O
Oreoracle
Guest
But God doesn’t say he wants people to “pick” him, he says he wants people to believe in him. Picking isn’t the same as believing. If you can’t understand this, I see no reason to continue this discussion.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are certainly free to exit this discussion, Oreoracle, although it would be nice if you continued.
Of course, all of us, in the end “pick” God or don’t “pick” him. In the end, agnosticism becomes,* by necessity*, either a choice for him or against him. Agnosticism becomes an impossibility. And PW’s proves this quite eloquently.
And why does agnosticism become an impossibility?
Because of…
death. It is inevitable, no?
As far as “picking not being the same as believing”, well, Pascal addressed this centuries ago:
If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God’s existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. . . . They behaved just as if they did believe.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Erm…I’m not sure about that. I think it’s the other way around: the Wager is persuasive in nature, and thus it wants you to believe in a god based on passion rather than reason. Any time you’re compelled to look at the advantages of holding a belief rather than the evidence to support it, passion is what’s at work, not reason. After all, if one weren’t passionate about their own fate (that is, if they didn’t care about being punished or being rewarded), the Wager would not convince them to believe. It would only be convincing if passion’s involved.
I think Pascal conflated two meanings of “rationality”. Certainly it’s irrational not to desire the best outcome for yourself, but it’s irrational to believe in something without evidence, too. Thus, we would be forced to act rational in one respect while acting irrational in another respect.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Perhaps.
Pascal says this is an argument for those skeptics who* cannot* reason their way into belief in a god.You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.(ibid)
IOW: atheism is a truly stupid bet.
Would I be correct in concluding from the above statement that you have never actually read any of Pascal’s writings?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
My lack of belief is not a “bet”, just as your belief is not a “bet”. Betting is not the same as holding a belief or lacking a belief. This is one of the fundamental errors of the Wager.
Not really, I’ve only heard what his supporters say. Then again, unless you can read French, you haven’t read his exact words, either.
But it is obvious that Pascal was not attempting to appeal to our rationality in the sense of being reasonable, i.e., making judgments based on evidence. He was appealing to our rationality that pertains to being self-interested. These are not the same things, and it is an error to treat them as though they are.
And because his argument depended on self-interest, it was passionate in nature, because I can be perfectly logical and rational in the first of the senses mentioned above and still not find the argument convincing. His argument was just as invalid as other emotional arguments.
P
PRmerger
Guest
In the end, though, you must make a choice. Whether you want to call it a bet or a wager or a choice–it is a choice you must make.
And atheism is a stupid bet/wager/choice, based on the argument presented by Pascal.
Fair enough. It just does seem peculiar that you would comment on what Pascal intends to say, when you have “only heard what his supporters say.”
And here is where ignorance of Pascal’s writings is so egregious.
I suggest you read Pascal’s Pensees (an English translation would suffice!) first and then come back and we can chat!
P
PRmerger
Guest
NB: Just to clarify: I am not proposing that before anyone comments on this thread on Pascal’s Wager that by necessity one must have read Pascal…only that if one is going to comment on Pascal and say, “He thinks ______” or “He’s arguing ______” or “Pascal is not attempting to ____” then…
well, then it would behoove the poster to have actually* read* what Pascal “is not attempting” to do.
Just sayin’…
- Status