Pascal's Wager Redux

[Randy_Carson]

This is a very flawed reading of Pascal. Pascal’s wager is directed specifically at atheists.

However, throughout Pensees he goes on to demonstrate here and there why Christianity should be the best choice of all available religions from which to choose.

Aquinas could certainly be invoked as to why we should prefer Christ to Muhammad.

Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”

Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.

“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”

Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”

Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.

“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”

In his Summa contra gentiles, Aquinas ends his argument against Islam by offering a backhanded compliment to Mohammed, noting that he had to keep his followers ignorant in order for them to remain faithful.

It was, Aquinas wrote, “a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly."

:clapping:

Simply awesome.

And I would add that another of the bedrock beliefs of Islam is that the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity are corrupted. Thus, even though it cannot be denied that they exist, there is no real reason to pay any attention to them, for they cannot be trusted.

Pretty clever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And atheists have the wide range of choices among religions that I pointed out. Picking the wrong god is potentially as bad as picking no god. For example, an atheist has no difficulty in obeying “You shall have no other gods before me”, since the atheists treats all gods equally, not putting any one ahead of any of the others. Similarly, an atheist is guaranteed not to worship the wrong god. Both of these advanatghges are at risk when picking a god.

Well, that’s an interesting position. By believing in No god, the atheist avoids offending any of them by worshiping the wrong one.

Oh, except that he also fails to worship the one true God, thereby offending HIm in the process. Nice try.

But you are also simply wrong about how God responds to our efforts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

Given where and when Pascal lived, I very much doubt whether he gave a fair and knowledgeable account of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism.

And I am sure there is some medieval Arab writer who can tell us why we should prefer Mohammed to Jesus. All religions can provide arguments against other religions.

rossum

But not all of these arguments stand up to cross-examination.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you don’t understand that there is no dichotomy in the two statements, then I can’t really help you.

Or explain it, perhaps?

And if there is the possibility that God exist? Well, there is a possibility. But I try as much as the next man to live a good life. I was brought up in a Christian household but it became clear to me at a very early age that it wasn’t necessary to be a Christian to be a good person. My old grandad never went to church and didn’t believe in God - the only person I knew who didn’t, and he was the best man I ever knew.

I’m always a little concerned at the suggestion that people are good because they are Christian. I’d like to think that they are good as well as being Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Hindu.

Gee, no one has ever denied that atheists can be good people, have they? That’s not really the issue, and here’s a short video that covers that canard:

youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

It’s worth the 5:01 of your time.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Only for simple-minded atheists.

Hmmm. Should I reciprocate this “compliment”? Would it be acceptable to speak of “simple-minded theists”? I don’t think so. Is the evidence similar to the “evidence” presented for the existence of “demons”?

Like Nietzsche, for example?

Nope. Why do so many Christians think that Nietzsche is a typical example?

But okay, Vera, what is the meaning of your life? With what have you filled it?

Love, beauty, fun, games, reading, enjoying good company, looking at the beauty of nature… and zillions of other things - none of which has anything to do with religion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hmmm. Should I reciprocate this “compliment”? Would it be acceptable to speak of “simple-minded theists”? I don’t think so.

What’s the problem? There are simple-minded folks on both sides. For those willing to think more deeply, it is obvious that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is in a completely different league. Or do you consider Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be worthy of serious inquiry?

Nope. Why do so many Christians think that Nietzsche is a typical example?

Why do so many people think Nietzsche was so influential?

Love, beauty, fun, games, reading, enjoying good company, looking at the beauty of nature… and zillions of other things - none of which has anything to do with religion.

All good things. And then what, Vera? What comes next after these things?

 

[rossum]

First, Pascal’s Wager is about theism v. atheism. Not about Christianity v. Islam, etc.

Then Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy.

Second, the merits of each major world religion should be evaluated on the strengths of their arguments and evidence.

And also their demerits: “If I believe in the Christian God, and I am wrong, then Allah will smite me.” You need to consider the downside of any choice as well as the up side.

Third, how do you find that having a 1 in 100,000 chance of picking the right god…

In a Hindu temple you worship all the Hindu gods. Hindu gods are not jealous gods.

… to be better than simply choosing to pursue the one eternal Creator?

Excellent, you have persuaded me. See you at the Mosque next Friday.

Oh… sorry, not that one eternal creator. See you at the Synagogue next Sabbath then.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Oh, except that he also fails to worship the one true God, thereby offending HIm in the process. Nice try.

Why would Brahman be offended?

You are assuming a specific identity for the one true God. Your assumption may be wrong.

rossum

 

[Randy_Carson]

Excellent, you have persuaded me. See you at the Mosque next Friday.

Oh… sorry, not that one eternal creator. See you at the Synagogue next Sabbath then.

rossum

There is only ONE God who created all that exists…whether you call Him Yahweh, Allah or I AM or just Abba.

Hinduisms demigods are unworthy of human adoration.

 

[lynnvinc]

As a Catholic and a former research & stats teacher Pascal’s my man.

I use Pascal’s wager for climate change, as did Greg Craven (see youtube.com/watch?v=uWD7njWOpe0)

My take:

Either anthropogenic climate change (CC) is happening or it is not.

The 4 possibilities are:

1. People mitigate CC and it is not real – they will have a net savings of money from mitigation efforts and mitigate other env problems.
2. People mitigate CC and it is real – they will save money from mitigation efforts and mitigate other env problems, but they (mainly their progeny) will suffer some impact from CC that’s already “in the pipes.”
3. People fail to mitigate CC and it is not real – they will not save money from mitigation efforts.
4. People fail mitigate CC and it is real – not only will people fail to save money from mitigation efforts, but there will be a lot of life-harmful repercussions into the far future for 100s, even 1000s of years, perhaps pushing people into a killer musical-chairs of diminishing life-sustaining resources.

I guess the main problem is people aren’t so logical as we make them out to be

 

[rossum]

There is only ONE God who created all that exists…whether you call Him Yahweh, Allah or I AM or just Abba.

Hinduisms demigods are unworthy of human adoration.

Brahman.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

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.

There’s always an act of the will that’s involved with any belief or rejection.

One can be faced with all sorts of firm evidence, but until one fixes his will, and determines, “I will believe”, then there’s no further he can go.

 

[PRmerger]

I think Pascal’s wager wasn’t meant to convince ardent atheists of God’s existence. It’s more for those who are torn between two sides, not knowing which is correct but recognizing the logic of both positions.

Yes. It’s either the impetus for starting the search, or the final nail in the coffin of atheism.

In either case, it doesn’t stand alone and ought not be evaluated in isolation of all the other arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Brahman.

rossum

Another name for the Maximally Great Being. Here is an interesting article:

hinduwebsite.com/onegod.asp

If Hinduism is monotheistic and all of the various gods and goddesses are manifestations of Brahman, then why has it been argued in posts above that we run the risk of worshiping the “wrong” god?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

What’s the problem? There are simple-minded folks on both sides. For those willing to think more deeply, it is obvious that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is in a completely different league. Or do you consider Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be worthy of serious inquiry?

None of them merits serious inquiry. First, a correct definition would be needed. Then evidence should be presented. Both of them are lacking. What is there to examine?

Why do so many people think Nietzsche was so influential?

Who does? But my question was left unanswered. “Why do so many Christians (on this board) think that Nietzsche and his views correctly represent atheism?” I think it is because they have no idea what atheism is all about.

All good things. And then what, Vera? What comes next after these things?

Your question was: “what do I do to fill up my life with value”? I answered that. For atheists life is meaningful, but death is not. For Christians life itself is meaningless, it is just a preparatory nuisance before death.

 

[PRmerger]

For Christians life itself is meaningless, it is just a preparatory nuisance before death.

This is an impoverished understanding of Christian life. I reject the same view of Christianity which you do.

Christianity views life as supremely valuable–so valuable that no greater gift does a man have than to lay it down for someone.

So, again, the Catholic Both/And is at work here. Not that peculiar either/or which is so common to fundamentalism these days.

Both life AND death are meaningful.

There is no need to declare “Death is meaningful for Christians, therefore they must view life as meaningless”. That’s an otiose (and illogical) conclusion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you don’t understand that there is no dichotomy in the two statements, then I can’t really help you.

And if there is the possibility that God exist? Well, there is a possibility. But I try as much as the next man to live a good life. I was brought up in a Christian household but it became clear to me at a very early age that it wasn’t necessary to be a Christian to be a good person. My old grandad never went to church and didn’t believe in God - the only person I knew who didn’t, and he was the best man I ever knew.

I’m always a little concerned at the suggestion that people are good because they are Christian. I’d like to think that they are good as well as being Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Hindu.

Goodness comes to be in us for a variety of reasons. It is possible to be a “good” atheist in the sense that the atheist inherits a profound tradition of Christian values that permeate his family and his generation and his society. Nobody doubts that is possible.

But there are levels of goodness that the atheist denies himself, such as the gratitude he owes to his Creator. If this is not the greatest goodness a man owes his Creator along with all the good he owes to his neighbors, then there is no way to convince a man that he is full of much ingratitude for even his own existence and the chance to be better than he is through the mercy and guidance of God.

Pascal talks about a man foolishly gambling away the fate of his immortal soul for the reason that he has never seen God up close and personal enough to be convinced that he even exists. Well, of course we are never going to see God up close and personal enough to believe he exists if we start by first denying that he exists.

But it’s rare in my experience to find an atheist who avoids every opportunity to show his ingratitude to his Creator and in doing so taunt those who do show their gratitude. I ought to know. I was once one of those atheists. By the mercy of God I have been rescued from such foolishness.

I pray constantly that all men will be rescued, as did Pascal.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This is an impoverished understanding of Christian life. I reject the same view of Christianity which you do.

Christianity views life as supremely valuable–so valuable that no greater gift does a man have than to lay it down for someone.

So, again, the Catholic Both/And is at work here. Not that peculiar either/or which is so common to fundamentalism these days.

Both life AND death are meaningful.

There is no need to declare “Death is meaningful for Christians, therefore they must view life as meaningless”. That’s an otiose (and illogical) conclusion.

Nonsense. For Christians only the alleged afterlife is of supreme importance, so the temporal existence here and now is worthless in comparison. Just look at the plethora of arguments, which declare the pain and misery irrelevant when compared to the “bliss” in the hereafter. One of the staple answers to the unresolvable “problem of evil”.

The “no greater love” kind of argument is only applicable to atheists. For Christians only giving up the eternal bliss would be applicable.

 

[PRmerger]

Nonsense. For Christians only the alleged afterlife is of supreme importance, so the temporal existence here and now is worthless in comparison. Just look at the plethora of arguments, which declare the pain and misery irrelevant when compared to the “bliss” in the hereafter. One of the staple answers to the unresolvable “problem of evil”.

The “no greater love” kind of argument is only applicable to atheists. For Christians only giving up the eternal bliss would be applicable.

Perhaps this ^^ uninformed view of Christianity is why you reject Christianity?

If you were to understand that Christians view life as a sublime gift, perhaps you could come at feast with us again?

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of them merits serious inquiry. First, a correct definition would be needed. Then evidence should be presented. Both of them are lacking. What is there to examine?

In the case of Christianity, there is plenty to examine.

So, are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Christianity at length and found it wanting? Or because you haven’t bothered to do so and have simply dismissed it without real consideration?

Who does? But my question was left unanswered. “Why do so many Christians (on this board) think that Nietzsche and his views correctly represent atheism?” I think it is because they have no idea what atheism is all about.

I have spent the better part of the past two years immersed in the world of atheism via online forums, and I have read many articles and books on the subject in addition to this “live” interaction with atheists. I think I have at least SOME idea of what atheism is all about.

However, I referenced Nietzsche NOT as an example of the quintessential atheist (is there such a thing?) but because nihilism is the ultimate end of all atheist worldviews.

Your question was: “what do I do to fill up my life with value”? I answered that. For atheists life is meaningful, but death is not. For Christians life itself is meaningless, it is just a preparatory nuisance before death.

How can something which is preparatory be a nuisance. That’s kinda like saying that going to medical school is a nuisance one must endure before performing surgery. Rather, anyone who is contemplating cutting another human being open with a scalpel is riveted by what they learn in the prep phase.

But I know what you said in answer to my first question. Now, I want to know what your answer is to my second question. Let’s assume that you have filled your life with good friends, good books, good music and good wine. All that eventually comes to an end.

Okay, and then what?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nonsense. For Christians only the alleged afterlife is of supreme importance, so the temporal existence here and now is worthless in comparison. Just look at the plethora of arguments, which declare the pain and misery irrelevant when compared to the “bliss” in the hereafter. One of the staple answers to the unresolvable “problem of evil”.

General Eisenhower was the SUPREME Allied Commander in WWII, but this does not mean that there were not other commanders with genuine authority over their troops, does it?

:nope:

Eternal life IS of supreme importance. But that does not mean that life on earth is of NO importance.

And sure, 80 years of suffering in this life does pale in comparison with ETERNITY spent in God’s presence. Or in hell. So, yeah, viewed from that perspective, the problem of evil is not such a big problem, after all. It’s far from “unresolvable”.