certainty that God does not exist, the atheist is foolish to wager against Him.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As Mike says, you don’t have a choice whether to believe or not.

If I give you some evidence about anything - the existence of aliens, unicorns, gods…whatever, you will either consider the evidence to be reasonable or not. So you will either accept it or reject it to a certain extent. That then defines your belief about the matter.

It is impossible to believe something if you have rejected evidence about it and equally impossible to disbelieve something if you accept the evidence.

Randy believes in God because he accepts a certain amount of evidence for His existence. Mike doesn’t believe in God because he doesn’t find the evidence compelling. Neither of them have a choice in the matter whatsoever.

Typical atheistic determinism vs Christian free will.

 

[STT]

I begin by pointing out that Jesus, who is God, said the following:

Matthew 25:31-46

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

That is problematic my friend. One has to believe in Bible in order to accept E otherwise E does not apply to him/her.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the crux of the matter is the degree to which one is certain of one’s position. Here, atheism is at its weakest point, for no one can prove a negative. Without absolute certainty that God does not exist, the atheist is foolish to wager against Him.

PascaL himself argued that the reasons of the head do not compare with the reasons of the heart.

Any fool (as in “the fool in his heart says there is no God”) can persuade himself using pure reason that there is no God. But it is the reason of the heart that cries out to believe. Only by the most unnatural perversion of logic can anyone resist that cry. This is why to choose atheism is to deliberately choose an eternal hell of one’s own making, not God’s.

The atheist is simply saying, I want nothing to do with God. So God says, Have it your way.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you are ignorant of God, then you cannot be an atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God (all gods to be more accurate). You cannot actively disbelieve in something without having knowledge of that something.

And if you don’t believe something exists, why on earth would you want to seek it out?

Bizarre…

I have spoken with lots of atheists who know some things about the theist concept of God, but they reject that God exists because they are unconvinced by what they presently know.

However, there is more that they do not know (such as the fact that He actually exists); hence, they are both ignorant and atheist. How could anyone have full knowledge of God and remain an atheist? (I have in mind Plantinga’s Ontological argument here.)

As for seeking out the God who does not exist, I think this occurs when the non-believer is confronted with new information…usually as a result of a nagging question that demands to be answered.

Because man is naturally inquisitive, the unavoidable pursuit of these types of questions often leads to very unexpected (and unwanted) conclusions.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In my opinion E is only true if in the Christian viewpoint of god is true.I read a post from one of our Jewish posters that where he wrote we that we are not damned to begin with so there is no reason to be saved(paraphrase).
There are so many different beliefs out there about god or gods that I’m sure not all believe if one doesn’t believe in god that one is damned for eternity. Judaism and Deism(writing as someone who no extremely little of either)are a couple.
I believe in a divine presence. or the divinity in each of us(god?). In the way I view “god” there is no room for eternal damnation from some supreme being.
E does not apply.

A convenient conclusion about which an inconvenient question must be asked: Are you sure of this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This raises further questions:

1. Would God not know I am going through the motions?

Of course He would. But this does not bother Him anymore than it bothers a father to give his children the money they need to buy him a Christmas present. God is able to work with the heart that is willing to take baby steps.

1. What benefit would come if I, someone who doesn’t believe there is enough evidence of the Catholic god, get from praying or going to church other than going through motions? Giving to the poor I already do. That can be done independently of being a Christian.

What benefit would you get? Your question assumes that you will end your days as a nominal church-goer as indifferently as you began them. I think the Holy Spirit has planned for you.

1. You say that going to Church and praying to the god of Catholicism will affect my will and emotions towards Catholicism. (You also included giving to the poor as something that will lead one to Catholicism, but that is not the case.) But let’s say that going to church regularly and praying increases the chances I (re-)take up Catholicism.

Whoa. What I actually said was…well, you can refresh in the post above. My point is that if we do those things which God has called us to do (pray, give alms, etc.), our hearts will be open to the needs of others and to His will. Jesus specifically said that whatever we do for the least of those among us, we do for Him. In caring for others, you will be changed for the better.

Wouldn’t the same possibility of conversion also occur if I immersed myself in a different faith? If I were to move to Saudi Arabia and I regularly went to a mosque and prayed to Allah, I might also convert to Islam. The same is true for following other faith practices. This shows that if attending a Catholic church (something I did in my formative years) and praying nudged one toward Catholicism, then it isn’t because Catholicism is the “true faith position” but because the power of familiarity, repetition, and ritual (of any faith position)has on the psyche.

Bingo! And this is why Pascal’s Wager is actually so powerful. Because, yes, if you do the things that [insert religion here] require, then you will begin to think and act more like an adherent of that religion.

Thus, the person who BEGINS with the low-level notion of simply saving his own skin may be transformed into someone who ENDS with a deep love of God, Allah, Yahweh, etc.

You have done well here.

Now, we could discuss elsewhere WHICH of these faiths you should choose, but that is not really at issue with regard to the logic of Pascal’s Wager.

1. If I were to go through the motions and regularly attend a Catholic Church and prayed, but still found the faith incredibly wanting would I not still be eternally punished for a reasonable disbelief?

Why?

1. Why should I go through the motions of just Catholicism? Other faith traditions also have their own verisons of Pascal’s Wager. Catholicism and Christianity in general is certainly by no means unique in that regard.

I agreed with you on this point already. I stand ready to show you why Catholicism is the one true Church established by God. But that is the stuff of other threads.

Despite your assertion I can reason objectively and have gone into this with an open mind. I hope the many posts I’ve made on CAF can attest to that. It’s just that the responses to questions and statements that I and other non-Christians have made have been insufficient to put it mildly. Even if I were to follow the practices of only the largest faith traditions that would be too much to make sure I was doing right by all possible gods.

Again despite your assertions I am neither ignorant nor dishonest.

I have no reason to believe that you are dishonest, but if you say that God does not exist, then I stand by my statement that you are ignorant on that point.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is problematic my friend. One has to believe in Bible in order to accept E otherwise E does not apply to him/her.

Not at all. Jesus did not write a book. He left a Church of living witnesses. The Church wrote the book later and continues to testify to its accuracy to this day.

Further, the Church declares the truth that those who die in a right relationship with God will enter into eternal life. Those who have chose to reject friendship with God in this life will be separated from Him forever.

If the Book did not exist, the Church, the body of Christ, would still proclaim this truth.

Ultimately, you’re not asked to believe in a book. You’re asked to believe in a person: Jesus Christ.

 

[Bradski]

I think the crux of the matter is the degree to which one is certain of one’s position. Here, atheism is at its weakest point, for no one can prove a negative. Without absolute certainty that God does not exist, the atheist is foolish to wager against Him.

But I am not intent on proving a negative. I don’t say that God doesn’t exist. I say that I don’t find the evidence for His existence anywhere near credible enough, therefore I do not believe He exists.

And as has been pointed out out, Your argument against ‘betting against God’ is an argument that fits all faiths, all deities, all beliefs. It’s not an argument for Christianity.

 

[Bradski]

I have spoken with lots of atheists who know some things about the theist concept of God, but they reject that God exists because they are unconvinced by what they presently know.

However, there is more that they do not know (such as the fact that He actually exists); hence, they are both ignorant and atheist.

God’s existence is not part of the evidence. God’s existence is determined by the evidence. Which, as I say, I do not find credible in the slightest.

 

[STT]

Not at all. Jesus did not write a book. He left a Church of living witnesses. The Church wrote the book later and continues to testify to its accuracy to this day.

Further, the Church declares the truth that those who die in a right relationship with God will enter into eternal life. Those who have chose to reject friendship with God in this life will be separated from Him forever.

If the Book did not exist, the Church, the body of Christ, would still proclaim this truth.

Ultimately, you’re not asked to believe in a book. You’re asked to believe in a person: Jesus Christ.

I understand all you are saying but you didn’t get my point. Unfortunately I have to repeat myself. One has to be a believer in order to accept E otherwise E does not apply to him/her.