Pascal's Wager Revisited

[Cluny]

Just because you avoid one hell (the Christian hell) doesn’t mean that you have avoided all possible hells – for example, if the Norse gods turn out to be real, all Christians will wind up in Nifilheim (unless, of course, you died in battle for the glory of the gods).

Wrong.

There is only one hell–originally prepared for the devil and his angels, though those who prefer their company will be there, too. God will grant them their wish.

 

[Dameedna]

Just because you avoid one hell (the Christian hell) doesn’t mean that you have avoided all possible hells – for example, if the Norse gods turn out to be real, all Christians will wind up in Nifilheim (unless, of course, you died in battle for the glory of the gods).

Wrong.

There is only one hell–originally prepared for the devil and his angels, though those who prefer their company will be there, too. God will grant them their wish.

Most religions only believe in one “hell”.(a few believe in several)

The point is, they all agree…that if you don’t follow their religion you will end up there. Same as you believe.

Of course…because you don’t “follow” their religion, they realize…you are unfortunately going to go to hell. I’m sure they will do their best to save you however, perhaps you should listen to them?

 

[buffalo]

Most religions only believe in one “hell”.(a few believe in several)

The point is, they all agree…that if you don’t follow their religion you will end up there. Same as you believe.

Of course…because you don’t “follow” their religion, they realize…you are unfortunately going to go to hell. I’m sure they will do their best to save you however, perhaps you should listen to them?

Religion means to bind oneself to God. If you don’t “bind” yourself to Him He does not “invite” you to the heavenly feast. You have already declined the invite beforehand.

 

[Dameedna]

Religion means to bind oneself to God. If you don’t “bind” yourself to Him He does not “invite” you to the heavenly feast. You have already declined the invite beforehand.

I have never rejected God, nor have I been given any reason to bind myself with something that I cannot see,hear,taste,touch or sound.

I have rejected Religion.

So have also rejected religion if not…you would be islamic as well as christian. We are no different.

You keep telling yourself that those who disagree with you reject God. They don’t. They reject YOUR beliefs. It is you sense of self…that is affronted. You are not offended for God’s sake at all.

Most believers don’t care so much about “god”. They care about their view of him…it’s their own image they are concerned with.

 

[Leela]

I’m not entirely sure wether his intention was to show that, but it certainly DOES show it, doesn’t it?
.

Right. It’s interesting that just about every religion holds that believers in their religion will receive infinite rewards and nonbeliervers will receive infinite punishment. A Darwinian view of the evolution of world religions and Pascal’s analysis demonstrate why this must be so.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The view that religion is merely a system of Pavlovian rewards and punishments is childish. It ignores and deliberately precludes the central part of religion, which is to have a loving relationship with the Creator, or not to have a loving relationship. The choice is ours, not God’s, which means that we have immense existential freedom given to us by God, understanding that with that freedom comes the fact that actions have consequences. We see this throughout life … it is essential in every aspect of our lives that we understand that actions have consequences. No adult thinking person denies this. It is not Pavolovian … it is universal … even the actions of inanimate objects will produce consequences. If we embrace God, we will be with Him. If we reject God, we will be without Him. That is our choice. God grants our choice and the consequence that goes with it. What right then has the atheist to complain of a merciless God?

The attempt to reduce God to a despot by criticizing the concept of heaven and hell as Pavlovian only means that the critic of religion does not want to face the consequence of his actions. Until he admits this, he will not see the truth that Pascal is inviting him to see:

“There is sufficient life to enlighten the elect and sufficient darkness to humiliate them. There is sufficient darkness to blind the damned, and sufficient light to condemn them and make them unpardonable.” (Pensees)

 

[crowonsnow]

If once you concede it is better to believe than not to believe, then you must confront the next question: which God is the most believable? Of the thousands, one might rather quickly narrow them down to a handful.

Which is akin to arguing that everyone should practice belief in lucky numbers, but that clearly only one number is really lucky, and all the rest are just imitations.

 

[crowonsnow]

The view that religion is merely a system of Pavlovian rewards and punishments is childish. It ignores and deliberately precludes the central part of religion, which is to have a loving relationship with the Creator, or not to have a loving relationship. The choice is ours, not God’s, which means that we have immense existential freedom given to us by God, understanding that with that freedom comes the fact that actions have consequences. We see this throughout life … it is essential in every aspect of our lives that we understand that actions have consequences. No adult thinking person denies this. It is not Pavolovian … it is universal … even the actions of inanimate objects will produce consequences. If we embrace God, we will be with Him. If we reject God, we will be without Him. That is our choice. God grants our choice and the consequence that goes with it. What right then has the atheist to complain of a merciless God?

The attempt to reduce God to a despot by criticizing the concept of heaven and hell as Pavlovian only means that the critic of religion does not want to face the consequence of his actions. Until he admits this, he will not see the truth that Pascal is inviting him to see…

It’s interesting how popular the pronoun god has become. Doesn’t Pascal’s god have a name? Does he ever mention this god’s name?

 

[buffalo]

I have never rejected God, nor have I been given any reason to bind myself with something that I cannot see,hear,taste,touch or sound.

I have rejected Religion.

So have also rejected religion if not…you would be islamic as well as christian. We are no different.

You keep telling yourself that those who disagree with you reject God. They don’t. They reject YOUR beliefs. It is you sense of self…that is affronted. You are not offended for God’s sake at all.

Most believers don’t care so much about “god”. They care about their view of him…it’s their own image they are concerned with.

Good - so the next step is to find out what religion says about God. Parsing through the world religions is enlightening.

To arrive at the proper one entails an objective search with preconceived notions set aside.

A study of history, metaphysics, and philosophy will help eliminate the obvious ones and will definitely point you in one direction.

 

[buffalo]

I have never rejected God, nor have I been given any reason to bind myself with something that I cannot see,hear,taste,touch or sound.

I have rejected Religion.

So have also rejected religion if not…you would be islamic as well as christian. We are no different.

You keep telling yourself that those who disagree with you reject God. They don’t. They reject YOUR beliefs. It is you sense of self…that is affronted. You are not offended for God’s sake at all.

Most believers don’t care so much about “god”. They care about their view of him…it’s their own image they are concerned with.

What do not not agree with?

1. 
   *]God is absolutely perfect.
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection.
   *] God is absolutely simple.
   *] There is only One God.
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God.
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition.
   *] God is absolute Veracity.
   *] God is absolutely faithful.
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others.
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness.
   *] God is absolute Benignity.
   *] God is absolute Beauty
   *] God is absolutely immutable.
   *] God is eternal.
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable.
   *] God is everywhere present in created space.

 

[Leela]

The view that religion is merely a system of Pavlovian rewards and punishments is childish.

I don’t mean to be construed as saying that that is all that religion is. I’m just explaning a certain aspect of religion. You think to view religion that way is childish, but from my perspective, what I’m talking about is a childish aspect of religion. The whole idea that God’s concern is primarily about whether or not people believe he exists is what initially turned me of to religion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dameedna

Most believers don’t care so much about “god”. They care about their view of him…it’s their own image they are concerned with.

No, believers take their God at His word, not their own.

“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

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

The whole idea that God’s concern is primarily about whether or not people believe he exists is what initially turned me of to religion.

God’s concern is partly about whether be believe in Him. The rest of His concern is about whether we love Him. This is why atheists alone are not condemned … all are condemned who believe with their heads but deny with their hearts. God wants our love more than anything else. If we choose not to love, God accepts that decision and we are lost to him for all eternity. I don’t see any reason why that should turn you off to religion. I should think it would more likely turn you off to atheism.

 

[greylorn]

I have never rejected God, nor have I been given any reason to bind myself with something that I cannot see,hear,taste,touch or sound.

I have rejected Religion.

So have also rejected religion if not…you would be islamic as well as christian. We are no different.

You keep telling yourself that those who disagree with you reject God. They don’t. They reject YOUR beliefs. It is you sense of self…that is affronted. You are not offended for God’s sake at all.

Most believers don’t care so much about “god”. They care about their view of him…it’s their own image they are concerned with.

Right on!

But, RE:

nor have I been given any reason to bind myself with something that I cannot see,hear,taste,touch or sound.

may I propose that you are tightly bound to something which you cannot see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or even locate in kinesthetic space. This is your self, the part of you which is conscious and responsible for your customarily lucid thoughts, and whatever actions by which you support them.

No, the little voice in your head is not the self. It’s simply a mechanism which facilitates communication between you and your brain.

 

[joemccarron]

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.

Alright I know this is a cheap shot but I can’t resist.

This is what you said about Santa Claus:

“Believing in Santa Claus would up my chances of getting a present from him if he did exist.”

Now I will tell you that is not how Santa Claus operates. Believing in Santa is not something you must do to get presents from him.

Now then when will you be getting baptized?

But as to Pascal’s wager there are objections that need to be responded to and gaps that need to be filled since he first set it out. Although he responded to many that atheists still resurface.

You say that Pascal’s wager requires that belief in God be reasonable. I don’t think this is correct. It sets out to prove that it is reasonable to believe in God. It only requires that one believe the probability that God exists is greater than zero.

You say we need other arguments for choosing between religions and I agree as would Pascal. The thing is we can cross that bridge when we get there. The wager is intended to show that it is more rational to believe in God than not.

You say: “You have to believe that God will reward you solely on the basis that you have chosen him in order to get a reward” No this is not a required belief or a premise of the wager. Pascal addresses this concern in general and more or less once people get in tune with God by taking sacraments praying for grace etc they will grow in their faith.

You say why do Catholics keep believing in the wager despite what atheists say? Well even many atheists see that Pascal’s wager has more bad arguments lobbed at it than good arguments.

If you would like to hear more difficult objections to the wager I can share those as well. I would especially like to share the other objections if you would agree that you will do your best to try to overcome them and justify the wager despite the objections that I put forward,. What do you say?

 

[greylorn]

It’s interesting how popular the pronoun god has become. Doesn’t Pascal’s god have a name? Does he ever mention this god’s name?

The word “God” is a noun, not a pronoun. Or, my 5th grade English teacher was a dreadful liar.

 

[greylorn]

Leela

The whole idea that God’s concern is primarily about whether or not people believe he exists is what initially turned me of to religion.

God’s concern is partly about whether be believe in Him. The rest of His concern is about whether we love Him. This is why atheists alone are not condemned … all are condemned who believe with their heads but deny with their hearts. God wants our love more than anything else. If we choose not to love, God accepts that decision and we are lost to him for all eternity. I don’t see any reason why that should turn you off to religion. I should think it would more likely turn you off to atheism.

Kindly explain why an entity with infinite intelligence would give a hoot why a bunch of humans with I.Q.'s just a few ticks higher than chimpanzees would either believe in his existence or love him. Does God fret similarly over the opinions of chimpanzees?

 

[greylorn]

Alright I know this is a cheap shot but I can’t resist.

This is what you said about Santa Claus:

“Believing in Santa Claus would up my chances of getting a present from him if he did exist.”

Now I will tell you that is not how Santa Claus operates. Believing in Santa is not something you must do to get presents from him.

Now then when will you be getting baptized?

But as to Pascal’s wager there are objections that need to be responded to and gaps that need to be filled since he first set it out. Although he responded to many that atheists still resurface.

You say that Pascal’s wager requires that belief in God be reasonable. I don’t think this is correct. It sets out to prove that it is reasonable to believe in God. It only requires that one believe the probability that God exists is greater than zero.

You say we need other arguments for choosing between religions and I agree as would Pascal. The thing is we can cross that bridge when we get there. The wager is intended to show that it is more rational to believe in God than not.

You say: “You have to believe that God will reward you solely on the basis that you have chosen him in order to get a reward” No this is not a required belief or a premise of the wager. Pascal addresses this concern in general and more or less once people get in tune with God by taking sacraments praying for grace etc they will grow in their faith.

You say why do Catholics keep believing in the wager despite what atheists say? Well even many atheists see that Pascal’s wager has more bad arguments lobbed at it than good arguments.

If you would like to hear more difficult objections to the wager I can share those as well. I would especially like to share the other objections if you would agree that you will do your best to try to overcome them and justify the wager despite the objections that I put forward,. What do you say?

I say that you are absolutely right about Santa.

If you want presents, you must put out cookies and milk.

Except in Russia. There, Santa prefers borscht and good vodka. He may prefer that combination elsewhere. Consider that for years, Californians have been putting out brie and chardonnay, and look where that’s gotten them.

I submit that if the Green Bay Packers are ever to win another Superbowl, Wisconsin residents must forego the milk and cookies in favor of cold Leinenkugel and a hot bratwurst.

 

[joemccarron]

I don’t mean to be construed as saying that that is all that religion is. I’m just explaning a certain aspect of religion. You think to view religion that way is childish, but from my perspective, what I’m talking about is a childish aspect of religion. The whole idea that God’s concern is primarily about whether or not people believe he exists is what initially turned me of to religion.

Well you have to understand a few things. The term “believe” used by john in Greek is pisteu which in turn comes from the word Peitho which also means obey. So we should understand that there may indeed be some connection between believing Jesus and obeying him. That is we must obey his command to love each other etc.

But beyond the Greek word and what that meant consider what “belief” means. If I say I believe in Jesus what does that mean? It’s not enough that we believe some person named Jesus lived at some time. We must also have some understanding of who Jesus was. Jesus did not live the same life Hitler did. The Gospels tell us how he lived and this is important information when we say we believe in Jesus.

Belief is a disposition to act in a certain way if a certain set of circumstances arise. It’s not just simply uttering the words I believe X. We may hear someone repeatedly say they believe they will go to eternal hell if they do not go to church on Sunday. But if we see that for no good reason they never go to church on Sunday we can legitimately doubt they really believe what they claimed to believe. Jesus requires “real belief.” “Real belief” brings about certain types of actions when certain circumstances arise.

By the way this is not only a Christian view of belief but a philosophical view that I basically took from Quine. In his book web of belief you will see a very good description of what a belief is.

 

[joemccarron]

Kindly explain why an entity with infinite intelligence would give a hoot why a bunch of humans with I.Q.'s just a few ticks higher than chimpanzees would either believe in his existence or love him. Does God fret similarly over the opinions of chimpanzees?

Well we are not chimpanzees we are humans and we have beliefs. I think God cares about our beliefs because our beliefs are important to who we are. If we include loving others as a form of belief (or at least a consequence of a formation of beliefs) it’s hard to see what could be more important.

What do you think God would be more concerned about with humans other than their beliefs?

Also consider how I understand beliefs as posted above. A belief is more than we give it credit for.