Pascal's Wager Redux

[CHRISTINE77]

But when a non-believer decides to consider the wager he or she is not just looking at Catholicism (as has been noted several times by multiple people here). If a person is considering whether the Christian god is to be believed a person should at least consider the exclusivist position.

I think when we die the conciousness dies. To me there is no afterlife. I always leave any possibilites open, but my search has not revealed anything to change my mind yet.

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!

 

[PRmerger]

#pavlov

Yeah, so I regret this post ^^.

Please consider it retracted.

 

[inocente]

So who would be the authority here … you or the Bible?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

So you’re saying Pascal is an extreme legalist. Nothing matters except outward profession of belief. Doesn’t matter if Pascal’s victim knows nothing of Jebus (as Homer Simpson calls him), just as long as she professes belief. Doesn’t matter if on the inside she is full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean, doesn’t matter about works or faith or love, just as long as she selfishly accepts Pascal’s wager to protect her interests.

In which case Pascal surely denies Christ far more than the most extreme strong atheist, because he has turned Christ’s name into nothing more than a magical talisman which rewards superstition.

Cooties for adults.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14381782:

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.

Actually, in that same Sermon Jesus says (Matthew 5:22): “And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”… Looks like “hell fire” was supposed to motivate one to avoid wrath. Would you say that is also “coercion”? And that “anyone who responds to that threat is acting very selfishly, looking out for no one but himself.”?

Jesus isn’t making a threat. He is saying something which may be brand new to his audience. He first states what they all know, that murderers will be judged. But then He says not only deeds, but also murderous thoughts and angry words will be judged:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Jesus teaches against the blind duty ethics of the Pharisees (“You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.”)

The Wager comes from the same legalism as the Pharisees. The moral thing to do is profess belief, virtue doesn’t matter, Grace doesn’t matter.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, in original Pascal’s Wager it was important that one loses nothing (or very little) if one mistakenly believes in God. And in this argument it is important that one can’t gain anything by claiming that those beliefs are not 100% honest.

There certainly is nothing 100% honest about believing in atheism, since there is no rational basis for atheism and the atheist is supposed to be most of all a rationalist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By the way, what is the value of heart and honesty if we start to make a deal with God, following Pascal’s suggestion?

When you stand at the altar and whole heartedly exchange vows with the beloved, you are making a deal.

What have you got against making a deal with God?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Wager comes from the same legalism as the Pharisees. The moral thing to do is profess belief, virtue doesn’t matter, Grace doesn’t matter.

For the atheist there must be a motive to profess belief. Self interest is the motive.

How many beliefs in your life do you hold because they advance your self interest?

I’m sure you believe that believing in God advances your self interest along with the self interest of others who share your belief.

Or do you have something against self interest per se?

Jesus did not, because he offers us self interest in Matthew 25.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you’re saying Pascal is an extreme legalist. Nothing matters except outward profession of belief. Doesn’t matter if Pascal’s victim knows nothing of Jebus (as Homer Simpson calls him), just as long as she professes belief. Doesn’t matter if on the inside she is full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean, doesn’t matter about works or faith or love, just as long as she selfishly accepts Pascal’s wager to protect her interests.

In which case Pascal surely denies Christ far more than the most extreme strong atheist, because he has turned Christ’s name into nothing more than a magical talisman which rewards superstition.

Cooties for adults.

All this shows that you have not read anything in Pensees beyond the Wager. :tsktsk:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yeah, so I regret this post ^^.

Please consider it retracted.

Done.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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’.

So, you agree then that faith alone is insufficient for salvation?

And no, the wager does NOT appeal only to the “selfish”; it appeals to the uncertain and wavering.

 

[STT]

It’s not a deal with God. It is a rational argument. If there is God and an afterlife in Heaven, why not believe in it? Otherwise you are believing in nothing, no life after death, no reunion with your dead loved ones, just nothing. Rationally in makes no sense to choose the latter as you have nothing to gain by it.

It is a deal (bold part).

 

[STT]

When you stand at the altar and whole heartedly exchange vows with the beloved, you are making a deal.

What have you got against making a deal with God?

I think you have heard of unconditional love. How about that?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Do you find such a text in the scriptures? :nope:

However, there are texts which encourage us to guard our eyes because what we see can have a profound impact upon us. While an R-rated movie is less problematic (generally) than true pornography, it is still what Catholics refer to as a “near-occasion” of sin.

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.

You know full well that the Judeo-Christian tradition has condemned masturbation as sinful in the eyes of God. But if this is a “victimless crime” so to speak, then why? Who is offended by a little self-gratification?

Well, the answer is that God is offended, and we are called to avoid those things which offend Him.

And this important to our discussion because it is just one example of a way that Christians might be inclined to behave differently if God did not exist. Remember, you asked why a Christian would do anything differently because you assume that atheists and believers should be doing the same things for the same reasons. This might be true when it comes to helping an old lady with her groceries or paying your taxes on time, etc., but I have given some examples of ways in which Christians are constrained in their behavior by their belief that the behaviors are offensive to God - behaviors that hold no such consequence to non-believers.

Hey, you asked.

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.

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.

No, “hypocrisy” is NOT the correct word. I think the correct word is either “obedience” or “love”. Either we strive to obey God by following His commandments, or we love God and try to avoid displeasing Him. Or both. Jesus tied the two together:

John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command you.

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.

I can understand WHY this “never fails to rattle your cage”: BECAUSE IT’S FALSE.

No one (rightly) says that believers are better people than non-believers. It is entirely possible that the converse can be true on an individual basis.

So, if this error is what’s been sticking in your craw all these years, you can let it go.

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.

No need to try to fool God…you can’t do it, anyhow. But you can begin to OBEY Him and to ask Him to help your unbelief (cf. Mk 9:24)

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.

I do pray for all atheist members of this forum at every mass I attend, and if you really want to do your “best”, you might try attending, also.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since the NT was written by the Catholics, that is hardly surprising. If it would have been God’s own words, it would certainly not contain elementary mistakes, like saying that the value of “π” is “3”.

Well, your awareness that the NT was written by Catholics puts you miles ahead of some I have argued with in this forum!

All that remains is for you to understand HOW it is that we can say that the NT is the inspired word of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why don’t you ask this from the person who actually said that? Because I did not say it.

It would be ever so nice if only the church issued a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible, so we all could know if a specific verse is to be understood verbatim, literally, or it is some allegorical, poetic text. Until there is such an authoritative analysis, everyone is free to interpret any quote from the Bible as he or she wishes.

It is interesting that you claim that such an analysis would be authoritative since you aren’t actually willing to accept the authority of the Church in the absence of such a work. The value of such an authoritative analysis would rest upon the authority of the Church which issued it. And the Church’s authority exists despite the fact that it has NOT issued such a work. Your circular reasoning fails.

My suspicion is that if the Catholic Church did issue such a commentary on the whole of scripture, you would change your argument to say, “But why should I listen to the Catholic Church? What gives them the right to tell us what the Bible means?”

Or are you tacitly admitting that the Catholic Church does have God-given authority here on earth?

And by the way, many people do believe that “everyone is free to interpret any quote from the Bible as he or she wishes.”

It’s called “Protestantism”.

But let’s stick to the point. The quoted text from Kings 7-23 contains a mathematical error. An divinely inspired text cannot contain errors. Therefore the text cannot be divinely inspired. Case definitely closed.

lol

This is the WEAKEST point of your argument. Here’s why?

Is Everything in the Bible True?
catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-everything-in-the-bible-true

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am familiar with your incorrect argument (I have seen it far too many times). A fundamentalist would argue that the Bible is inerrant, divinely inspired and THEREFORE the value of “pi” being exactly “3” is actually correct.

The trouble is that I keep asking about the teaching of different verses in the Bible, and receive no answers - from those “knowledgeable” Catholics. So you should criticize your fellow apologists - and look into the mirror at the same time - who are either unable or unwilling to answer my simple questions. Which verses are to be interpreted literally true, and which ones are allegorical? This is the question that no fundamentalist would ever ask.

So I suggest, drop that “argument”, because it only casts doubt upon your “knowledge”.

Heh. Okay, Vera.

Can you point me to a few posts in which you asked questions that Catholics could not or would not give you an answer?

But your confusion regarding which verses or allegorical or literally true reveals a “fundamental” misunderstanding of your own. This may help:

One Text, Four Senses
By: Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/magazine/articles/one-text-four-senses

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think you have heard of unconditional love. How about that?

People stand at the altar and vows their love on the condition that they are loved in return.

You might call that a deal.

God’s love is not conditional, but ours is. We cannot love God unless we submit to the condition of first believing in God. The reason for believing in God is that we know he loves us unconditionally. It is in our interest to know that. And it being in his interest is the reason the atheist can sit up and take notice of God, since the atheist as well as the rest of us is always looking out for his own interest.

 

[STT]

People stand at the altar and vows their love on the condition that they are loved in return.

That is the part that I don’t like it. The love should be unconditional if the existence has any value and meaning. That the way to become Godly.

You might call that a deal.

Yes. It is a deal.

God’s love is not conditional, but ours is. We cannot love God unless we submit to the condition of first believing in God.

I don’t understand what do you mean with submitting in believing. You either believe or not.

The reason for believing in God is that we know he loves us unconditionally.

That doesn’t make any sense to me.

It is in our interest to know that. And it being in his interest is the reason the atheist can sit up and take notice of God, since the atheist as well as the rest of us is always looking out for his own interest.

Theist or atheist, it is not good to align your life with your interest if life has any meaning otherwise I don’t understand what is the purpose of creation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t understand what do you mean with submitting in believing. You either believe or not…

We are free to submit our will to the will of God.

Atheists do not submit.

 

[STT]

We are free to submit our will to the will of God.

Atheists do not submit.

I don’t understand you here too. One doesn’t necessary need to be a believer in order to align his will to will of God.