Pascal's Wager Revisited

[joemccarron]

I agree wholeheartedly that “what should I do?” is a more fundamental question in life that “what should I believe?” Beliefs are mental constructs that evolved later than the actions that they motivate. Beliefs are habits of action rather than prerequisites for action. Human beings found food and shelter, had sex, cooperated and fought one another, and raised children long before they had any need to create language let alone religion or gods.

What I have been saying in general on this forum is a reaction against the idea that belief or disbelief in God or gods is fundamental to human existence. You are saying that my line of thought in why God must not care whether I believe in him is a non sequitur, but it is not MY line of thought. These sorts of thoughts that you think are illogical are what follows when you begin with the idea that whether or not God exists is an interesting question. My position is not “atheism” but rather that we’d be better off if we stopped playing this God/no gods game. In arguing my position, I am just taking the theistic line of thinking to its illogical conclusions.

Best,
Leela

Leela we disagree about what it means to believe something. As I explained above to believe something means you are disposed to act a certain way when a certain set of circumstances occur. That is what a belief is as I, and Quine, understand it.

Now Greylorn has quoted the dictionary about belief. Certainly words change their meaning, and dictionaries reflect those changes. But for the Christian belief in the modern sense - whatever that means - is really not relevant. John wrote of the importance of “belief” But that does not mean we can look in a dictionary written 1900 years later and say whatever it means now is what he meant. No, as a Christian we have to understand what John would have meant by the term. And we know that the term in Greek stems from a word that also means obey. So he is not meaning some mental construct that develops after action but one that guides our actions.

Now I will agree that Hume was a philosopher who maintained that beliefs had absolutely no connection with action. So I do concede such a view has some powerful intellects supporting it. But that is denied in Christianity. Just read the book of James and you will see that. Christians do not think there is this big divide between belief and action.

Its not that questions of what to do are more important that questions of what to believe. These two are interwoven. My point is that questions of what we should do are more important than why such and such occurs. At least they are to a rational person.

 

[greylorn]

A recent series of posts seems to be sneaking up on a relevant question, via the back door, but hey, if that’s the only door that’s open a crack… And since this thread’s formidable title has yet to attract the thread flies, you guys might want to get to the point before they arrive and distract a good conversation.

Einstein’s God seems to be, in the opinions of some, a different entity than the Christian God. I’ve only studied his physical theories, and am no expert on them or on his philosophy, although I did read a treatise of his way back when and was not impressed. I honestly do not believe that the “God” to which Einstein offhandedly referred was better defined, or differently defined, than the God of Christianity, Islam, or new-age metaphysics. And while I love the idea of bridging science and religion, making up the notion that an iconic scientist has some special kind of God-concept is not quite the way to do it.

What might work is this: Let’s put our individual definitions, beliefs, understandings, or questions about the nature of God on this thread, and discuss those. (I’m perfectly willing to keep my own opinions on this subject off-thread and will do so upon the request of any one of those who have previously posted to this topic.)

Despite Ender’s earlier note, a discussion about the nature and purposes of God is not off-topic. As I noted (indirectly) in an earlier post on this thread, addressing Pascal’s Wager as a philosophical argument requires an understanding of God’s purpose. This is directly tied to God’s nature. “Pascal’s Wager” is a wonderfully ubiquitous thread topic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

grelorn

I honestly do not believe that the “God” to which Einstein offhandedly referred was better defined, or differently defined, than the God of Christianity, Islam, or new-age metaphysics.

I would say Einstein’s God, though not well defined except by his remark that he believed in the god of Spinoza, is certainly differently defined than the God of Christianity. Einstein made it very clear that he did not believe in a personal God and was contemptuous of the Judeo-Christian God in particular. This is based on an letter he wrote to the NY Times in the 1930s which is very specific on this score. Whether he had modified his view by the time of his death in the 50s is not known … he might have had a Pascalian moment, as many atheists have had, at the hour of his death.

 

[Leela]

I honestly do not believe that the “God” to which Einstein offhandedly referred was better defined, or differently defined, than the God of Christianity, Islam, or new-age metaphysics.

I would say Einstein’s God, though not well defined except by his remark that he believed in the god of Spinoza, is certainly differently defined than the God of Christianity. Einstein made it very clear that he did not believe in a personal God and was contemptuous of the Judeo-Christian God in particular. This is based on an letter he wrote to the NY Times in the 1930s which is very specific on this score. Whether he had modified his view by the time of his death in the 50s is not known … he might have had a Pascalian moment, as many atheists have had, at the hour of his death.

Here are some Einstein quotes to help give an idea of what Einstein meant by the word “God”:

“I believe in a Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings.” Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929; [pg.147, Calaprice].

“I can not accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death or blind faith. I can not prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.” [pg. 58, Mayer, Bite-size Einstein]

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man…In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” [Letter to a child who asked if scientist pray, January 24, 1936; pg. 152 Calaprice]

“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” [Albert Einstein, The World as I See It American Institute of Physics Online]

In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of the priests." [pg.153 Calaprice]

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.”
[Albert Einstein, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

“What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind.” [pg. 56 Mayer]

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God.” Einstein

This is typical of Einstein’s thought processes. He was a genius of physics, but outside his own field his thought was unimpressive. The notion that morality is not important for God is a case in point. Morality is important for God, or God would not have instituted it with commandments, both revealed and inscribed on our hearts by the natural law. Obedience is important for God, because morality is nothing more nor less than the decision to obey or disobey those commandments, the first of which is to love God and love one another. The notion that this is not of the highest importance to God is truly idiotic … unless of course your God is not a personal God. Einstein’s god was not a personal God. Yet he would dare to say: “We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

Einstein’s own personality reveals a clue as to why he could not abide a personal God.
albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html

 

[HelenaMT]

…Let’s put our individual definitions, beliefs, understandings, or questions about the nature of God on this thread, and discuss those. (I’m perfectly willing to keep my own opinions on this subject off-thread and will do so upon the request of any one of those who have previously posted to this topic.)

Despite Ender’s earlier note, a discussion about the nature and purposes of God is not off-topic. As I noted (indirectly) in an earlier post on this thread, addressing Pascal’s Wager as a philosophical argument requires an understanding of God’s purpose. This is directly tied to God’s nature. “Pascal’s Wager” is a wonderfully ubiquitous thread topic.

The problem with Pascal’s wager is that it presupposes that God cares whether we believe or not, and that God is incomprehensible and without limits. As Catholics, perhaps we believe this, but for an atheist, or a non-Christian, what’s to say they will see only those 2 choices?

First they have to come to think that some form of god or gods exists, but that doesn’t get them to the One God Pascal is talking about, the one that will punish them for non-belief in Him. And as others have said here, you really can’t force yourself to believe something you’re not already predisposed to. If you haven’t been raised in a faith-filled household, or had some personal revelation to help you along, I would say it’s almost impossible. There are some people who simply can’t bet on God.

A big hurdle to belief in God, for me, is in His supposed incomprehensibility. We have minds that can conceive of just about anything, why shouldn’t we be able to make some rational sense out of God as a thinking being, if we really believe in Him?

Another is the omniscience/omnipotence problem which has been discussed on this forum many times.

Process theism is one philosophy used to make sense out of the problems of belief in omniscience and it’s relation to why so much of the world makes no sense if one believes in an omnipotent and omniscient creator (though it certainly doesn’t resolve enough). Does belief in a God that can learn or change constitute wagering on the wrong God?

What characteristics must God have to still be recognizable as the God Christians believe in? Does He need to be the “grounding of all reality” or can he just be the creator of the laws of the universe ? Does he need to know everything that will ever be or can he ever be surprised by an unexpected outcome? Where is the evidence that God cannot learn or change, other than in the minds of some philosophers and some interpretations of the Bible?

If a person uses all their available mental faculties to reach an understanding of God, and comes to the wrong conclusions simply because of a lack of available information, will he really punish that person for their honest effort? Wouldn’t some attempt at true understanding be valuable to God if He does truly want or need our love and belief (which I’m not convinced he really does)?

I do find it hard to make sense out of why God would set us up as thinking creatures, only to expect that we should ignore or suppress the parts of our brain that relentlessly question and doubt.

I find it equally hard to imagine that such a greatly intelligent being would appreciate those who obey commands out of fear of punishment or who never question beliefs they are given on their own MORE than those who actively struggle to make sense out of it all and get it wrong.

For me, the only thing I believe from an intellectual standpoint is that there was a creative force that brought about the physical laws we are discovering. Beyond that, I look for corroborating evidence in the laws of nature, the patterns of history, and my own personal experiences to find a supportable conclusion about what version of God I can actually hold onto and hope it’s the right bet, because I can’t make any other.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

HelenaMT
*
For me, the only thing I believe from an intellectual standpoint is that there was a creative force that brought about the physical laws we are discovering. Beyond that, I look for corroborating evidence in the laws of nature, the patterns of history, and my own personal experiences to find a supportable conclusion about what version of God I can actually hold onto and hope it’s the right bet, because I can’t make any other.*

I think Pascal would say that the atheist, looking to his own self interest, would follow the same course, and would find his own self interest fulfilled in the teachings of Christ. Believe and be saved. Or why else would we find so many deathbed conversions to Christ?

 

[greylorn]

grelorn

I honestly do not believe that the “God” to which Einstein offhandedly referred was better defined, or differently defined, than the God of Christianity, Islam, or new-age metaphysics.

I would say Einstein’s God, though not well defined except by his remark that he believed in the god of Spinoza, is certainly differently defined than the God of Christianity. Einstein made it very clear that he did not believe in a personal God and was contemptuous of the Judeo-Christian God in particular. This is based on an letter he wrote to the NY Times in the 1930s which is very specific on this score. Whether he had modified his view by the time of his death in the 50s is not known … he might have had a Pascalian moment, as many atheists have had, at the hour of his death.

Thank you for commenting on my preliminary remark… Have you thought about maybe addressing my overall point?

 

[atheist1]

I think Pascal would say that the atheist, looking to his own self interest, would follow the same course, and would find his own self interest fulfilled in the teachings of Christ. Believe and be saved. Or why else would we find so many deathbed conversions to Christ?

There are probably quite a few death bed conversion to Allah in Muslim countries.

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread a belief in one god can earn you damnation by another god…read your OT or go ask a couple of devout Muslims if they believe Christians will enter heaven…some say yes and others no. Evidently choosing your personal diety is a lot like playing roulette.

Even accepting Jesus as the saviour or messiah is only apparently good if you believe the right things about him. Many non-catholics are quite sure Catholics are doomed. Judging from the forums here there are quite a few Catholics that believe all or at least most non-Catholics are damned. Heck, apparently Jews are damned and they claim to believe in the same god of both catholics and non-catholic Christians.

If belief in Jesus was so important why does god effectually hide him from so many folks? What are the odds of someone living in Pakistan becoming xtrian? The Christian god makes belief in Jesus mandatory but yet doesn’t cut everyone a fair deal (folks born in deeply Islamic societies).

Pascals wager, at least to me, would be the last thing that would convince me to believe. How much faith would I really have if I only believed out of fear?

 

[greylorn]

The problem with Pascal’s wager is that it presupposes that God cares whether we believe or not, and that God is incomprehensible and without limits. As Catholics, perhaps we believe this, but for an atheist, or a non-Christian, what’s to say they will see only those 2 choices?

First they have to come to think that some form of god or gods exists, but that doesn’t get them to the One God Pascal is talking about, the one that will punish them for non-belief in Him. And as others have said here, you really can’t force yourself to believe something you’re not already predisposed to. If you haven’t been raised in a faith-filled household, or had some personal revelation to help you along, I would say it’s almost impossible. There are some people who simply can’t bet on God.

A big hurdle to belief in God, for me, is in His supposed incomprehensibility. We have minds that can conceive of just about anything, why shouldn’t we be able to make some rational sense out of God as a thinking being, if we really believe in Him?

Another is the omniscience/omnipotence problem which has been discussed on this forum many times.

Process theism is one philosophy used to make sense out of the problems of belief in omniscience and it’s relation to why so much of the world makes no sense if one believes in an omnipotent and omniscient creator (though it certainly doesn’t resolve enough). Does belief in a God that can learn or change constitute wagering on the wrong God?

What characteristics must God have to still be recognizable as the God Christians believe in? Does He need to be the “grounding of all reality” or can he just be the creator of the laws of the universe ? Does he need to know everything that will ever be or can he ever be surprised by an unexpected outcome? Where is the evidence that God cannot learn or change, other than in the minds of some philosophers and some interpretations of the Bible?

If a person uses all their available mental faculties to reach an understanding of God, and comes to the wrong conclusions simply because of a lack of available information, will he really punish that person for their honest effort? Wouldn’t some attempt at true understanding be valuable to God if He does truly want or need our love and belief (which I’m not convinced he really does)?

I do find it hard to make sense out of why God would set us up as thinking creatures, only to expect that we should ignore or suppress the parts of our brain that relentlessly question and doubt.

I find it equally hard to imagine that such a greatly intelligent being would appreciate those who obey commands out of fear of punishment or who never question beliefs they are given on their own MORE than those who actively struggle to make sense out of it all and get it wrong.

For me, the only thing I believe from an intellectual standpoint is that there was a creative force that brought about the physical laws we are discovering. Beyond that, I look for corroborating evidence in the laws of nature, the patterns of history, and my own personal experiences to find a supportable conclusion about what version of God I can actually hold onto and hope it’s the right bet, because I can’t make any other.

After killing two hours composing a generally agreeable reply to your excellent and well considered comments, upon trying to submit it I was kicked off the CAF site. This has been happening to me quite a lot of late. I’d complain about it but could not find anyone to complain to. Rather than attempt a repost, I’ll pass along my website URL and close with this…

Stick with your mind’s best understanding, for you must be loyal to yourself. If it turns out that you were wrong and find yourself about to be turned away at heaven’s gate, tell St. Peter that you read Matthew 25:14 etc. and paid particular attention to the part which is rarely mentioned at the pulpit— 25:26-30 where the fate of the mindless servant is described.

If that defense doesn’t get you in, ask Lucifer for the incinerator adjacent to mine. I’ll get there before you and will make a point to request that all the bins in my vicinity be reserved for kindred spirits with the courage to trust their own intelligence above the beliefs of men.

 

[Leela]

"My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God." Einstein

This is typical of Einstein’s thought processes. He was a genius of physics, but outside his own field his thought was unimpressive. The notion that morality is not important for God is a case in point. Morality is important for God, or God would not have instituted it with commandments, both revealed and inscribed on our hearts by the natural law.
Obedience is important for God, because morality is nothing more nor less than the decision to obey or disobey those commandments, the first of which is to love God and love one another. The notion that this is not of the highest importance to God is truly idiotic … unless of course your God is not a personal God. Einstein’s god was not a personal God. Yet he would dare to say: “We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

Einstein’s own personality reveals a clue as to why he could not abide a personal God.
albert-einstein.org/article_handicap.html

I read the article which seems to be a debunking of the idea that Einstein was somehow handicapped as as a child. I don’t see the relevance to the above.

Also, I would be careful before jumping to the conclusion that Einstein’s ideas were idiotic on any subject. It may be that you just don’t understand what he is saying, as in this case. He is not talking about the God of your conception when he says that morality is not important for God but for human beings. He is talking about his own use of the word God. Like me, he can’t make any sense of morality when thought of in terms of making God mad. Morality for him is about concern for other people.

Best,
Leela

 

[MindOverMatter]

Morality for him is about concern for other people.

Best,
Leela

Why should i have concern for other people? There just bags of chemicals. If its not true that i ought to love, then i think i will just use people. Life is short and none of it is going to matter in the end. What people say, do, and feel, ultimately amounts to nothing. Insanity. Caring will only make me a slave to opinion. Its a waste of time. Life is merely an opportunity for exploitation and pleasure. We unite only when it is beneficial to ourselves, but we do not love. The whole concept of humanity, in respect of morality, is a fantasy that we have made up to feed our egos. We might disguise it in moral language to make are selves feel better, but the concept of good is just a fantasy without God. A delusion.

“The Good Delusion”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Pascals wager, at least to me, would be the last thing that would convince me to believe. How much faith would I really have if I only believed out of fear?

You’ll find out how fearless you are when you reach death’s door and decide that maybe your intellect wasn’t infallible after all.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.” --Albert Einstein

To which I would add:

The most incomprehensible thing about God is that He is at all comprehensible.“The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.” --Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_II]

He is not talking about the God of your conception when he says that morality is not important for God but for human beings. He is talking about his own use of the word God. Like me, he can’t make any sense of morality when thought of in terms of making God mad. Morality for him is about concern for other people.

Einstein thought of God as pure intellect. There is no denying it. This is a typical error of intellectuals.

 

[joemccarron]

Despite Ender’s earlier note, a discussion about the nature and purposes of God is not off-topic. As I noted (indirectly) in an earlier post on this thread, addressing Pascal’s Wager as a philosophical argument requires an understanding of God’s purpose. This is directly tied to God’s nature. “Pascal’s Wager” is a wonderfully ubiquitous thread topic.

Spinoza’s God does not have purposes or wants. I would say that discussing Spinoza’s ideas of God or even worse Einstein’s vague references to God is pretty far from the mark of Pascal’s wager. There may be tie ins you can make but you need some pretty long rope. One can easily understand Pascal’s Wager and have no idea what Spinoza’s God was or Einstein’s. I really don’t mind if you want to discuss Einstein’s conception or Spinoza’s conception of God here, but its simply wrong suggest that it has more to do with Pascal’s wager than a discussion of what it means to believe in God.

Understanding what it means to believe in God, however, is indeed something that should be understood. Its directly stated in the premises (of Pascal’s argument) that if we believe in God we get heaven. So unless you understand what that means you can not understand how the argument works.

Christians can not chose to recreate our own personal definition of what it means to “believe” something that is different than what the authors of the bible meant. It is their meaning that we need to understand.

 

[joemccarron]

First they have to come to think that some form of god or gods exists, but that doesn’t get them to the One God Pascal is talking about, the one that will punish them for non-belief in Him. And as others have said here, you really can’t force yourself to believe something you’re not already predisposed to. If you haven’t been raised in a faith-filled household, or had some personal revelation to help you along, I would say it’s almost impossible. There are some people who simply can’t bet on God.

Well maybe they can maybe they can’t. The wager of course just sets out to prove that the rational person will do everything they can to try to believe. If one is convinced they are doing that then they are complying with the wager and not acting irrationally. If they give up or stop trying to do that they are not rational according to the wager. Pascal tells people what he thinks will help them develop belief in God. There are other things one can do as well.

 

[joemccarron]

A big hurdle to belief in God, for me, is in His supposed incomprehensibility. We have minds that can conceive of just about anything, why shouldn’t we be able to make some rational sense out of God as a thinking being, if we really believe in Him?

Let me say here there are some things of God that are incomprehensible others that are. We understand numbers but we can’t comprehend certain paradoxes that arise from the fact that they are infinite. We can see that the numbers can go on and on but we can’t fully comprehend what this would mean. So just because there are some things we don’t know about God does not mean he is completely incomprehensible.

 

[joemccarron]

What characteristics must God have to still be recognizable as the God Christians believe in? Does He need to be the “grounding of all reality” or can he just be the creator of the laws of the universe ? Does he need to know everything that will ever be or can he ever be surprised by an unexpected outcome? Where is the evidence that God cannot learn or change, other than in the minds of some philosophers and some interpretations of the Bible?

Actually the Wager was likely intended (although here is some dispute) as simply a way to get someone to believe in God. After that other arguments could be used to say which God and what Characteristics we should believe he has. One might indeed look at evidence. Is there evidence of a God that doesn’t care what we believe? What is the evidence for the Islamic faith? These sorts of questions can be asked after one gets to the understanding that they are rational to believe in God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

So just because there are some things we don’t know about God does not mean he is completely incomprehensible.

And one of the things that ought to be comprehensible is that God need not be defined as pure Intellect, the conveniently vague God of Spinoza or of Einstein. Such a god is only a mirror reflection of the myopic intellectual who wages everything on truth and nothing on love. Pascal’s wager is on the more fully loaded God of Christianity, the God who values morality even more than we do (or He would not have created it) because it is the via media by which we will or will not embrace Him for all eternity.