T
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Mike-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
I started this thread in order to revisit an argument that routinely gets no respect in discussions with atheists. Although I’m no expert, I feel that Pascal’s Wager is often misrepresented (sometimes deliberately) or misunderstood (sometimes intentionally) by both believers and believers alike.
After working through a number of posts in this thread, I realized that I would benefit from some additional work on the subject, and happily, a new book, Taking Pascal’s Wager by Michael Rota, has just been published in the past few months. I have made my way through most of the material presented by Dr. Rota in his book, and I think I am now in a position to provide better responses to some posts. Therefore, I plan to begin at the top and work my way through the thread a second time. Thank you for your patience.
Now to your comment above. Yes, it is true that one cannot simply “will oneself into belief.” However, the Wager does not require this. Instead, the Wager specifies that IF a person judges that Christianity is at least as likely to be true as untrue (50/50 or better), then it is appropriate to act or to behave in certain ways in response to that view. Dr. Rota notes:
"What one can do is to seek God, to pursue a relationship with God. This is the foundational component of what I mean here by ‘committing to God’.
Commiting to God is therefore a course of action that can be undertaken by one who already believes or by an inquiring agnostic…While both believer and agnostic can commit to God, the strategy will look different for the two of them. For the person who already believes, committing to God will involve seeking a closer relationship with God and, indeed, putting one’s goal of closeness with God at the center of one’s life plans. It will involve prayer and the intention to live a life of moral excellence. It will involve attendance at religious services, association with other religious believers, the reading of sacred writings and perhaps study and discussion on religious questions.
For an agnostic, to seek a relationship with God is to seek a relationship with a being whose existence is in doubt. This is atypical but possible–compare a situation in which a person camping alone hears some ambiguous but possibly human sounds outside the circle of firelight and calls out, “Is that a person? If somebody’s out there, you’re welcome to come closer.” For the agnostic, committing to God will involve prayer, likely in a similar conditional form; for example, “If you’re there, God, please forgive me for that, and help me with this,” and so on. An agnostic seeking God will probably also want to attend religious services, although full participation might be ruled out; no duplicitousness or hypocrisy should be involved in an agnostic’s search for God. Association with religious believers, thought and discussion on religious matters, and the reading of sacred writings are all called for by the intention to seek a relationship with God. Most crucially, the inquiring agnostic will want to live a life that would be pleasing to God if God does indeed exist. If you’re seeking a close relationship with God, then you’ll want to live a life that is in harmony with what God would want." (Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager, 30-31)
This last point should not be foreign to us. How many young men have found themselves attending a ballet or taking an interest in macrame because the young lady who has captured their attention enjoys those things? And how many guys have ribbed their “whipped” friend who begins to drink less or dress better, etc. because his girlfriend wants him to? Similarly, someone who wants a relationship with God would understandably begin to behave according to his or her understanding of what God requires of His people, and that person, too, will undoubtedly take some ribbing from friends who take note of the fact that their old friend has “got religion” or “found Jesus”.
G
goout
Guest
But we are talking about reality not a godless utopia with no objective reference point.
We do not agree.
That’s a fact, and that should supply a rational starting point for you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Actually, NO. Not that He wouldn’t know what you are doing, but NO, you would not be merely “going through the motions.”
If you have decided that Christianity is possibly true, then despite the fact that you are not sure, God will respect your efforts to learn more. Jesus said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you shall find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” (Mt. 7:7)
Therefore, God EXPECTS us to ask, seek and knock, and we do so even if we are not sure that anyone will respond.
Interestingly, many studies have been done on this very subject, and the evidence suggests that people who attend church, belong to a faith community, and form relationships with other believers benefit in MANY ways on social and psychological levels. Rota cites these studies, of course, and you can read more here:
A Better Version of Pascal’s Wager
Dr. Michael Rota
personal.stthomas.edu/mwrota/Pre%20print%20for%20website%20Pascal’s%20Wager.pdf
The bottom line is that if you Wager that God exists but He does not, you still win because of the quality of life and relationships that you will enjoy as a result of your involvement with a faith community as well as your own peace of mind and sense of well-being and contribution to the needs of others which result from charitable works, etc.
Now, we can agree that atheists can have these things, too, but that is not the point here which is to say that those who make a conscious effort to live as it is believed that God wants us to live do not miss out on the good things in life but actually enjoy a high quality of life on an emotionally satisfying level.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Rota notes:
All [your] objection has shown is that the [Wager] gives us no way to choose between Islam and Christianity. That’s true enough. But it hardly follows that there is no way to choose between Islam and Christianity. The way is clear: practice the religion that seems to you, on careful examination and reflection, to be most likely to be true. This policy reflects a proper love for the truth, and it is the policy that maximizes one’s chance at eternal happiness with God. (Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager, 67)
As you know, there are numerous apologetics arguments for Christianity and against Islam (and vice versa) that must be evaluated by the person who earnestly desires to seek God.
Rota expands on the many gods objection:
So the many gods objection poses no difficulty for the individual who thinks that (a) Christianity is considerably more credible than any other religion and (b) the truth of Christianity is more probable than not. For such a person, committing to God in a Christian way is more reasonable than not committing to God in any way, and committing to God in a Christian way is more reasonable than committing to God via some other religion. Thus, for such a person, committing to God in a Christian way is more reasonable than each of the other available courses of action.
On what basis could one confidently conclude that one religion is considerably more credible than another? In brief: on the basis of the available evidence. Although it is relatively uncommon to submit the panoply of religions to rational criticism and scrutiny, it is something that the person interested in finding God should do. It is possible to consider available evidence and assess the credibility of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, and so forth.
…suffice it to say that the many gods objection poses no difficulty for the wagerer who has made adequate investigation and comes away judging that the probability of Christianity is 50 percent or more and thinks Christianity is also considerably more likely than any of its religious rivals. (Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager, 68)
B
Bradski
Guest
Reasonable points. But…you are not now talking about believing in God but about joining a religion. Two entirely different things.
I was walking back from the beach an hour ago and a couple of dozen Hare Krishnas were out and about, singing, greeting everyone, chanting. They all looked exceedingly happy. Pascal wants me to believe in God. You want me to join the Krishnas.
And there is a subtext to the points you are making: being a Christian makes you a better person. Living as God would want us to live! Well, if someone I knew suddenly became a better father, was more attentive to his wife’s needs, started helping little old ladies across the street and taking in stray cats because he had started to believe in God, then I would seriously want to know why he couldn’t have done all those things before.
B
Bradski
Guest
Actually, we do. Any two sane people could easily agree. Whether one demands that he has an objective reference point is utterly beside the point. All we need to do is agree on what constitutes good and what doesn’t. And in that regard, we are in almost total agreement.
Otherwise, what you are saying is that out of the two of us, you alone can differentiate between good and evil. But perhaps that IS what you are saying. With your permission, I will pm you whenever I am in a moral quandry for your objective advice.
And strictly speaking utopia means a non-existant society, notwithstanding common useage. Eutopia would be better used in the sense I think that you meant.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Throughout the course of this thread, there has been a fixation on the following line of my OP:
Of course, Jesus specifically taught this (cf. Mt. 25:46), and as a Christian, Pascal presumably believed what His Lord and Savior taught about the eternal destiny of those who failed to obey God’s instructions.
However, eternal damnation is not the ONLY cost of not seeking God, and these other costs must also be taken into consideration when evaluating the outcome of NOT wagering on God:
*]Minimizes the chance of eternal life/happiness
*]Brings sadness to God and the saints
*]Fails to express gratitude to God (which justice requires us us)
*]Reduces the likelihood of receiving Divine assistance in this life
*]Reduces the likelihood of being aware of God’s love in this life
*]Reduces the likelihood of helping others attain salvation and eternal life
*]Increases regret and remorse over a misspent life
*]Increases the chance of searching for ultimate meaning in the wrong place(s)
*]Increases the chance of lower life satisfaction
*]Increases the chance of shorter lifespan
*]Decreases the chance of exercising certain civic virtues
*]Decreases the chance of attaining moral excellence
For these many reasons, it may be argued that Pascal’s Wager provides a framework for choosing between acting as if God exists and acting as if He does not on the basis of costs and benefits beyond the bald fear of damnation.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I am talking about acting on the possibility that Christianity (or any religion) is true. That’s why I quoted the passage from Rota which mentions the conditional nature of prayer, “God, if you’re out there…”
While I appreciate that you want to use an extreme example to illustrate your point, you have, in fact, proven mine.
There ARE benefits to seeking God that result simply from the fellowship with other like-minded folk. Sure, you can get SOME of that by attending meetings of the local model railroading club, also, but so what? The point is that Christians are called to fellowship with one another, and this is a this-worldly benefit of acting as if God exists even if one is not sure that He does.
And I would answer that he struggled with those things before because as a fallen man, he was inclined toward sinful and selfish desires. This is what original sin is all about.
So, while I would not say that being a Christian MAKES you a better person, I could say that being a Christian makes it POSSIBLE to be a better person because we are freed from original sin and can be open to God’s assistance and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
B
Bradski
Guest
A few of those are a little weird. If I don’t believe in God, I should because He’ll be dissapointed?
The others have been covered. Believe and you’ll get eternal life. Don’t and…well, you’ve been warned. People who belong to a religion are happier and virtuous. And the zinger: Believe and you will be a better person.
Ring the number on your screen now! The first 20 callers will receive a 100 page booklet on How To Access Objective Morality and access to online instructions on how to recognise Absolute Truth (value: inestimable).
But let’s be serious and turn the argument around. Tell us all in what way you would be a worse person if you lost your belief. Do you forget what morality is all about? Do you lose access to what the Absolute Truth entails?
P
PRmerger
Guest
But the problem for atheists is when there’s someone you’re in discussion with who isn’t in agreement with you.
For the atheist in your position, all you can do is say: you like to drag your wife by her hair for burning your toast, I think it’s wrong. Tomato, Tomahto.
But, if there is an objective right and wrong, you can tell him: what you are doing is…objectively wrong.
B
Bradski
Guest
So when I have two people who believe in God (and please remember that that is what this thread is about - not religion) and they have opposing views on a question of morality, which one has it right?
And please spare me any reminders that I am on a Catholic forum (hey, check the catechism, Bradski!). Again, this thread is not about becoming a Catholic. It is not about religion. It is about the benefits of believing in God.
There seems to be a general view that this belief will grant you access to knowledge that you don’t have if you don’t believe.
‘There is an Objective Wrong. I believe in God, THEREFORE I know what it is’.
Now I have two people who I can call on when I am in a moral quandry.
S
STT
Guest
By the way, why if God is evil and He punishes you forever for believing in a good God?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Did I say disappointed? That’s your word. However, God’s word says:
Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.
Dismiss these benefits if you want to, Bradski. However, studies have been done and the supporting evidence is clear.
The bottom line is that atheists cannot claim that by acting upon the possibility of God’s existence, they will somehow live a boring, meaningless life. In fact, the opposite is true.
Thus, one objection to the wager is rendered moot.
We already spoke of these things earlier in the thread. There are many ways in which theists are constrained from certain behaviors that non-believers are not. I used sexual immorality as one such example.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Being a believer does not guarantee that you or any other individual member of the Church will have all the right answers…not even the Pope has this kind of knowledge.
However, in general, God has established His Church with genuine authority to teach certain things infallibly, and thus, when two people disagree on a question of morality, they can seek higher counsel - either from God Himself or from His vicar on earth.
IOW, we are not left wondering who is right and who is wrong and questioning whether God even exists as a result of our uncertainty. This is the predicament of the skeptic.
P
PRmerger
Guest
It all goes back to whether you believe in an Objective Wrong.
If you’re a believer, you accept this, and when there’s a disagreement, we can lead the wrong person towards the Objective.
If you don’t believe there’s an Objective Wrong, then it’s absurd–simply ludicrous!–to tell someone who disagrees with you that he’s wrong.
That would be like telling someone he’s wrong for liking turnips.
Because no preference or taste can be objectively wrong.
Right, Bradski?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Interestingly, over the years I can see a progression in your moral paradigm.
Now, although you won’t explicitly say it, I think you’ve got a reluctant (tacit) acknowledgement that morality has an objective right/wrong.
You do agree with us that it’s wrong, objectively so, to kill your daughter for the audacity of being raped.
It’s NOT at all: well, it’s wrong for me to do, but I’m not going to say it’s wrong for him.
Now you just need to connect the dots.
G
goout
Guest
We are nowhere near in agreement.
The only thing we probably agree on is some desired outcomes (That’s a good thing as far as it goes.)
Desired outcomes without foundations are quicksand.
Quicksand is no basis for moral evaluations. It leaves our desired outcomes to the almost accidental power of whim, which leads to oppression.
Today you’re a human being, tomorrow you’re not, depending on who sits in the chair.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
What the heck. I am tired of pointing out your errors, but for the sake of others, I will do it again.
Not all preferences are equal. The preference for or against turnips has no effect on others. The preference for or against torture DOES have effect on others, and therefore it cannot be measured with the same stick as your “turnip-meter”.
Oh, and it would be beneficial if you learned the difference between “absolute vs. relative” and “objective vs. subjective”. A certain amount of water when tending a plant is objectively “right” or “wrong” - depending on the type of the plant. In other words, it is “right” or “wrong” relative to the plant. So things can be “objective” and “relative” at the same time.
But I (and others) have pointed this out to you many times, and in vain. I do not expect you to learn, but I hope that others will learn.
- Status