Pascal's Wager Redux

[Bradski]

Yes but the Pascal’s wager is that when we die and IF WE CAN go to an everlasting life in a beautiful place near our Creator, OR Nothing at all, just a rotting corpse and the end? Wouldn’t it be better to bet on the first scenario? Or do you like the idea of worms eating your body and your life being just a 60 or 70 year jaunt of meaninglessness?

If God exists, then there aren’t two scenarios. Whether I believe in Him or not won’t change that. So you must be implying that if I have a genuinely held belief that He doesn’t exist, I will be punished for it.

I’ll bet you can guess my response to that.

And in passing, something I missed from the last post. Who gets to claim that they have access to correct moral actions that are not accesBle to me? Point me in the direction of this person, could you? Where is this person with all the answers?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If God exists, then there aren’t two scenarios. Whether I believe in Him or not won’t change that. So you must be implying that if I have a genuinely held belief that He doesn’t exist, I will be punished for it.

I’ll bet you can guess my response to that.

And in passing, something I missed from the last post. Who gets to claim that they have access to correct moral actions that are not accesBle to me? Point me in the direction of this person, could you? Where is this person with all the answers?

Wrong that is not what I am asking. I am simply asking what do you think will happen to YOU after death?

 

[Bradski]

Wrong that is not what I am asking. I am simply asking what do you think will happen to YOU after death?

I will cease to exist.

I didn’t exist for quite a while previously and I must say that it has never bothered me at all.

 

[RCinMT]

Well, gee. You are so right. If I believed in God then…I wouldn’t be an atheist. Silly me.

And what’s with the business of knowing how to become a better chess player or triathlete? You are missing the point by such a margin that I find it hard to credit.

If I find a better way to do anything then it would be idiotic not to utilise it to improve myself. So please read this bit carefully: A belief in God would not make me a better person.

And how do you know that my beliefs are honestly held? Well, I just told you, buddy. I’d appreciate it greatly if you did not question my integrity.

Wait a minute, tomorrow if you woke up and found belief in God and an afterlife it wouldn’t alter your thinking or behavior? In other words, you view yourself as, you are on a Catholic forum so we’ll assume you would subscribe to belief in Christisnity, as living the ideal Christian life at the moment? Bradski is without sin, as defined in Catholicism, in other words?

 

[Bradski]

Wait a minute, tomorrow if you woke up and found belief in God and an afterlife it wouldn’t alter your thinking or behavior? In other words, you view yourself as, you are on a Catholic forum so we’ll assume you would subscribe to belief in Christisnity, as living the ideal Christian life at the moment? Bradski is without sin, as defined in Catholicism, in other words?

I am who I am. Good and bad. Same as you. We are all sinners, RC. Your belief and my lack of brief doesn’t change that.

Unless (gasp) you are implying that you are a better person than I am purely based on your belief?

Good luck with that.

 

[RCinMT]

I am who I am. Good and bad. Same as you. We are all sinners, RC. Your belief and my lack of brief doesn’t change that.

Unless (gasp) you are implying that you are a better person than I am purely based on your belief?

Good luck with that.

I think you know what I am getting at: at the moment you surely commit what the Catholic Church considers sins, as do I. We may even commit the same sins and yet I repent and try my darnedest to stop committing said sins. You don’t think there’s a God, ergo you don’t believe in sin (you reject objective truth and morality) nor that you do wrong. So if you were to awaken tomorrow, believe in the God described by Catholicism and all the teachings of the Church, your attitude would be unchanged regarding the actions that you say the Church considers a sin?

 

[Bradski]

I think you know what I am getting at: at the moment you surely commit what the Catholic Church considers sins, as do I. We may even commit the same sins and yet I repent and try my darnedest to stop committing said sins. You don’t think there’s a God, ergo you don’t believe in sin (you reject objective truth and morality) nor that you do wrong. So if you were to awaken tomorrow, believe in the God described by Catholicism and all the teachings of the Church, your attitude would be unchanged regarding the actions that you say the Church considers a sin?

You seem to think, erroneously, that a belief in God means accepting all that the Catholic Church teaches.

I know why religions exist. I can see first hand how people can believe the most outlandish claims. A sudden belief in God would not mean I would un-know those things. I wouldn’t start believing in miracles, testimonies from those who claim near death experiences etc etc.

 

[RCinMT]

You seem to think, erroneously, that a belief in God means accepting all that the Catholic Church teaches.

I know why religions exist. I can see first hand how people can believe the most outlandish claims. A sudden belief in God would not mean I would un-know those things. I wouldn’t start believing in miracles, testimonies from those who claim near death experiences etc etc.

You seem to miss that I am saying we will assume that you would hypothetical subscribe to the teachings of the Church–said that in my first post. So I don’t think anything erroneously.

Now that I know the ground you’re on, it would be pointless if you’re simply referring to deism. That’s clearly not what Paschal’s Wager is centered upon.

 

[Bradski]

You seem to miss that I am saying we will assume that you ascribe to the teachings of the Church. Now that I know the ground you’re on, it would be pointless if you’re simply referring to deism. That’s clearly not what Paschal’s Wager is centered upon.

But the other questions stil stand, if wouldn’t change a single thing in your life than you would wake up, log onto these forms and start arguing for atheism?

Your assumption is wrong.

And the majority of my posts here argue against religious ideas. Not against God.

 

[RCinMT]

Your assumption is wrong.

And the majority of my posts here argue against religious ideas. Not against God.

My assumption is wrong in a hypothetical scenario? I say, let’s assume you wake up tomorrow and believe not only in God but in the Judeo-Christian conception of God and the teaching of the Church (which is not verbatim what Isaid but is quite close to it). When somebody poses a hypothetical question for discussion it’s absurd to counter with claiming the hypothetical is wrong. Because I am asking, if the scenario described was true, what would it mean to you…

Saying it wouldn’t mean anything because I won’t acknowledge the scenario is odd, to me.

 

[Bradski]

My assumption is wrong in a hypothetical scenario? I say, let’s assume you wake up tomorrow and believe not only in God but in the Judeo-Christian conception of God and the teaching of the Church (which is not verbatim what Isaid but is quite close to it). When somebody poses a hypothetical question for discussion it’s absurd to counter with claiming the hypothetical is wrong. Because I am asking, if the scenario described was true, what would it mean to you…

Saying it wouldn’t mean anything because I won’t acknowledge the scenario is odd, to me.

Hey, it’s my hypothetical. See post 91. If you want to propose another, that I wake up a Catholic, then that would change my life significantly.

But it’s belief in God we are talking about. Not becoming a Catholic. .

 

[RCinMT]

Hey, it’s my hypothetical. See post 91. If you want to propose another, that I wake up a Catholic, then that would change my life significantly.

But it’s belief in God we are talking about. Not becoming a Catholic. .

BTW…you said in the referenced post that “Bradski the Christian is exactly the same person as Bradksi the atheist”. That implies that being a Christian doesn’t have meaningful impact on people’s lives, that it doesn’t act as a restraining force in some situations of sin and a compelling force to do good.

Are there people who attend services regularly, consider themselves Christians but who are unaffected by religion? Yes, of course. Does that then mean the majority are so unmoved? Of course not.

 

[Bradski]

BTW…you said in the referenced post that “Bradski the Christian is exactly the same person as Bradksi the atheist”. That implies that being a Christian doesn’t have meaningful impact on people’s lives, that it doesn’t act as a restraining force in some situations of sin and a compelling force to do good.

Are there people who attend services regularly, consider themselves Christians but who are unaffected by religion? Yes, of course. Does that then mean the majority are so unmoved? Of course not.

We aren’t talking about other people.

 

[inocente]

E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.

That’s coercion. Believe in God or you’ll go to hell. And anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself. Never understood why anyone rates the Wager, it’s as far from the Sermon on the Mount as the east is from the west.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It seems that the suggestion is: you’d better believe or…you’re going to be in trouble.

Really?

I have to say that if I’d woken up this morning and found that I did actually believe that God existed, then it wouldn’t change the way I live my life in the slightest. I do my best to be a good person in any case. I’m not always succesful, but belief in God is not going to up my strike rate in any way.

Would any Christian admit that they would become an immoral person if they lost their faith? That their belief is the only thing preventing them from doing wrong? That they are good because they are Christian?

Possibly. At least in some areas. Take these two examples from sexuality, for instance:

A Christian might decide not to watch an R rated movie that contains strong sexual content whereas a non-believer might not have a problem with watching it. Or another example: a man might decide NOT to engage in masturbation because he believes that it is a sin and does not want to have to confess it (again).

Now, be honest: how many atheists believe that masturbation is wrong? Remember, this is the same crowd that overwhelmingly supports a woman’s right to abortion because it’s her body, right? So, would any of these folks think it wrong for her to fire up one of her sex toys when her “partner” is out of town? I’m willing to bet the majority would not.

So, yeah…in the absence of God, there are probably many things that Christians might do that they will not do at present because of their belief that He does exist and has imposed certain restraints.

Similarly, would anyone suggest that a sudden realisation that God existed would make them a better person? Why wouldn’t they do what they thought was right whether they believed or not?

Yeah, actually. I would (and just did) suggest that. People behave differently when they realize that God is watching and that they must give an account someday. And it’s not simply about doing what’s right; it’s also about NOT doing what’s wrong.

And before you waste time with the classic “fear of hell” clap-trap, remember that people also respond to God out of love for Him and not simply out of fear of Him. We avoid doing certain things that upset our spouses because we love them…is it not reasonable that we desire to avoid sinning because we LOVE God?

Bradski the Christian and Bradski the atheist are EXACTLY the same person.

Sure. But they don’t behave the same way. Brad the Believer desires to avoid hell and please God. He also has the indwelling Holy Spirit helping him to discern right and wrong in a deeper way.

So what’s the requirement for belief? Well, apart from the fatuous declaration that ‘you should believe because it’s true’, what are the benefits? Is God going to send me to hell because I have used the intellectual reasoning that He gave me and reached the honestly held position that He doesn’t exist?

Are you serious?

Yep.

And I’m seriously telling you that you can bluster your way through this thread with feigned indignation like that with me, but God will not play these games with you when you face Him for judgment.

You can claim to have used your intellectual reasoning to reach your current position with me, but God will not be fooled. He will know the truth about whether your ignorance is vincible, invincible, studied or affected.

Either you die as a friend of God or you don’t. And if you have not desired to be in His presence during this lifetime, He will not force you to remain in His company in the next.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s coercion. Believe in God or you’ll go to hell. And anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself. Never understood why anyone rates the Wager, it’s as far from the Sermon on the Mount as the east is from the west.

Post #5.

 

[Wesrock]

That’s coercion. Believe in God or you’ll go to hell. And anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself. Never understood why anyone rates the Wager, it’s as far from the Sermon on the Mount as the east is from the west.

That makes it sound like a very arbitrary, at whim resolution. If I tell a man who is breaking the law but is ignorant of the law that he is breaking that if he continues on this path he will be justly sent to jail, that’s not necessarily a threat or coercion. It’s more a matter of people recognizing their fallen state and the path they are on.

Granted, Pascal’s Wager might not be great at making that point to begin with.

 

[inocente]

Post #5.

Matt 25. Yes, that’s exactly my point. The division has nothing to do with profession of belief, and instead is about action driven by the heart.

The righteous are even surprised (“Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?”) that their kindness to the least of the King’s subjects is so honored by the King.

Whereas the cursed helped no one, thinking they would only be rewarded for helping the King himself. The Wager appeals only to the selfish. ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me’.

 

[inocente]

That makes it sound like a very arbitrary, at whim resolution. If I tell a man who is breaking the law but is ignorant of the law that he is breaking that if he continues on this path he will be justly sent to jail, that’s not necessarily a threat or coercion. It’s more a matter of people recognizing their fallen state and the path they are on.

Granted, Pascal’s Wager might not be great at making that point to begin with.

Does the Law say that outward profession of belief is rewarded? No. Jesus gets really angry with legalists:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." - Matt 23

It’s what is in the heart that counts, and no one can be coerced into having the right heart. It takes an inward change that is the opposite of self concern, and it takes Grace, which doesn’t do wagers.

( :twocents:! )

 

[Bradski]

Possibly. At least in some areas. Take these two examples from sexuality, for instance:

A Christian might decide not to watch an R rated movie that contains strong sexual content whereas a non-believer might not have a problem with watching it. Or another example: a man might decide NOT to engage in masturbation because he believes that it is a sin and does not want to have to confess it (again).

So, yeah…in the absence of God, there are probably many things that Christians might do that they will not do at present because of their belief that He does exist and has imposed certain restraints.

I didn’t know God had banned us from watching R rated movies. I suppose you could extrapolate from any number of religious teachings to get to that position but then you’d have to assume that those who interpret God’s will are getting it right.

And masturbation? From memory, there is one line in the bible regarding that. And quite a few about stoning people to death. I guess you pay your money and you make your choice. I’ll take one and leave one, thanks. You might probably guess which one I rejected.

And in any case, who said anything about Christianity? Pascal didn’t. I think you are approaching this with tunnel vision.

Yeah, actually. I would (and just did) suggest that. People behave differently when they realize that God is watching and that they must give an account someday. And it’s not simply about doing what’s right; it’s also about NOT doing what’s wrong.

And before you waste time with the classic “fear of hell” clap-trap, remember that people also respond to God out of love for Him and not simply out of fear of Him. We avoid doing certain things that upset our spouses because we love them…is it not reasonable that we desire to avoid sinning because we LOVE God?

So the fear of hell is claptrap but in the very sentence preceding that you state that people behave differently when they realise He is watching. There is a word for that. It’s hypochrisy.

B: Why didn’t you take the money, Randy?
R: Because God is watching me. I have to give an account some day.

Now what does that imply to you? Well, I guess you’d say you knew it was wrong to take the money AS WELL as wanting to please God. Sure. No problem.

Sure. But they don’t behave the same way. Brad the Believer desires to avoid hell and please God. He also has the indwelling Holy Spirit helping him to discern right and wrong in a deeper way.

Say my son finds a wallet and calls the guy who lost it and returns it to him. He wouldn’t do that to please his father. Although his father would be pleased. One shouldn’t do something in order to please anyone. One should do it because it is the right thing to do. Period.

I try to do what’s right. Why would that change if I believed in God? The implication is always that a belief in God makes you a better person. The unspoken implication, and one that never fails to rattle my cage, is that, all things being equal, you, Randy, are a better person than I am simply because of your belief.

And not only that, you have a better insight into what is right or wrong than I do. So is it OK to pass on to you any moral problems I am struggling with? Seeing as you can discern right from wrong in a much deeper sense than I can.

You can claim to have used your intellectual reasoning to reach your current position with me, but God will not be fooled. He will know the truth about whether your ignorance is vincible, invincible, studied or affected.

Doesn’t it sound odd to you that I might be trying to fool someone that I don’t believe exists? Fooling oneself is the easiest thing in the world to do. Avoid that and you’ll be doing well.

If you have a word with Him at any time, mention my name and tell Him that I’m doing my best already and not to expect anything more.