B
buffalo
Guest
Again your post demonstrates a total lack of history and understanding of philosophy.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Leela
Guest
What does history have to do with it? And where have I misunderstood Pascal’s philosophy? Does his “wager” not rely on the assumption that God will punish us for not believing in him with eternal damnation? Please educate me rather than merely point out my ignorance.Again your post demonstrates a total lack of history and understanding of philosophy.
N
Nepenthe
Guest
No, actually her post - although I admit Leela hasn’t got the smoothest rhetorical or prosaic style(please forgive my saying that Leele - you are quite a thinker, with a great deal of human immediacy, and not given to empty bombast like so many here), did, in fact, show a fair bit of historical and philosophical knowledge She very nicely summed up one of the classic problems with the Wager (all though those of you speaking for it are doing a pretty good job of that without any assistance).
C
crowonsnow
Guest
There is only an idea about “God per se” given a specific religion, or given deism. Damnation is not part of all religions by a long shot.We are talking about the idea of God per se.
Pascal was referring to the Christian version of a god so he was alluding to a theology that involved damnation. And given the circumstances of his life his position can be appreciated.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
At any rate, I wouldn’t respect such a coersive God or find him worthy of worship.
At the risk of changing the subject again, God is not coercive. We damn ourselves. God allows us to choose whether to have a loving relationship with Him or no relationship at all. When the atheist choose no relationship, God obliges. How can that be called coercive? God is honoring the atheist’s free will to have nothing to do with Him.
Would you say that the laws of a state are coercive when they say that if you disobey them you must go to prison? You are free to disobey them, but you also ought to expect the consequence that you will be separated from law abiding people for a long time. That is **your **choice, not the law’s.
At the risk of changing the subject again, God is not coercive. We damn ourselves. God allows us to choose whether to have a loving relationship with Him or no relationship at all. When the atheist choose no relationship, God obliges. How can that be called coercive? God is honoring the atheist’s free will to have nothing to do with Him.
Would you say that the laws of a state are coercive when they say that if you disobey them you must go to prison? You are free to disobey them, but you also ought to expect the consequence that you will be separated from law abiding people for a long time. That is **your **choice, not the law’s.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
crowonsnow
*Pascal was referring to the Christian version of a god so he was alluding to a theology that involved damnation. *
Not true. The wager argument by itself makes no mention of Christ. Go to Pensees and see for yourself. Christ for Pascal would be the only meritorious God to worship.
*Pascal was referring to the Christian version of a god so he was alluding to a theology that involved damnation. *
Not true. The wager argument by itself makes no mention of Christ. Go to Pensees and see for yourself. Christ for Pascal would be the only meritorious God to worship.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
“Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.” Blaise Pascal
L
Leela
Guest
The fact remains that Pascal, as the father of probability theory, created the Wager based on an expected value calculation whith assumptions about the consequences about belief and disbelief in God where belief has some unknown probability of infinitely good consequences and disbelief has the complementary probability of infinitely bad consequences. It is not the belief in God alone that is in question but also the belief in the God that has these infinitely good and bad consequences associated with it.crowonsnow
*Pascal was referring to the Christian version of a god so he was alluding to a theology that involved damnation. *
Not true. The wager argument by itself makes no mention of Christ. Go to Pensees and see for yourself. Christ for Pascal would be the only meritorious God to worship.
What Pascal actually demonstrated mathematically is why a religion the claims that people who don’t believe in their god will be punished for eternity will be more succcessful in attracting believers than a religion that does not claim that nonbelievers will endure infinite punishment.
Best,
Leela
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
It is not the belief in God alone that is in question but also the belief in the God that has these infinitely good and bad consequences associated with it.
But that is not the issue of Pascal’s argument. He is not specifying a particular god, but God per se. If you look into the ancient religions Greek or Roman, atheism is perceived as a losing proposition. Wasn’t that one of the charges brought against Socrates who did not worship Zeus and Athena … that he had mocked the gods and therefore ought to be executed?
It stands to reason that any gods who are believed to exist, if they really do exist, would suffer the insult of those who do not believe in them, and would punish the disbeliever accordingly. If you are aware of any historic gods who welcome disbelief in them, I’d like very much to know who they are.
What Pascal actually demonstrated mathematically is why a religion the claims that people who don’t believe in their god will be punished for eternity will be more succcessful in attracting believers than a religion that does not claim that nonbelievers will endure infinite punishment.
Well, it’s been some time since I’ve read Pensees, so could you refresh my memory as to where that mathematical demonstration is stated? I just don’t remember it at all.
Then again, there are lots of things I don’t remember any more.
But that is not the issue of Pascal’s argument. He is not specifying a particular god, but God per se. If you look into the ancient religions Greek or Roman, atheism is perceived as a losing proposition. Wasn’t that one of the charges brought against Socrates who did not worship Zeus and Athena … that he had mocked the gods and therefore ought to be executed?
It stands to reason that any gods who are believed to exist, if they really do exist, would suffer the insult of those who do not believe in them, and would punish the disbeliever accordingly. If you are aware of any historic gods who welcome disbelief in them, I’d like very much to know who they are.
What Pascal actually demonstrated mathematically is why a religion the claims that people who don’t believe in their god will be punished for eternity will be more succcessful in attracting believers than a religion that does not claim that nonbelievers will endure infinite punishment.
Well, it’s been some time since I’ve read Pensees, so could you refresh my memory as to where that mathematical demonstration is stated? I just don’t remember it at all.
Then again, there are lots of things I don’t remember any more.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Without a name for Pascal’s god Pascal’ argument for practicing belief is meaningless. He’s essentially arguing that we should practice belief in at least one god, any god. Take your pick from thousands!Not true. The wager argument by itself makes no mention of Christ. Go to Pensees and see for yourself. Christ for Pascal would be the only meritorious God to worship.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Without a name for Pascal’s god Pascal’ argument for practicing belief is meaningless. He’s essentially arguing that we should practice belief in at least one god, any god. Take your pick from thousands!
I know this is the standard atheist answer to Pascal, but Pascal never discusses that issue in the wager argument. 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. Of that handful, one might quickly narrow them down to the God that loves us (and therefore probably created us) more likely than all the other so-called gods put together.
And who would that be?
I know this is the standard atheist answer to Pascal, but Pascal never discusses that issue in the wager argument. 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. Of that handful, one might quickly narrow them down to the God that loves us (and therefore probably created us) more likely than all the other so-called gods put together.
And who would that be?
S
Sideline
Guest
Before I read this, I was thinking of the Roman practise of having an alter to the unknown God. They had no idea if this god existed or not, but they thought they were better off worshipping this god rather than tick him off… if he existed. If he didn’t, then no harm no foul.Without a name for Pascal’s god Pascal’ argument for practicing belief is meaningless. He’s essentially arguing that we should practice belief in at least one god, any god. Take your pick from thousands!
According to the wager, they had the right idea. Maybe I ***should ***go out and buy some goats to slaughter.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Before I read this, I was thinking of the Roman practise of having an alter to the unknown God. They had no idea if this god existed or not, but they thought they were better off worshipping this god rather than tick him off… if he existed. If he didn’t, then no harm no foul.
Precisely, and that *unknown God *is the God Pascal wants the atheist to get to know.
Precisely, and that *unknown God *is the God Pascal wants the atheist to get to know.
A
alcuin
Guest
I have read only the first and last pages of this discussion, but I believe that I can add a little light.
- To avoid the “name of god” problem in the context of Pascal’s Wager, it’s helpful to use the ontological description of God - i.e. “That thing that is better than all things”, or if you prefer, the “Divine Perfection”.
- Pascal’s idea that you should believe because it’s a good bet makes better sense if you understand it alongside the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We cannot force ourselves to believe, but we can act as if we believe. Acting as if we believe includes entering into the sacramental life and truly inviting God to reveal himself to us. God is there on the altar, he will answer.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Incidentally, having decided that it better to believe in God than not to believe, coming to the question of which God to believe in, Pascal said, “The most convincing of the proofs of Jesus Christ are the prophecies.”
It is interesting that the other great scientist/mathematician, Isaac Newton, also found in both the OT and the NT abundant instances of fulfilled prophecies. Only in the last century has it been discovered how fascinating Newton found the subject, how extensively he wrote on it, and how accurate his writings were … finding as he did prophecies yet to be fulfilled that in time would be … such as the return of the Jews to Israel in the 20th century … a prophecy Newton found by deciphering passages of coded scripture.
I’m not sure I agree with Newton or Pascal on the paramount importance of the prophecies. I would be more inclined to find the teachings of Jesus on love, and the proof of Christ’s love on the cross, that if you are shopping around for a religion … try as you might, you can’t do better.
It is interesting that the other great scientist/mathematician, Isaac Newton, also found in both the OT and the NT abundant instances of fulfilled prophecies. Only in the last century has it been discovered how fascinating Newton found the subject, how extensively he wrote on it, and how accurate his writings were … finding as he did prophecies yet to be fulfilled that in time would be … such as the return of the Jews to Israel in the 20th century … a prophecy Newton found by deciphering passages of coded scripture.
I’m not sure I agree with Newton or Pascal on the paramount importance of the prophecies. I would be more inclined to find the teachings of Jesus on love, and the proof of Christ’s love on the cross, that if you are shopping around for a religion … try as you might, you can’t do better.
J
JustHuman
Guest
Not to nit pick, but Newton was hardly the poster boy for good biblical researchers… Here’s just a few things he didn’t believe in; a literal Devil, demons, the divinity of Christ, and the afterlife. If anything, his beliefs most resembles that of a new-age occultist with a fascination with numerology in ancient texts (some of which happen to be the bible). Obviously Newton was a brilliant mathematician, but it would be quite a stretch to comfortably fit Newton in any list of great Christian thinkers.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Obviously Newton was a brilliant mathematician, but it would be quite a stretch to comfortably fit Newton in any list of great Christian thinkers.
It would be an impossible stretch to fit Newton in with any list of prominent atheist thinkers. Obviously he gave credence to scriptural prophecy or he would not have spent so much time on the subject … we’re certainly not claiming him for a Catholic.
It would be an impossible stretch to fit Newton in with any list of prominent atheist thinkers. Obviously he gave credence to scriptural prophecy or he would not have spent so much time on the subject … we’re certainly not claiming him for a Catholic.
G
greylorn
Guest
Charley,
I appreciate your initiation of a thoughtful thread. I no longer have my copy of the original “Wager” treatise, but my 30-year old recollection says that your excerpt of the original lacks some pertinent details included in Pascal’s full treatise. But you got the sense of his idea right, and that counts. Nonetheless, for those of us with analytical tendencies, the devil is oft in the details.
Pascal proposed that the cost of believing in God was small. It required certain standards of moral behavior— standards which a normal human will naturally follow on his own. Treating people honestly, not lying, cheating, or stealing— that sort of thing. As a Catholic, the standards included showing up in church now and then for an hour of reconnection with the spiritual self, and perhaps with like-minded individuals come for the same thing. He did not even mention titheing, which is more to the benefit of the Church than to God… Really, the only cost Pascal ascribed to normal humans was the showing up in Church part.
His words, translated into less flowery English, simply advised that by following a few honorable rules of behavior and showing up in Church, one secures for oneself a place in eternity. If the wager loses (no God, no eternity) what has one lost? A little time, perhaps a few bucks, the self-appointed freedom to behave like a pig and go to jail or die young. And if the anti-God wager wins, what does the winner gain? Nothing! He will never even know that he won.
But one betting against God, Pascal claims, loses everything if God exists.
Wagering in favor of God is akin to betting a dollar in hopes of gaining a trillion dollars; Wagering against God is like betting a few dollars, or a few thousand, depending upon how important it might be to someone to feel free to lead a brief life of evil, with nothing to gain over the long term, but everything to lose.
As Pascal might have put it in modern terms, betting in favor of God is a no-brainer.
However…
There is an understanding common to Catholics of his day, and of this day, which is Implicit in Pascal’s Wager. It is that God is selecting obedient souls for His heavenly collection, souls without the curiosity to study the universe, without the intelligence to form their own opinions about it and its purpose, and lacking the courage to transform whatever opinions they might have into convictions upon which they are willing to take a stand.
What if God is just looking for a few good men?
What if obedient, subservient souls are not what God is looking for? What if God is actually looking for individuals who have the intelligence and will to examine the beliefs they were taught, compare them with common sense and the real universe, and the courage to declare, in the face of overwhelming acceptance of beliefs, that the available religious teachings cannot possibly be correct?
One way to sort for such souls might be to put them on a planet in which everyone accepts a religious belief system which makes no sense whatsoever, but which everyone within a given society or sub-culture accepts. Every believer in whatever system will be told that its teachings are absolute, unquestionable truth, and that there will be a terrible price to pay for failing to accept the beliefs in question.
God will then select from the multitude those extremely few who recognize the failings of the belief system they’ve been indoctrinated into from childhood, and then declare that they do not accept it, despite the threatened consequences.
Of course Catholics do not need to concern themselves with this argument because they’ve adopted the only true and correct belief system. Neither do Muslims. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons, or atheists.
I appreciate your initiation of a thoughtful thread. I no longer have my copy of the original “Wager” treatise, but my 30-year old recollection says that your excerpt of the original lacks some pertinent details included in Pascal’s full treatise. But you got the sense of his idea right, and that counts. Nonetheless, for those of us with analytical tendencies, the devil is oft in the details.
Pascal proposed that the cost of believing in God was small. It required certain standards of moral behavior— standards which a normal human will naturally follow on his own. Treating people honestly, not lying, cheating, or stealing— that sort of thing. As a Catholic, the standards included showing up in church now and then for an hour of reconnection with the spiritual self, and perhaps with like-minded individuals come for the same thing. He did not even mention titheing, which is more to the benefit of the Church than to God… Really, the only cost Pascal ascribed to normal humans was the showing up in Church part.
His words, translated into less flowery English, simply advised that by following a few honorable rules of behavior and showing up in Church, one secures for oneself a place in eternity. If the wager loses (no God, no eternity) what has one lost? A little time, perhaps a few bucks, the self-appointed freedom to behave like a pig and go to jail or die young. And if the anti-God wager wins, what does the winner gain? Nothing! He will never even know that he won.
But one betting against God, Pascal claims, loses everything if God exists.
Wagering in favor of God is akin to betting a dollar in hopes of gaining a trillion dollars; Wagering against God is like betting a few dollars, or a few thousand, depending upon how important it might be to someone to feel free to lead a brief life of evil, with nothing to gain over the long term, but everything to lose.
As Pascal might have put it in modern terms, betting in favor of God is a no-brainer.
However…
There is an understanding common to Catholics of his day, and of this day, which is Implicit in Pascal’s Wager. It is that God is selecting obedient souls for His heavenly collection, souls without the curiosity to study the universe, without the intelligence to form their own opinions about it and its purpose, and lacking the courage to transform whatever opinions they might have into convictions upon which they are willing to take a stand.
What if God is just looking for a few good men?
What if obedient, subservient souls are not what God is looking for? What if God is actually looking for individuals who have the intelligence and will to examine the beliefs they were taught, compare them with common sense and the real universe, and the courage to declare, in the face of overwhelming acceptance of beliefs, that the available religious teachings cannot possibly be correct?
One way to sort for such souls might be to put them on a planet in which everyone accepts a religious belief system which makes no sense whatsoever, but which everyone within a given society or sub-culture accepts. Every believer in whatever system will be told that its teachings are absolute, unquestionable truth, and that there will be a terrible price to pay for failing to accept the beliefs in question.
God will then select from the multitude those extremely few who recognize the failings of the belief system they’ve been indoctrinated into from childhood, and then declare that they do not accept it, despite the threatened consequences.
Of course Catholics do not need to concern themselves with this argument because they’ve adopted the only true and correct belief system. Neither do Muslims. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons, or atheists.
G
greylorn
Guest
You are the clearest thinker on this thread. Your arguments are dead on.The fact remains that Pascal, as the father of probability theory, created the Wager based on an expected value calculation whith assumptions about the consequences about belief and disbelief in God where belief has some unknown probability of infinitely good consequences and disbelief has the complementary probability of infinitely bad consequences. It is not the belief in God alone that is in question but also the belief in the God that has these infinitely good and bad consequences associated with it.
What Pascal actually demonstrated mathematically is why a religion the claims that people who don’t believe in their god will be punished for eternity will be more succcessful in attracting believers than a religion that does not claim that nonbelievers will endure infinite punishment.
Best,
Leela
D
Dameedna
Guest
I’m not entirely sure wether his intention was to show that, but it certainly DOES show it, doesn’t it?The fact remains that Pascal, as the father of probability theory, created the Wager based on an expected value calculation whith assumptions about the consequences about belief and disbelief in God where belief has some unknown probability of infinitely good consequences and disbelief has the complementary probability of infinitely bad consequences. It is not the belief in God alone that is in question but also the belief in the God that has these infinitely good and bad consequences associated with it.
What Pascal actually demonstrated mathematically is why a religion the claims that people who don’t believe in their god will be punished for eternity will be more succcessful in attracting believers than a religion that does not claim that nonbelievers will endure infinite punishment.
Best,
Leela
A reward and punishment form of religion, is one that does little more than treating humanity as though it is one more of Pavlovs dogs.
It is dehumanising.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.