Pascal's Wager Redux

[Bradski]

Do you find such a text in the scriptures? :nope:

However, there are texts which encourage us to guard our eyes because what we see can have a profound impact upon us. While an R-rated movie is less problematic (generally) than true pornography, it is still what Catholics refer to as a “near-occasion” of sin.

I’m not interested in what you or your church feels about it. If I believed that watching a certain type of movie affected me in a negative way, then I wouldn’t watch them. Or possibly I would watch them, knowing it was having a negative affect.

But it doesn’t, so whatever your church teaches is irrelevant. Likewise any teaching with which I disagree. Masturbation, sex outside marriage (you might note a common thread here) etc.

You know full well that the Judeo-Christian tradition has condemned masturbation as sinful in the eyes of God. But if this is a “victimless crime” so to speak, then why? Who is offended by a little self-gratification?

Well, the answer is that God is offended, and we are called to avoid those things which offend Him.

I’m sure if He was, He’d let me know. Your interpretation of what God wants is, again, irrelevant.

And this important to our discussion because it is just one example of a way that Christians might be inclined to behave differently if God did not exist. Remember, you asked why a Christian would do anything differently because you assume that atheists and believers should be doing the same things for the same reasons. This might be true when it comes to helping an old lady with her groceries or paying your taxes on time, etc., but I have given some examples of ways in which Christians are constrained in their behavior by their belief that the behaviors are offensive to God - behaviors that hold no such consequence to non-believers.

And there you nailed it. They don’t constrain their behaviour because they believe in God, the do so because that’s what they think He wants. And yet again, what you or anyone else thinks He wants is irrelevant to me.

No, “hypocrisy” is NOT the correct word. I think the correct word is either “obedience” or “love”. Either we strive to obey God by following His commandments, or we love God and try to avoid displeasing Him. Or both.

Returning the wallet is the right thing to do. Period. If my son did so, it wouldn’t be because he wanted to obey me or to love me. He wouldn’t do it to please me either. The fact that it would would not be a concern.

What you should be doing in life is not to try to please God, but to do the right thing. This is what I do. A belief in God would not change that. Doing the right thing is not that which pleases God. It’s the right thing in itself.

I can understand WHY this “never fails to rattle your cage”: BECAUSE IT’S FALSE.

No one (rightly) says that believers are better people than non-believers. It is entirely possible that the converse can be true on an individual basis.

So, if this error is what’s been sticking in your craw all these years, you can let it go.

So you DON’T have a deeper understanding of morality than I do? Well, glad we’ve cleared that up. We’re back on an even footing. We can discuss moral scenarios such as watching R rated films based on evidence rather than you claiming that you have some special insight.

 

[PRmerger]

So you DON’T have a deeper understanding of morality than I do? Well, glad we’ve cleared that up. We’re back on an even footing. We can discuss moral scenarios such as watching R rated films based on evidence rather than you claiming that you have some special insight.

Morality can be discerned equally by atheists and theists.

However, there is no basis for morality by atheists, except, “That’s what I feel is right.”

Kind of like, “That’s my preference”.

Unless you have an Objective Morality, all the atheist’s morality is based on subjectivity, which is as inane as saying, “I think you’re wrong for liking mashed turnips”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Morality can be discerned equally by atheists and theists.

However, there is no basis for morality by atheists, except, “That’s what I feel is right.”

But this analysis is woefully incomplete. It does not try to find out WHY does the atheist “feel” what is right. And that is the crux of the matter.

Kind of like, “That’s my preference”.

Yes, it is my preference for some very good reasons.

Unless you have an Objective Morality, all the atheist’s morality is based on subjectivity, which is as inane as saying, “I think you’re wrong for liking mashed turnips”.

And what is the theists’ reason to stick with their morality? Could it be that they believe that God (Big Brother) is watching them, who will reward them for compliance and punish them from deviating from the command? Why do you think that obedience based on reward and punishment is better, or more noble, or more praiseworthy than following one’s “preference”, especially if that preference is well founded. And for those atheists, who follow a moral code, which leads them to the same kind of interpersonal behavior as moral theists do, this “preference” is very well established indeed. Can you figure out the reason?

 

[PRmerger]

But this analysis is woefully incomplete. It does not try to find out WHY does the atheist “feel” what is right. And that is the crux of the matter.

No one has posited that the analysis is “complete”.

Yes, it is my preference for some very good reasons.

So if someone else has a different moral preference, just like it’s absurd to tell someone that his preference for bleu cheese is wrong, you wouldn’t tell him that he’s wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

And what is the theists’ reason to stick with their morality? Could it be that they believe that God (Big Brother) is watching them, who will reward them for compliance and punish them from deviating from the command? Why do you think that obedience based on reward and punishment is better, or more noble, or more praiseworthy than following one’s “preference”, especially if that preference is well founded. And for those atheists, who follow a moral code, which leads them to the same kind of interpersonal behavior as moral theists do, this “preference” is very well established indeed. Can you figure out the reason?

We’re not discussing about reasons to stick to morality.

We’re talking about a basis for having a consistent morality that applies to both you and the man who kills his daughter for the audacity of being raped.

It’s an unsustainable philosophy to declare that morality is a preference, while also believing that a man who drags his wife around by her hair for burning his breakfast is doing something heinous.

Or, if your position is: if he feels that it’s right for him to drag his wife around by her hair for burning his breakfast, then it’s right for him. I certainly wouldn’t do it, but I’m not going to tell someone else he can’t…

then that is the most otiose, inutile and worthless moral code.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No one has posited that the analysis is “complete”.

You can always make your analysis complete - moreover I would prefer to hear it. Actually I would insist on making that analysis complete. But it was YOU (personally) who said that atheists can arrive at a moral decision, but their decision is merely a “preference”. You cannot posit a negative assessment on that preference without explaining why the reasons for that preference are “wrong”. And you cannot do that without understanding the reasons for that preference.

So if someone else has a different moral preference, just like it’s absurd to tell someone that his preference for bleu cheese is wrong, you wouldn’t tell him that he’s wrong?

I would need to hear the details and the reason before I could make such a decision. It may be that the person has an allergy to any milk product, so (s)he would get sick from eating blue cheese. Or it simply can be a personal preference, and it that case it is no one else’s business.

We’re not discussing about reasons to stick to morality.

Yes, we do. And it was YOU who opened the venue by declaring that the atheist’s moral code is merely a preference. And you implied that “preference” is an insufficient reason to adhere to a code. So don’t even think that you can wiggle out from your own line of reasoning. So why is it praiseworthy to obey a command, just because disobedience carries a punishment?

Stick to the topic, if you can. And remember: “God is in the details”… or “the devil is in the details”. (Which tells me that God and the devil are not really different. )

Generally speaking your attempt to equate moral decisions to culinary preferences is ridiculous. If it would be allowed, I would use much stronger adjectives. There is no parallel between preference to blue cheese and dragging someone by the hair. It would be so very nice to express my true feelings, but it is not worth to get banned - so I will not.

 

[PRmerger]

You can always make your analysis complete - moreover I would prefer to hear it. Actually I would insist on making that analysis complete. But it was YOU (personally) who said that atheists can arrive at a moral decision, but their decision is merely a “preference”.

Are these not your words?

Yes, it is my preference for some very good reasons.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Are these not your words?

They are. Not all preferences are “created” equal. Culinary preferences are not the same moral preferences.

 

[PRmerger]

They are.

Then, 'nuff said.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

You can always make your analysis complete - moreover I would prefer to hear it. Actually I would insist on making that analysis complete.

This is a discussion forum, Vera, and if you’d like a complete analysis on Catholic moral thought, this is not the venue.

My modus is more socratic. I lead people to an understanding that perhaps their paradigm is not the most cogent.

And to consider that there is, indeed, a rather coherent epistemology to be found in Catholicism.

 

[inocente]

For the atheist there must be a motive to profess belief. Self interest is the motive.

How many beliefs in your life do you hold because they advance your self interest?

I’m sure you believe that believing in God advances your self interest along with the self interest of others who share your belief.

Or do you have something against self interest per se?

Jesus did not, because he offers us self interest in Matthew 25.

No he doesn’t. The King honors those who do not act out of self-interest, and sends those who do into the eternal fire.

Out of all beliefs, Christianity is perhaps the most unselfish, Christ teaches against the modern obsession with ego, he preaches dying to the self, being selfless.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” - Phil 2

That’s the exact polar opposite of the wager. Does your religion teach you to look after your self interest over others? No it does not. The Wager perverts Christ beyond recognition.

 

[inocente]

All this shows that you have not read anything in Pensees beyond the Wager. :tsktsk:

I have and it argues against the wager. The wager states explicitly that salvation is nothing to do with our thoughts, with what is in our hearts, so Pascal’s thoughts and writings don’t matter.

Nothing matters in the wager except profession of belief in an idol of which we need know nothing except that its magic will send us to hell unless we believe in the power of its cooties.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

According to that argument, Brad, we are all irrational! So your argument is self-destructive…

 

[inocente]

So, you agree then that faith alone is insufficient for salvation?

And no, the wager does NOT appeal only to the “selfish”; it appeals to the uncertain and wavering.

It is coercion, it uses a threat which appeals to self-interest. According to the wager’s argument, the sole reason to profess Christ is out of fear. Well, let’s face it, only the ignorant and stupid would be taken in by such a childish game of cooties.

c.f. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

 

[MPat]

Praying is morally good? If I pray, I am a morally better person? Well, I guess that makes you morally superior to me. Coupled with that deeper understanding of morality itself that you have, I really am beginning to lose some ground here.

If God exists, praying is morally good. If God exists than we should say “Thank you.” to Him for at least something. That would be praying.

In fact, I get an impression that atheists often prefer to avoid making a temporary assumption “God exists.”…

And I don’t argue for atheism. I’ve never, at any time, in any post, on any subject, in any forum, ever attempted to convince someone that they should embrace my personally held views.

Oh, but arguing for atheism doesn’t have to be meant to persuade others. It can also be meant to reassure the atheist himself. Or it can be done just “for the fun of it”.

You must think that if I were to suddenly become a believer, then I would be such a good Catholic lad and embrace all that that entails.

What makes you think that?

I think I made it rather clear that I was talking about a relatively minor improvement.

And if I tell you that I honestly believe something, then that is the only evidence you are going to get.

That would be perfectly consistent with my point that we do not have much evidence and thus decision has to be based on something else.

But, strictly speaking, that is not the only evidence that could be available.

For example, martyrdom can be very strong evidence that the beliefs are held honestly. But there are weaker pieces that are easier to get. For example, perhaps a good interrogator would find some weak evidence even in your reaction here.

Although I’m afraid that all that is getting a bit too far from Pascal’s Wager…

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is a discussion forum, Vera, and if you’d like a complete analysis on Catholic moral thought, this is not the venue.

That is not what I asked for. You said that the atheist approach to moral behavior is preference based. Which I accepted. But that is not sufficient to declare “Then 'nuff said”, because you don’t understand the reasons for those preferences. You keep on looking at the surface, instead of analyzing the details.

Not all preferences are equal. Not all “faiths” are equal. And that is what you refuse to see or understand.

My modus is more socratic. I lead people to an understanding that perhaps their paradigm is not the most cogent.

You can get off your high horse. Since you don’t understand the differences between the different kinds of preferences, you are not qualified to “lead” anyone anywhere.

And to consider that there is, indeed, a rather coherent epistemology to be found in Catholicism.

Sure. The authority says so, therefore you must accept it. Is there an independent method to arrive at the conclusion presented by the authority?

 

[PRmerger]

The authority says so, therefore you must accept it.

Again, not a correct articulation of Catholicism.

But, even so, you do the above, too.

The authority says that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, so you accept it.

Nothing wrong with that, eh?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not interested in what you or your church feels about it. If I believed that watching a certain type of movie affected me in a negative way, then I wouldn’t watch them. Or possibly I would watch them, knowing it was having a negative affect.

But it doesn’t, so whatever your church teaches is irrelevant. Likewise any teaching with which I disagree. Masturbation, sex outside marriage (you might note a common thread here) etc.

I understand that you don’t care, but remember: you asked why a Christian would behave any differently from a moral atheist. Well, the fact that the Christian believes that God has revealed what is displeasing to Him is the reason.

You, of course, are free to do as your conscience, properly formed, allows.

I’m sure if He was, He’d let me know. Your interpretation of what God wants is, again, irrelevant.

And how, Bradski, would you imagine that God would let you know? (That’s a rhetorical question that is off-topic.)

And sure, my personal interpretation of what God wants may be irrelevant. But that’s not what’s happening here, is it? I’m presenting a moral guideline that is held [almost] universally by all Christians everywhere and at all times for the past 2,000 years. Moreover, I can support the basis for that belief with reasonable arguments and evidence for accepting the moral authority of the Church which teaches that guideline. Consequently, that moral code cannot be taken as lightly as you seem to think.

And there you nailed it. They don’t constrain their behaviour because they believe in God, the do so because that’s what they think He wants. And yet again, what you or anyone else thinks He wants is irrelevant to me.

Um, yeah.

They do what they do because they believe in God and that their actions reflect His will.

Returning the wallet is the right thing to do. Period. If my son did so, it wouldn’t be because he wanted to obey me or to love me. He wouldn’t do it to please me either. The fact that it would would not be a concern.

Sure. But we’re not talking about simple examples like this. We’re talking specifically about whether or not someone commits a moral sin like masturbation and why they would or would not do so.

This is an example of doing something specifically because one’s belief in God leads one to obey what is believed to be His will. Another example would be working unnecessarily on Sunday. Do you, as an atheist, believe that it is wrong to work or shop on Sunday, Bradski? Do you have an obligation to attend mass on Sunday? :nope:

But Catholics do (or should). So, again, there are many things that believers may do or not do specifically because they believe those things to be commanded or prohibited by God.

And remember: you asked why a Christian would behave any differently than you if God did not actually exist. And I keep giving you examples of things that would or could change in the behavior of a Christian if it were ultimately determined that God does not exist.

So, would a believer give back someone’s wallet? Sure, regardless of whether God exists or not. Would a believer go to mass on Sunday if God does not exist? Nope.

What you should be doing in life is not to try to please God, but to do the right thing. This is what I do. A belief in God would not change that. Doing the right thing is not that which pleases God. It’s the right thing in itself.

And how would you even know what the right thing to do is apart from an objective moral standard?

We can go on for pages on this topic, but you will never convince me that you have any basis for objective moral values apart from God. Here’s why.

So you DON’T have a deeper understanding of morality than I do? Well, glad we’ve cleared that up. We’re back on an even footing. We can discuss moral scenarios such as watching R rated films based on evidence rather than you claiming that you have some special insight.

Whether I have a deeper understanding of morality than you is uncertain. I don’t always understand things as well as I should. What I do have is a better foundation for morality than you, because the basis for my morality is God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It is coercion, it uses a threat which appeals to self-interest. According to the wager’s argument, the sole reason to profess Christ is out of fear. Well, let’s face it, only the ignorant and stupid would be taken in by such a childish game of cooties.

Oh? I thought the other side of the wager is that we profess Christ out of desire for eternal reward. It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

c.f. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.”

Amen. Catholics love those verses just as we do all 73 books of the Bible. But what’s your point? All you’ve done is to cite WHAT we’re supposed to do. Great.

The question to be answered (with regard to the Wager) is: “Why does someone look to the interests of others instead of to his own interests?”

Is it not so that we will hear the master say, “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”?

 

[PRmerger]

What I do have is a better foundation for morality than you, because the basis for my morality is God.

Egg-zactly.

For the one who doesn’t believe in Objective Morality, he has no more basis for telling a man that he’s wrong for killing his daughter for having the audacity of being raped, than he does for telling him he’s wrong for liking his pancakes with chocolate sauce and not syrup.