Pascal's Wager Redux

[inocente]

It’s better to have the whole picture of Pascal. If you don’t know anything about his personal life and the times he lived in, you will have a distorted image of his wager. But hey, that’s how most people argue these days, without very good knowledge, just off the top of their heads.

“The Pensées is the name given posthumously to fragments that Pascal had been preparing for an apology for Christianity which was never completed.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es

If the wager was inspired by God, it could stand on the logic of its argument. The need to appeal to an apologetic for the apologetic indicates it can’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you believe a lot of stuff… but belief (no matter how strongly believed) does not constitute knowledge.

Belief is a kind of knowledge … a consent to truths revealed in scripture or through the teaching authority of the Church established by God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ye gods. You are doubling down on this? Treat other people as you would hope to be treated yourself is righteous self interest?

Not doubling down, tripling down because we are taught this by our Lord.

Go ahead, scoff away.

Empathy is identification with the needs and sufferings of others. We cannot do that without imagining OURSELVES IN THEIR PLACE.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God cannot be reached by a deductive chain of thought, since there are no axioms to start. And since you deny that the supernatural could be verified …

God can be reached by a deductive chain of thought, as Einstein demonstrates, but a personal God can only be known by a personal encounter with God, which requires receptive opening of both the heart and the head.

See this article here: catholicinsight.com/einsteins-god/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t speak of God as bogie man, the wager does.

This demonstrates yet again your willingness to take quotes out of context and to ignore the rest of Pensees (which apparently you have not read), in which Pascal clearly speak of God not as a bogie man (your words) but as a loving savior of the world.

“The God of Christians is a God of love and comfort, a God who fills the soul and heart of those whom he possesses, a God who makes them conscious of their inward wretchedness, and his infinite mercy; who unites himself to their inmost soul, who fills it with humility and joy, with confidence and love, who renders them incapable of any other end than himself.” Blaise Pascal

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Christ preaches the exact opposite. Paul says explicitly do not look to self-interest, but to the interests of others. I’d have thought that’s Catholic 101, but if not then it’s little wonder you guys can’t see how the wager appeals to everything Christ is against.

I have come to expect slurs against our Catholic faith, as if this were a Protestant or atheist forum and you were welcome to describe us in words we abhor.

Bottom line:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

How is this not a teaching that we see the interests of others in our own interest?

Once again, I think I will not be reading any more of your insulting posts.

 

[inocente]

This demonstrates yet again your willingness to take quotes out of context and to ignore the rest of Pensees (which apparently you have not read), in which Pascal clearly speak of God not as a bogie man (your words) but as a loving savior of the world.

As you know, the Pensees is made of fragments from his notes. In the version I read, he never said what the OP says, that “If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation”.

Pascal said if you don’t believe, you lose nothing. No eternal damnation, no greater evil, you lose nothing. Now I don’t know if I have a flawed version, so perhaps someone who is more expert, Christine, you or Tony, will clarify whether Pascal actually said believe or suffer eternal damnation, and if so, cite him.

And Pascal argued against bogie men and coercion, just as I have. He wrote “The conduct of God, who disposes all things kindly, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and threats is not to put religion there, but terror, terorrem potius quam religionem.”

Btw he also said he cannot prove the existence of God, there is no deductive argument, so apparently he didn’t agree with what you say of Einstein.

Again, I’m no expert and don’t know if Pascal changed his mind elsewhere. I don’t remember him arguing for self-interest, against his Christianity, either. If one of you experts thinks he does, please cite him.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14396983:

Anyone can do self-interest, monkeys do self-interest. No one needs Christ to do self-interest.

Christ preaches the exact opposite. Paul says explicitly do not look to self-interest, but to the interests of others. I’d have thought that’s Catholic 101, but if not then it’s little wonder you guys can’t see how the wager appeals to everything Christ is against.

I have come to expect slurs against our Catholic faith, as if this were a Protestant or atheist forum and you were welcome to describe us in words we abhor.

You misread. Come back .

I googled and found these references to self-interest on vatican.va:

*“Yet some events of the year now ending inspire me, in looking ahead to the new year, to encourage everyone not to lose hope in our human ability to conquer evil and to combat resignation and indifference. They demonstrate our capacity to show solidarity and to rise above self-interest, apathy and indifference in the face of critical situations.” - w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/messages/peace/documents/papa-francesco_20151208_messaggio-xlix-giornata-mondiale-pace-2016.html

“In a world of distrust, discouragement and depression, in a culture in which men and women are enveloped by fragility and weakness, individualism and self-interest, we are asked to introduce belief in the possibility of true happiness, in the feasibility of hope that does not depend solely on talent, superiority or knowledge, but on God. All are given the possibility of encountering him, if they only seek him with a sincere heart.” - vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccscrlife/documents/rc_con_ccscrlife_doc_20140202_rallegratevi-lettera-consacrati_en.html*

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

God can be reached by a deductive chain of thought, as Einstein demonstrates, but a personal God can only be known by a personal encounter with God, which requires receptive opening of both the heart and the head.

Nope. Einstein did not demonstrate anything. The catechism asserts that the existence of God can be rationally demonstrated - without resorting to revelation and faith. The problem is that it did not explain HOW is that possible?

And you use the reference to the “heart” too frequently. The “heart” is usually a metaphor for emotions. And there is NO place for emotions in a philosophical discussion.

 

[MPat]

My earlier comment was to debunk Randy’s asserton that doing the things asked (church, religious attendance, prayer) would lead one to a true faith, something I showed in two ways was not accurate.

So, you agree that it can lead one to some faith?

Doubting any of those will often result in the claims that the doubter isn’t trying hard enough or doesn’t have an open mind.

When relativity was discovered a great many people doubted it, but evidence – real evidence – has shown it to be true even to those highly skeptical of it.

So, if Sungenis is not persuaded by evidence for theory of relativity, would you say there is a problem with theory of relativity, or a problem with Sungenis?

It doesn’t add up that God would present himself to only a select few in one tiny area of the world and then use man to spread this message.

The said approach works quite well, assuming that it’s a test (for example, of humility) for humans.

Regarding both factors, here’s a Christian charity who denied a contribution from an atheist group.

And there is nothing wrong with rejection of donations. Especially if the donation might have been offered as trolling (see shadowtolight.wordpress.com/category/muskogee-atheist-community/ for further explanation).

Randy said charity would lead one to a true faith, and by pointing to the many charitable atheists – whether they do so as part of an atheist organization, working under a religious organization, or as part of a secular one – that the statement is patently false.

Maybe you should say that to Randy and not to me?

Anyway, existence of many charitable atheists doesn’t prove what you want. You need data that compares conversion rates.

I literally wrote the exact opposite as demonstrated by what you quoted from me, so I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I said atheists tend to look at the god question more with the hows and whys, while believers tend to talk more about their feelings.

It means that you do not understand what you say. You do not talk about faith of atheists, but about faith of believers. You think they associate faith with feelings. Therefore, you associate faith with feelings. That’s what I said.

Explain why these similarities, which I’ve gone into detail as to how they will likely cause the same results and how they both don’t cause one to overcome how the person doesn’t find the argument cogent, are irrelevant.

So, you think that “going into detail” while ignoring that difference should be considered to be good enough?

It’s not a matter of wishful thinking to say that if the god(s) of Deism is correct, meaning he/she/they doesn’ interact with his/her/their creation, then it’s unlikely that if there is an afterlife the judgement is based on belief in him/her/them. It naturally follows from the makeup of Deism.

So, no actual argument?

Then why are so many believers getting on the case of atheists who say that it’s not about evidence being inconclusive but instead non-existant?

Because evidence is obviously not non-existent. Those atheists evade the Wager at the price of having to proclaim obvious falsehood.

I never said that, so I don’t know from what whole cloth you derived that from.

You implicitly assert the hidden premises of your arguments.

What I did say was that believers have an extra hurdle in matters of morality that non-believers don’t – namely that if a religious organization or a detiy (secondhand from a religious text) tells a believer to do something immoral then it’s quite the struggle.

Suddenly, that doesn’t sound that impressive.

A bad answer is just as useful as no answer.

There’s a difference between “You didn’t answer.” and “I don’t like your answer.”. But it looks like you do not value precision that much…

I know what the sacraments are. I want to know to know what you mean by “work”. It’s best to have a clear idea of what people mean whenever possible.

Your question is still ambiguous. So, let’s take confession: do you know what it is for?

I’m telling you that they are different because they are different.

That’s all?

In the case of atheists having assessed the case for the Christian God, I don’t think “assumed to be inconclusive or simply hasn’t been presented” goes far enough. To most atheists what is provided to us as evidence isn’t in some gray area of inconclusiveness, where it could go either way. Instead it fails.

Looks like you have presented no actual evidence supporting existence of honest atheists. Yet I’d still say that overall evidence is inconclusive. One can have evidence that is both one-sided and inconclusive.

As I said in the very statement you quoting and as others have mentioned here you can’t just consider one religion or even one subset of one religion. There are a great many Christians who take up the exclusivist position, and you would need some backing to call that a falsehood.

And that is irrelevant. You made a claim about Bible. Prove it, reformulate it or take it back.

I certainly did not misspeak.

If you say so…

 

[tonyrey]

The lesser of two evils - “It is a serious problem that this “principle,” now apparently part of our national lexicon of political ethics, is being mouthed by Catholics. If the relevant Wikipedia article is correct, the origin of the principle is found in U.S. foreign policy statecraft of the Cold-War era. Whatever its source, the dictum is anything but Catholic.” - catholicism.org/lesser-of-two-evils.html

If one objects to the principle of choosing the lesser evil it can replaced by the principle of the double effect (which amounts to the same as choosing the lesser evil). Killing is evil but it is justified in self-defence and defence of one’s family. Similarly the outcome of appealing to self-interest (which is far less serious than killing) has the effect of persuading atheists to become less dogmatic and consider the reasons for becoming a Christian. It is certainly a better policy than writing them off as hopeless cases. Jesus Himself appealed to self-interest - as opposed to selfishness - in the Sermon on the Mount:

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,r to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison./span/span span id=“en-NIV-23261” class="text Matt-5-26"span class=“woj"sup class=“versenum"26 /supTruly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny./span/span/ppspan class=“text Matt-5-27"span class=“woj"sup class=“versenum"27 /sup“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’sup data-fn=”#fen-NIV-23262e” class=“footnote” data-link=”[a href=”#fen-NIV-23262e” title=“See footnote e"e/a]”>e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

4 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

BTW The problems of abuse and baiting would not arise if one refrained from making personal comments. One should confine oneself to objective statements however dull it may appear…

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal said if you don’t believe, you lose nothing. No eternal damnation, no greater evil, you lose nothing.

Please cite the source of “Pascal said if you don’t believe, you lose nothing. No eternal damnation, no greater evil, you lose nothing.”

 

[tonyrey]

And Pascal argued against bogie men and coercion, just as I have.

So he had no evidence that **his **bogie man exists, and no convincing argument that his bogie man exists. But insisted we must act as if **his ** bogie man exists or be tortured for ever and evermore.

?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nope. Einstein did not demonstrate anything. The catechism asserts that the existence of God can be rationally demonstrated - without resorting to revelation and faith. The problem is that it did not explain HOW is that possible?

And you use the reference to the “heart” too frequently. The “heart” is usually a metaphor for emotions. And there is NO place for emotions in a philosophical discussion.

The existence of God has been rationally demonstrated by a number of theologians and philosophers. Your ignorance of these arguments and/or your refusal to be bothered to address just one of these argument shows that you are not cooperating with the spirit of inquiry that is present in this forum.

The heart is a metaphor for the human needs and cravings that we all have.

If you think that subject is outside a philosophy forum, I’m sorry to say all my discussion with you must end because you haven’t the flimsiest notion of what philosophy is.

Go ahead and report that to the moderators.

 

[Bradski]

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

How is this not a teaching that we see the interests of others in our own interest?

I’d quit now, Charles. If you find yourself in a hole which you have dug yourself then it doesn’t make sense to keep digging

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’d quit now, Charles. If you find yourself in a hole which you have dug yourself then it doesn’t make sense to keep digging

Charlemagne does not need to quit, anymore than you need to quit, Bradski.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The existence of God has been rationally demonstrated by a number of theologians and philosophers.

Nonsense. Any claim that is rationally demonstrated will be accepted by other rational people. Since there are many non-Christians, who obviously do NOT accept those alleged “rational” demonstrations, they are must be irrational because of their skepticism. A rather strange claim to call ALL non-Christians to be irrational.

Your ignorance of these arguments and/or your refusal to be bothered to address just one of these argument shows that you are not cooperating with the spirit of inquiry that is present in this forum.

I have seen all that has been published, and all of them had errors in them. No wonder that they remain insufficient for non-believers. Only those people, who accept them a-priori find them convincing.

The heart is a metaphor for the human needs and cravings that we all have.

“we all”? That is another claim which could use some verification. But anyhow, our alleged “needs and cravings” have nothing to do with the objective reality.

If you think that subject is outside a philosophy forum, I’m sorry to say all my discussion with you must end because you haven’t the flimsiest notion of what philosophy is.

Oh, please, don’t give me false hope!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

“The Pensées is the name given posthumously to fragments that Pascal had been preparing for an apology for Christianity which was never completed.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es

.

This proves my point!

 

[MPat]

If by calling standard Christian morality ‘sophistry’ you are calling me a fool then decide for yourself.

First, no, your morality is not the same thing as Christian morality. You still haven’t established that.

Second, no, “sophistry” was not used to describe your morality, your position - it was used to describe your way of arguing for it.

Third, no, “sophistry” is not a “foolish” way to argue. It is a name used for arguments that are tortuous and fallacious.

And in this case you only had to say if you think that someone “who says, ‘You fool!’” is “in danger of the fire of hell”.

If you do, then Jesus was warning us of a real danger - and in that case, why shouldn’t we warn others of a real danger?

If you do not, we are going to have an interesting discussion about your related views.

Yet you refuse to answer, or, to be more exact, try to evade the need to answer…

All those people believe (very honestly, I presume) that they “found” God. But that is not an evidence.

Actually, it is. It might not be strong evidence of existence of God, but it is evidence. And it is very strong evidence against “divine hiddenness”.

However, I am game (as always). Let me have the method which will allow me to “find God” and let’s see if it works. However, I am afraid that all I will receive is the same cop-out, that the charlatans of the paranormal say every time: “You have to believe, because if you don’t believe, the paranormal effects will not happen”. They never happen when professional magicians are in crowd. You (in general) say the same: “if you ask for some miracle and your purpose is to test God, it will never happen”. To be very blunt: you portray God as a cosmic cheater, who will always “thwart” your attempts to “unmask” him. The so-called “divine hiddenness” is one of the insurmountable impediments to take the God-hypothesis seriously. The other one is, of course, the “problem of evil”.

Yes, we all know that “game”: “You all, try to persuade me and watch me to refuse to be persuaded.”. I do not find it to be very fun. It would be more interesting if you would be interested in learning something instead - even if that “something” is merely “what silly things will my opponents show themselves to believe next?”…

For that matter, do you imagine that God would find your “game” significantly more fun?

Yes, I do. Someone who pretends to accept something that they don’t believe.

So, even giving a correct answer didn’t help…?

Nonsense. Any claim that is rationally demonstrated will be accepted by other rational people. Since there are many non-Christians, who obviously do NOT accept those alleged “rational” demonstrations, they are must be irrational because of their skepticism. A rather strange claim to call ALL non-Christians to be irrational.

Let’s see: since there are many non-atheists (in fact, more than there are non-Christians), who obviously do not accept those alleged “rational” demonstrations that arguments for God’s existence are all invalid, then, by your reasoning, they must all be irrational. Don’t you think that calling all non-atheists non-rational is also a rather strange claim (although not necessarily unprecedented)…?

The obvious solution consists in noting that “rational” can have more than one meaning. This word can be used as a stronger synonym of “sane” or a synonym of “well reasoning”. And while it is silly to claim that all non-Christians or non-atheists are mostly insane, people can fail to accept reasonable beliefs because they are merely misinformed or inattentive (or dishonest - but I am listing the reasons that are not necessarily morally wrong).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, we all know that “game”

The metaphor: “I am game” means that I am ready and willing to listen to your arguments. It has nothing to do with a “game”. Just like when Amelia Earhart was called a “game old woman”, that expression had nothing to do with any “game”.

Let’s see: since there are many non-atheists (in fact, more than there are non-Christians), who obviously do not accept those alleged “rational” demonstrations that arguments for God’s existence are all invalid, then, by your reasoning, they must all be irrational.

Please, there is no such group as “non-atheist”. Not all the believers believe in the same god. Since all of them reject the arguments for the existence of a god different from their own, I have no idea what you hope to “prove” here.

Don’t you think that calling all non-atheists non-rational is also a rather strange claim (although not necessarily unprecedented)…?

Let any of them present an actual argument for their specific god’s existence, and then we can talk. But if you think that the existence of believers is somehow an argument for the existence of some deity, then you are mistaken.