Pascal's Wager Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As has been pointed out already, Pascal’s wager assumes that there are only two possible belief systems, which is obviously untrue. It also assumes the bizarre notion that we can choose what we believe (I’ve never had that talent). When I was a Catholic, it seemed like truth to me. As my knowledge of science increased, I found it far more difficult to believe. Eventually I realized that I couldn’t possibly convince myself that the claims of Christianity are real. This wasn’t an outcome I wanted. The beliefs of Christianity are very comfortable, especially during illness or death. The fact is, I cannot, and probably never will be able to convince myself of a particular belief that I don’t hold as true.

Really, I think the main reason people believe in God is for the possibility of immortality. The real argument of Pascal seems to be that it is better to believe that you’ll live forever, than not. This may appeal to our desires and fears, but it doesn’t make it true. Until something like Pascal’s wager can make any sense whatsoever, it needs to be demonstrated that people continue living after they’ve dead. Regrettably, the evidence is to the contrary.
 
Really, I think the main reason people believe in God is for the possibility of immortality. The real argument of Pascal seems to be that it is better to believe that you’ll live forever, than not. This may appeal to our desires and fears, but it doesn’t make it true. Until something like Pascal’s wager can make any sense whatsoever, it needs to be demonstrated that people continue living after they’ve dead. Regrettably, the evidence is to the contrary.

Exactly what evidence are you talking about? There is no scientific evidence whatever that the soul does not survive death. So exactly what evidence are you talking about?

Because atheists don’t want to believe in God or the soul, that is not proof that God and the soul do not exist.

I think you might be looking for a word other than evidence, but I have no idea what that word could be.
 
selylidne said:
It is not a false dichotomy, because there really are no other options. What you meant to say was that there’s more to the possibility “God does not exist” than mentioned by Pascal. It is possible to suppose that God does not exist but that Allah does, in which case the “(Christian) God does not exist” option would have very different consequences than Pascal’s wager suggested.

Furthermore, people who compare the Hindu, Greek, Norse, etc. idea of gods to the Most Holy Trinity, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc. idea of God likely do not understand either concept. They are confused because we use the word “god” to describe both ideas. The two are almost nothing alike.

In any case, your objection fails to help you. Pascal’s Wager still shows that atheism is always a foolish choice compared to theism. Historical examination and reasoning are enough to discount Ahura Mazda and Allah, leaving as the significant options the Christian or Jewish account of God.
Click to expand...

Darius the Great & a lot of Muslims would disagree. Why should those who have their own gods bother with the Judaeo-Christian one ? He & his worshippers are a pretty unsavoury lot. The Christian god is, outside any terms but those of his worshippers, no more (if no less) important than any other. It’s perfectly conceivable that other gods are real - Isis (for example) seems inconceivable only if people have no imagination; she would need accounting for, but that sort of explanation is one task of theology. It does not follow that because she has lacked worshippers, she has not been active these last 1,500 years; it is quite possible, in view of her exalted position, that much of what is attributed to the god of the Christians is partly her work, & partly that of Apophis. The Christian god may even be Apophis.​

Pascal’s Wager does not save anyone from the displeasure of Isis, if she is the Queen of the gods. It may mean eternal punishment in Amente, the realm of the dead, if she is, because Osiris is unlikely to approve of insults to his wife.

Believers in the gods of antiquity are not atheists. But they are certainly not Christians either.
This argument sounds good to nonbelievers who feel that going through the motions would be intolerable. The argument is nevertheless unsound: science suggests that religious people are happier, meaning that the religious person gains even if their belief is wrong.
Click to expand...

Religious people are not all* Christian* - other gods give joy too.​

Again, this sounds very noble. It simply isn’t true, nor even a shadow of truth. I would say that belief is a matter of will much more often than it is a matter of logic and intellectual criticism, and that this is as it should be. All social development requires us to trust others without verifying their evidence in the vast majority of cases.

But even if it were true, it would miss the point. We’ve all experienced being wrong when we felt supremely confident of being right. Pascal’s Wager asks the committed atheist just how confident in his own reason he is–and no matter his answer, he can have nothing to back it up but faith.
Click to expand...
 
Gottle of Geer

Pascal’s Wager does not save anyone from the displeasure of Isis, if she is the Queen of the gods.

No, Pascal’s argument does not address who is the true God. That is a separate issue from whether or not we should risk offending God if God exists.

The answer atheists give, which you seem to think is reasonable, is that we can never know which God is the true God, so we risk damnation by offending the true one (Isis?) if we worship the false one (Christ?).

Here is the answer to that foolishness: if there is a God, the atheist does not risk damnation by being an atheist; he assures it by refusing to worship any God.
 
*Exactly what evidence are you talking about? There is no scientific evidence whatever that the soul does not survive death. So exactly what evidence are you talking about?

Because atheists don’t want to believe in God or the soul, that is not proof that God and the soul do not exist.*

This is true only in the sense that the soul is so ill-defined that we would need a working definition of it before the question is even meaningful. There is no evidence at all for a part of the mind that is somehow separate from the brain. For now, it appears that everything that we identify with the mind is fundamentally linked to the brain. As the brain is effected, so too is our conscious state. It would seem that the mind is what the brain does. Notice that when you are under general anesthesia your self awareness ceases altogether, and for all practical purposes, you cease to exist. To think that when your brain ceases to function you will experience anything at all is just wishful thinking.

Some atheists may prefer their current worldview, but I think most would love to think that somehow they will be able to live forever… that there is an all powerful being out there who will make sure everything works out the way its “supposed” to. To me, these notions are the crux of religion. But again, I’d love to think I’m somehow going to be able to survive my physical death, but I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest this is at all likely, so it’s impossible for me to just choose this belief.
 
JustHuman

To think that when your brain ceases to function you will experience anything at all is just wishful thinking.

This is good Catholic thinking if by “experience anything” you mean anything of this world. The activity of the human brain by itself is not the ultimate standard by which we can know whether we are destined for anything beyond this world of sense experience. Most atheists, like yourself, confuse the brain with the soul. You see the brain die and so there cannot be anything that survives. That is bad Catholic theology.

If you want “evidence” of the soul, don’t ask for proof from a scientific lab. If you want evidence for God, don’t look in a petri dish or through a telescope.

*Some atheists may prefer their current worldview, but I think most would love to think that somehow they will be able to live forever… *

We certainly don’t agree here. The only reason that stops anybody from wanting to believe is that they really don’t want to believe. That gets into the subtle psychoanalysis of atheism. There is no single explanation for why people prefer not to believe, but atheists certainly do not prefer to believe, and that is why they so vociferously argue the case for atheism.

The argument that there isn’t any “evidence” for God and the soul only arises after the atheist has decided he doesn’t want God to exist. He has to find a logical construct on which to build his position, but this too fails because there is no argument anywhere to prove that God does not exist.

Pascal’s argument is simply this: you should want to believe, because it is the only hope for your salvation; and if you want to believe, you will see immediately that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
 
A Brain in a Vat

Let’s start by taking a position of radical doubt. Suppose for a moment that you are not really a human being with an actual body. In reality, you are nothing more than a brain floating in a vat of fluids, with electrodes attached to various parts of your exterior that allow evil scientists to manipulate you into thinking that what you perceive is actually there, when in fact it is nothing more than an imaginary world constructed by the scientists. Right now, they are making you think that you are reading this article when in fact you are not.

From this point of extreme skepticism, we will prove beyond all possible doubt that God exists.
 
Actually, I think *A Brain in a Vat *potentially belongs in a thread of its own. I hope we don’t get sidetracked from Pascal here.
 
The only reason that stops anybody from wanting to believe is that they really don’t want to believe. That gets into the subtle psychoanalysis of atheism.

I’d prefer to think that I have a million dollars in the bank. The reason I don’t believe it is because I know it is not true, not because I don’t want believe it. I still can’t fool myself into believing something that I don’t hold as real.

If you want “evidence” of the soul, don’t ask for proof from a scientific lab.

It would probably be helpful if you defined what the soul does, and then we can determine if something like that exists. If the soul preforms any of the functions we recognize as part of the mind, it should be possible to demonstrate that at least some of these mental functions occur independent of brain states. It also seems reasonable to expect that if there are mental states not associated with brain activity, that unconsciousness and damage to the brain should not effect those functions.
 
Also, proving whether souls exist is not the business science is in - at least nowhere near this point!

Augh, whoops, I forgot to logout Mirdath again - this is Nepenthe. 😊
 
What Catholics and other Christians that use this argument seem to miss is that this argument is useless, unless:

***1. You believe that God is a reasonable proposition. ***

Believing in Santa Claus would up my chances of getting a present from him if he did exist. So it is more logical that I would believe in Santa Claus if it were at all a reasonable proposition.

If you don’t believe that God is a reasonable proposition, then it is unreasonable to put your faith in him for the hope of a reward. Believers obviously do believe that God is a reasonable proposition. Non-believers don’t. That’s why they are non-believers. Nothing in Pascal’s wager suggests the existence of God is reasonable. You need another argument for that.
  1. You believe that at least one religion is right about who God is and how to worship him.***
Christians obviously believe they are right. That’s why they are Christian. Muslims think they are right. Hindus think that they are right. There may be an answer to who is right, but Pascal gives us no clue. You need another argument for that.
  1. You have to believe that God will reward you solely on the basis that you have chosen him in order to get a reward.***
Again, Christians believe that God will reward believers and punish non-believers. Many of us find the idea that a God that cares more about belief than any other virtue is beneath contempt. Pascal doesn’t prove his proposition that the believer will get a reward and the non-believer needs to be punished. You need another argument for that.

I find it amazing that Catholics and other Christians think this is a convincing argument in the face of countless atheists telling them it isn’t. That is like me telling you that this quote from Epicurus is a good tool for convincing believers that there is no God :
Code: 
*Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? *
Epicurus’ argument is convincing to those who don’t believe in God, but it isn’t convincing to people who do believe in God. Pascal is great for convincing believers that they’ve made the right choice. It isn’t convincing to non-believers because they don’t believe the necessary premises that constitute the argument.
 
JustHuman

I’d prefer to think that I have a million dollars in the bank. The reason I don’t believe it is because I know it is not true, not because I don’t want believe it.

In logic this is known as a false analogy.

We are not talking about money in a bank that can demonstrably be proven to exist or not to exist.

We are talking about our immortal souls, and whether it is in our interest to believe that we have one, even though we cannot demonstrate whether it does or does not exist as we can with money in the bank.

When it comes to cashing in your chips, I hope you have some to cash in. But you won’t have any unless you believe in them first.
 
Sideline

Nothing in Pascal’s wager suggests the existence of God is reasonable. You need another argument for that.

Quite right. Pascal’s argument is aimed at atheists because he knows they do not want to find the idea of God reasonable. What he is therefore doing is to appeal to their sense of self interest. What if the atheist is wrong (that is, if you can find an atheist who is humble enough to admit he might be wrong)?

Here is an analogy.

A fellow is being chased by a tiger through the jungle and arrives at a rope-plank bridge across an abyss. He hurries across the bridge but realizes that it is giving away at the other end. He has no proof that life lies beyond that bridge, because he may fall to his death (the atheist’s nothingness). But if he turns back, death is for sure in the jaws of the tiger. What is it in his interest to do? Believe there is a chance that life lies on the other side of the bridge and run for it, or wait for the tiger (death) to catch him?
Again the element of uncertainty is profound, but the element of hope is even more profound. One would be unreasonable to choose certain death when there is a chance of salvation.

Once the existential decision is made that we want immortal life rather than immortal nothingness, then we can talk about whether the idea of God seems reasonable. It certainly did not seem unreasonable to the likes of Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, etc., all of whom might be called reasonable men who thought it was rather unreasonable to be an atheist.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Quite right. Pascal’s argument is aimed at atheists because he knows they do not want to find the idea of God reasonable. What he is therefore doing is to appeal to their sense of self interest. What if the atheist is wrong (that is, if you can find an atheist who is humble enough to admit he might be wrong)?
Click to expand...
You need to start listening to what atheists say instead of assuming that you know already.

I might be wrong. I might be wrong about Santa Claus. I don’t think I am. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn’t be an atheist. If you thought you were wrong about God, would you still be a theist?
A fellow is being chased by a tiger through the jungle and arrives at a rope-plank bridge across an abyss. He hurries across the bridge but realizes that it is giving away at the other end. He has no proof that life lies beyond that bridge, because he may fall to his death (the atheist’s nothingness). But if he turns back, death is for sure in the jaws of the tiger. What is it in his interest to do?
Click to expand...
No… this is the correct analogy. A person is being chased by a tiger. There is not reason to believe that there is anyway across the gorge in front of him. Pascal’s wager suggests that it is better off to run across the gorge in hopes that the air will support him.
 
I might be wrong. I might be wrong about Santa Claus.

Another false analogy. You cannot be wrong about Santa Claus because it is verifiable that Santa does not exist (go to the North Pole and find out!), whereas it is not verifiable that God does not exist.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I might be wrong. I might be wrong about Santa Claus.

Another false analogy. You cannot be wrong about Santa Claus because it is verifiable that Santa does not exist (go to the North Pole and find out!), whereas it is not verifiable that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
Santa is a spirit. Of course you aren’t going to find him at the North Pole. Besides, you have to approach him with a humble heart.

He was a real historical person, after all. Are you denying the reports of the people who knew St. Nicholas? Are you so sure?

I always get what I want for Christmas… as long as I ask for St. Nick to give me what’s in my best interests. Besides, the point is that I gain everything if I believe in St. Nick, but I don’t loose anything by not believing in him.

Before we continue this charade… do you believe in God so that you will get into heaven? Seriously, is that why you believe in God?

If the answer is no, then why do you think I would believe in God to get into heaven?
 
No… this is the correct analogy. A person is being chased by a tiger. There is not reason to believe that there is anyway across the gorge in front of him. Pascal’s wager suggests that it is better off to run across the gorge in hopes that the air will support him.

The analogy is valid because the Church offers itself as the bridge over the abyss. The Church is not an imaginary construct … it exists. And there are any number of Catholics who sometimes feel the shakiness of that bridge and wonder if it will carry them to the other side. I am one of them. You can pass over the bridge (through the Church) or stay on your side with the tiger, but you cannot say that the Church is thin air unless you know for a certainty that God and the soul do not exist … and this of course you do not know.

It is atheism that is thin air because it offers nothing but the rapid approach of the tiger’s jaws.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
No… this is the correct analogy. A person is being chased by a tiger. There is not reason to believe that there is anyway across the gorge in front of him. Pascal’s wager suggests that it is better off to run across the gorge in hopes that the air will support him.

The analogy is valid because the Church offers itself as the bridge over the abyss. The Church is not an imaginary construct … it exists. And there are any number of Catholics who sometimes feel the shakiness of that bridge and wonder if it will carry them to the other side. I am one of them. You can pass over the bridge (through the Church) or stay on your side with the tiger, but you cannot say that the Church is thin air unless you know for a certainty that God and the soul do not exist … and this of course you do not know.

It is atheism that is thin air because it offers nothing but the rapid approach of the tiger’s jaws.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’ve given this the old college try. You are going on my ignore list now.
 
Sideline

*Before we continue this charade… do you believe in God so that you will get into heaven? Seriously, is that why you believe in God?

If the answer is no, then why do you think I would believe in God to get into heaven?*

God plants in us the desire to be with him through all eternity. So yes, I believe because I want to be in heaven. I think you should believe in God for the same reason. If you are fighting God’s will, it is up to you, not me, to figure out why.

Ignore away.
 
And one last attempt to get through - nontheists don’t generally ** not want** to think the supernatural is unreasonable - we simply do not have any evidence or reason to think it is.

This was probably useless, like shooting a .22 at a lightyear-per-side cube of lead, but I felt I had to give it one more shot. 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top