Pascal's Wager Redux

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Your reading of Matthew 25 is very odd. Clearly the King is pointing out that actions have consequences. Act rightly you get your reward (appeal to self interest) act wrongly you get your punishment (again a consequence against your self interest.

Carrot and Stick, as simple as that.

Self interest is everywhere in all of us. It is our self interest to obey the law, or we go to jail.

It is by being interested in the interests of others that we accomplish our self interest, being saved from perdition and rewarded with a heavenly mansion.

John 14:2 ►

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

 

[inocente]

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.

Which makes it twice as selfish.

*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!”?

No! A good and faithful servant doesn’t serve to get a nice warm fuzzy feeling any more than she serves out of fear. Anyone who accepts the wager proves she will change loyalties at a drop of a hat, to whoever she thinks best promotes her own self-interest and self-absorption.

Go back to Matthew 25:31–46. The sheep hear the plight of refugees and give out of compassion for them, never thinking of themselves or of any reward. The goats do the opposite.

The wager says Catholicism is fear of punishment and feeling good about yourself - about ego, nothing more, nothing less. I disagree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your reading of Matthew 25 is very odd. Clearly the King is pointing out that actions have consequences. Act rightly you get your reward (appeal to self interest) act wrongly you get your punishment (again a consequence against your self interest.

Carrot and Stick, as simple as that.

Self interest is everywhere in all of us. It is our self interest to obey the law, or we go to jail.

It is by being interested in the interests of others that we accomplish our self interest, being saved from perdition and rewarded with a heavenly mansion.

John 14:2 ►

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

And not only has he prepared a place for us in heaven, but he warns us:

Matthew 13
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

51 “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

 

[inocente]

Your reading of Matthew 25 is very odd. Clearly the King is pointing out that actions have consequences. Act rightly you get your reward (appeal to self interest) act wrongly you get your punishment (again a consequence against your self interest.

Carrot and Stick, as simple as that.

Self interest is everywhere in all of us. It is our self interest to obey the law, or we go to jail.

It is by being interested in the interests of others that we accomplish our self interest, being saved from perdition and rewarded with a heavenly mansion.

John 14:2 ►

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

Yikes, surely you’re joking. Christianity is you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours? Monkeys do that. No one needs the Church to do that, it’s the base state of any animal to look after its own survival.

Please tell me you’re joking. If not, where is that in the CCC? Where were you catechized? No offense, but were you catechized? And please start a thread with what you said here as the OP, to see whether any other Catholics get that take-home message from Christ’s sacrifice. But hopefully you’re joking, Trump’s America surely cannot have fallen so far so fast.

 

[inocente]

And not only has he prepared a place for us in heaven, but he warns us:

Matthew 13
47 “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

51 “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

“He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.”

As with the parable of the sheep and the goats, everyone who takes the wager will be gnashing their teeth. The world is not the kingdom. The world takes the wager, the Devil’s bargain, looks after Numero Uno, feeds the ego. But the people of the kingdom have the same mind as Christ (“in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” Phil 2). Unless you want to claim that Christ’s mind is driven by ego and self-interest, I suggest it might be best to drop that line of argument.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

51 “Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.[/INDENT]

The thing we hear and understand most often from Jesus is that he carries a carrot and a stick.

For some the carrot will do.

For others the stick is necessary.

The atheist needs to hear about the stick since he doesn’t believe there is a carrot.

Pascal’s wager reminds the atheist about the need to choose between the carrot and the stick.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The thing we hear and understand most often from Jesus is that he carries a carrot and a stick.

For some the carrot will do.

For others the stick is necessary.

The atheist needs to hear about the stick since he doesn’t believe there is a carrot.

Pascal’s wager reminds the atheist about the need to choose between the carrot and the stick.

The atheists do not believe in the stick either. But the carrot and stick method is despicable - it is used by the Mafia. The good way would be to argue rationally why should one follow a certain way, instead of another one.

Pascal undoubtedly was a brilliant mathematician, but as an apologist he was worthless.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The atheists do not believe in the stick either. But the carrot and stick method is despicable - it is used by the Mafia. The good way would be to argue rationally why should one follow a certain way, instead of another one.

Pascal undoubtedly was a brilliant mathematician, but as an apologist he was worthless.

Not really. He was showing what motivates people. People who do not believe in hoping to get to heaven after they die are really kind of weird. What motivates you? I mean unless you are really young and heathy and don’t believe that you’re really going to die. Ha ha. You are not immortal and you will die.

 

[STT]

The thing we hear and understand most often from Jesus is that he carries a carrot and a stick.

For some the carrot will do.

For others the stick is necessary.

The atheist needs to hear about the stick since he doesn’t believe there is a carrot.

Pascal’s wager reminds the atheist about the need to choose between the carrot and the stick.

The existence of a stick and a carrot as a method in any teaching is awful. It is a sign of disrespect toward the followers.

 

[Abba]

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 understand.

However, please consider the following - s-l-o-w-l-y-. Don 't just quickly think and discard it or file it away someplace. Consider it carries ALOOOOOOOOOOT of weight and you must give it the time and value it carries:

If someone told you: I just ran into Bugs Bunny (I used to like him when I was a child ) you could quickly think - that did not happen. Maybe, because you know director Tex Avery made the character up, cartoons do not exist outside of drawings etc… the person is on some drug or has mental problems that cause hallucinations etc… So, very quickly you can discard the claim. As a matter of fact, you wouldn’t even bother requesting proof.

I once met Carl Sagan, and I got to ask him if according to all that he knew about the universe he thought there was a possibility of life outside of earth. He answered that big claims require big evidence. He said to me if I told you I just saw an accident on my way here and inwhere a man was ran over by a car. You would not have a problem believing me, but, if I told you aliens exist - you would want serious evidence because it is an extraordinary claim. Well, he said - we don’t have the evidence the claim requires. To say, depending on how extraordinary a claim may be; we would require evidence to satisfy it. Then, there are claims we would not even take seriously for many reasons (the person who is making the claim is unreliable, the unequivocal incorrectness of the claim etc…).

It seems illogical to me to consider the claim of the existence of aliens as equivalent to the claim of the existence of God. Braski, I consider that I don’t know how many people if any have died to uphold their belief in the existence of aliens, but, we do know many who willingly suffered horrible deaths to uphold their faith in the existence of God. Along with a very long possible list, I also consider that since the dawn of time people have believed in the existence of God but this is not the case with aliens.

We cannot equate the claim of the existence of God with the claim of the existence of Santa Claus. People know Santa Claus does not exist and that it is a tale told to children to make their Christmas somewhat charming.

The other matter I would like to briefly address, is that the matter is not just in the quantity (the weight addressed above) but also in the quality. It seems unreasonable to me to expect that the knowledge systems I apply to learn or determine x, y, or z is just as applicable to determine if God exists. I can use math, for instance, to determine how much money I have, but, is it sufficient or is it appropriate or applicable to determine if God exists? If we are really looking to learn if a being we call God who created heaven and earth, truly does exist, wouldn’t it be proper to consider that perhaps He has defined the ‘system’ to be utilized to make this determination? You have selected the system and are not showing any respect for this God who you are attempting to determine exists or not. If God exists you need to digest and reflect on the fact that if He exists He does so independent of you and your thoughts. You cannot think for Him and try to fit Him in to your preconceived ideas. Try to find out if He has offered a system thru which you can come to know if He exists? Ask yourself why would He have a special system? It is not thru mathematical calculations or at a laboratory. Why?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So you would bet on nothingness after death, rather than the remote possibility of an afterlife? Even if the odds aren’t good in your mind, think of the payoff!

There’s no bet. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I’ve been given and that I’ve sought out. Christianity’s alleged deity (one of a great many alleged deities) treating me like a dog with extreme negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement won’t make me try to believe something I can’t. The only difference is a dog knows his master really exists.

 

[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.

You are again assuming that what Catholics believe they should do applies to anyone who might believe in God.

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

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.

I get this comment thrown at me more times than I could count. And the problem is always that it is not used as the basis for a discussion, it is used as an exclamation mark to stop any discussion dead in its tracks.

‘My basis for morality is God, therefore any comment you make on the matter is worthless’.

Usually with a facile comment about preferences thrown in. As if an atheist’s position on any moral matter is just a whim.

So let’s unpack a moral problem and see where we go with it.

First up, I consider human life and dignity to be important. This stems from a naturally evolved empathy and reciprocal altruism aka the Golden Rule. Every moral code that has ever existed has this at its heart, whether religious or not. Matthew 7:12 is your version, but there are plenty of others. If you want to say that God has placed this in our hearts so that it is divinely ordained, then take some time out to discuss why almost all sentient creatures have it and tell me why God needs bats to be morally accountable: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309588900155.

So harming someone without a very good reason or treating them in an undignified manner is wrong. Everyone (except psycopaths) understands this whether they have a religion or not or whether they believe in any god or not. Now if you want to cut and paste this paragraph out and then bang out the quote above ('My basis for morality etc), then please save yourself some time. It changes nothing.

I’ve been explaining how my suddenly believing in God would not make me a better person. Now it’s your turn to assume the reverse. If you woke tomorrow NOT believing in God, would you then think that harming someone for no good reason or treating them disrespectfully was therefore now perfectly acceptable?

I doubt it very much. So we can agree that they are positions that require no reference to a higher power and which we can use to determine whether a moral act is right or wrong.

Now I will bet my house on the fact that you could easily put forward an argument against honour killings without mentioning any divine impremanteur. Just using empathy and reciprocal altruism as the basis and using the universally agreed maxim ‘cause no harm’.

Once done, how would you respond to me, rather fatuously, suggesting: ’ Well, Randy, that’s just your opinion’. Just an opinion? Like a preference maybe? Or a whim? A position you took with no real thought? A statement that carries no substance? An inconsequential argument that could have gone either way?

The fact is, we would both, as Christian and atheist, come to the same conclusions using the same arguments and we would both feel justified in preventing someone from causing harm in the manner described. If we both woke up tommorow, me believing and you not, the arguments would still be the same and they would carry as much weight as they did the day before.

The fact that either of us could say ‘Hey, today I appear to have a basis for my morality’ is completely, totally and undeniably irrelevant. We would both, whichever position we held in regard to a belief in God, be entirely justified in claiming that our position was the morally correct one.

 

[Bradski]

I once met Carl Sagan, and I got to ask him if according to all that he knew about the universe he thought there was a possibility of life outside of earth. He answered that big claims require big evidence. He said to me if I told you I just saw an accident on my way here and inwhere a man was ran over by a car. You would not have a problem believing me, but, if I told you aliens exist - you would want serious evidence because it is an extraordinary claim. Well, he said - we don’t have the evidence the claim requires. To say, depending on how extraordinary a claim may be; we would require evidence to satisfy it. Then, there are claims we would not even take seriously for many reasons (the person who is making the claim is unreliable, the unequivocal incorrectness of the claim etc…).? If we are really looking to learn if a being we call God who created heaven and earth, truly does exist, wouldn’t it be proper to consider that perhaps He has defined the ‘system’ to be utilized to make this determination?

Yes, you are right. One does need extraordinary evidence. And if God has set the system up so that we can detect His handiwork, then He has done an abysmally bad job. I see no evidence whatsoever of a personal God. And any other type of God would be irrelevant.

But you met Sagan? Colour me jealous…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, you are right. One does need extraordinary evidence. And if God has set the system up so that we can detect His handiwork, then He has done an abysmally bad job. I see no evidence whatsoever of a personal God. And any other type of God would be irrelevant.

But you met Sagan? Colour me jealous…

The “abysmally bad job” is largely due to human selfishness, greed, lust for power and lack of compassion. The rest is the result of the inevitable limitations of finite beings in a physical universe and, as the archsceptic David Hume observed, the inability of natural laws to cater for every contingency. Very often those who complain about life on earth are in no great hurry to take leave of it nor has anyone ever produced a feasible blueprint of a superior world. It is easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to design an entire biosphere is rather more challenging…

 

[tonyrey]

There’s no bet. I believe what I believe based on the evidence I’ve been given and that I’ve sought out. Christianity’s alleged deity (one of a great many alleged deities) treating me like a dog with extreme negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement won’t make me try to believe something I can’t. The only difference is a dog knows his master really exists.

It is illogical to deduce from the multiplicity and variety of religious beliefs they are all false. If anything it points to the intuitive recognition that a Creator is the most cogent explanation of a universe in which there are many examples of successful creativity and enjoyment. The illusion that one is being treated like a dog doesn’t correspond to the normal experience of members of the human race - unless of course other members of the species are responsible. Nor is the consensus of moral laws and principles a case of " extreme negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement." It is the neglect, abuse and violations of the rights of persons and animals which cause most of the misery and suffering in the world.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is illogical to deduce from the multiplicity and variety of religious beliefs they are all false. If anything it points to the intuitive recognition that a Creator is the most cogent explanation of a universe in which there are many examples of successful creativity and enjoyment.

I would say it’s the simplest and easiest explanation. It also has the benefit for those pushing such an explanation of being unfalsifiable. It does lack evidence and at times is contradictory both in the way we know about the universe and also with itself in trying to nail the finer points of the alleged creation.

As far as whether it’s logical to rule out all religious beliefs, it’s actually quite logical. In general sense let’s say that we want to explain why or how something happens. There are a great many explanations. If someone comes along and tells you that you must choose only from a subset of possible explanations then that’s illogical. In the case of the creation of the universe we are scratching the surface of understanding. Believers will say that only those explanations that involve a deity should be considered (we’ll call that subset A). That’s usually followed by narrowing it down further to their deity. We can then break down subset A into its various options. A1 can be the Catholic god. A2 can be the Jewish god. A3 can be Allah. And so on and so on until we get to A5000 or so. The problem is that the possibilities aren’t limited to the list of deities. The creation of the universe may have been from B or C. Heck, the answer may be J, and we can’t even fathom it at this time. What I’m saying is, you can’t limit the choices to certain few by decree and expect people to be impressed and how many people think A is correct or how many sub-subsets of A there are.

When it comes to why so many people believe in a deity or deities I don’t think it’s accurate to say that this “points to the intuitive recognition that a Creator is the most cogent explanation of a universe.” What it does point to is man’s innate need for answers. History is littered with supernatural explanations to things we at the time did not understand. It’s ingrained in us.

The illusion that one is being treated like a dog doesn’t correspond to the normal experience of members of the human race - unless of course other members of the species are responsible. Nor is the consensus of moral laws and principles a case of " extreme negative reinforcement and positive reinforcement." It is the neglect, abuse and violations of the rights of persons and animals which cause most of the misery and suffering in the world.

Let me be clear. I did not say that we were being treated like dogs. I said that according to the wager we should base our decisions on the extreme negative and positive reinforcement that allegedly the Christian god is using to respective threaten and bribe us.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The existence of a stick and a carrot as a method in any teaching is awful. It is a sign of disrespect toward the followers.

You are not a realist.

It is not disrespectful to a child to tell him that if he does his homework he will be promoted to the next grade, but if he refuses to attend class he will have to do the whole year over. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to the taxpayer to tell him that if he pays his taxes he will freely enjoy the fruits of his labors, but if he does not he will enjoy them in jail. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to tell an employee that if he does his job well, he will be promoted. If he messes up, he will be fired. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to his followers for Jesus to tell them that if they show compassion and charity for others, they will be rewarded. But if they refuse to do so, they will be sorry indeed. Carrot and stick.

It is a worthless and senseless argument that the carrot and the stick show disrespect when what they really command **is **respect.

That is reality.

 

[Bradski]

…nor has anyone ever produced a feasible blueprint of a superior world. It is easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to design an entire biosphere is rather more challenging…

Make all animals vegetarian. Saves all that tearing other animals apart.

 

[STT]

You are not a realist.

It is not disrespectful to a child to tell him that if he does his homework he will be promoted to the next grade, but if he refuses to attend class he will have to do the whole year over. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to the taxpayer to tell him that if he pays his taxes he will freely enjoy the fruits of his labors, but if he does not he will enjoy them in jail. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to tell an employee that if he does his job well, he will be promoted. If he messes up, he will be fired. Carrot and stick.

It is not disrespectful to his followers for Jesus to tell them that if they show compassion and charity for others, they will be rewarded. But if they refuse to do so, they will be sorry indeed. Carrot and stick.

It is a worthless and senseless argument that the carrot and the stick show disrespect when what they really command **is **respect.

That is reality.

Well, you are not really talking about spiritual growth. If you expect a spiritual growth as an outcome of a teaching then the growth should be mainly based on respect toward individuals and self-respect of individuals toward themselves. Carrot and stick has no place in such a teaching which I believe is true spiritual teaching. It is simple, if you believe that something is wrong then try your best to avoid it because of respect toward yourself and others. If you do a mistake then try to find the basic reasons for committing the mistake. This help you to avoid the mistake better.

 

[PRmerger]

It is simple, if you believe that something is wrong then try your best to avoid it because of respect toward yourself and others. If you do a mistake then try to find the basic reasons for committing the mistake. This help you to avoid the mistake better.

What if someone is doing something you find to be wrong, but feels it is absolutely fine?

Let’s say, he’s dragging his wife around by her hair because she burned his toast?