Pascal's Wager

[Nan_S]

cardenio:

You’re reducing the possibility of happiness to Christianity alone. Yes, you’re more likely to be happy and satisfied with life if you’re Christian but it’s not exclusive.

No, I’m not reducing happiness to just Christianity. At least I’m not trying to. I am simply saying that genuine God-believers (of any religion) who actively follow religious principles are far more likely to live happy trouble-free lives. It’s a good here-and-now reason to accept Pascal’s Wager.

Not all atheists either find God or become evil satanic losers. People can remain atheists their whole life and be good, hardworking people and not bother with God or mass or prayer. It does happen.

“Tom” was one of those rare happy athiests. He was assigned to the same military unit as me about 22 years ago. We had some very interesting conversations.

Most of the athiests I’ve met are pretty miserable. “Mark” was typical. Always broke, bitter and angry at the world, he was after money and revenge. He didn’t give a darn about anyone or anything, unless he thought he could get more money from you. Nothing seemed to go right for “Mark” but it was always someone else’s fault. It was no surprise to learn he was a regular high-roller in the casino

“Kelly” was another miserable athiest. He was smarter than “Mark” - he knew how to get money, and how to use it to convince other people to be his next prey. Lie, cheat, and steal were his guidelines. He ran deceptive TV ads telling how well he personally took care of people’s problems. And he paid others to appear in the TV ads and vouch for him. Those of us who knew him also knew that he didn’t do any of that work - he referred people to someone else who paid him a “finder’s fee.” He was such a sneaky beast that he couldn’t even buy friends.

It’s true that some avowed athiests can and do live happy lives here and now, but having rejected God as a guide, they set up their own fallible human judgment as the ultimate determiner of truth. Which means that, one way or another, even the nicest of athiests still get unhappily mired in situational ethics.

If you accept Pascal’s Wager and decide to believe in God, you also accept God’s tenets. One of them is that moral absolutes exist - some things are always right, some others are always wrong, and it’s not a matter of the situation and your personal perspective.

But whether they’re miserable or happy in this life, anyone who actively rejects Pascal’s wager also knows that the best they can hope for is eternal oblivion.

Catholicism requires more than following laws.

Of course it does. But what I said was that someone who is unsure about believing in God (meaning any God, not just Catholic teaching) still has good reason for following God’s laws. It’s a place to start.

If you’ll go back and look at my earlier posts, you see I also said that someone (including any Catholic) who genuinely accepts Pascal’s Wager and believes in God is required to seek God with a sincere heart and try to do God’s will. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:29-31).

This is the essence of Catholic Christianity

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303fea1.asp This could have solved it for us, Nan S. At least, it solved it for me.

I thank Grace and Glory for finding the article on Pascal’s Wager and thank you for reposting the link - I scrolled right by it before. It’s a very good article.

Nothing new in the article for me. This is going to sound arrogant, I think, but I actually came up the idea of “if you believe or not, what might the consequences be” completely on my own when I was your age. It’s what started me back on the road from faithless agnostic to Christian some 30 years ago.

But I was completely unaware that this idea of mine had a name - someone called Pascal - until about two months ago.

 

[RobNY]

Peter Kreeft has some interesting insights on Pascal’s Wager, too.

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

I found this very helpful to my understanding. Notice how he mentions that Pascal’s Wager is just the start. No, believing to save your soul isn’t the right motivation, but once you believe in God you have the foundation for your motivation to grow into true motivation, love of God. (How he deals with agnosticism is also very interesting.)

 

[rossum]

Nan S:

If you accept Pascal’s Wager and decide to believe in God, you also accept God’s tenets.

Unfortunately, accepting the Wager does not tell you which God’s tenets you have to follow. Does God want you to attend a Mosque on Friday, a Synagague on Saturday, a Church on Sunday or whatever? You have to go outside the Wager in order to decide which God(s) are the correct one(s) to follow.

rossum

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

cardenio:

This could have solved it for us, Nan S. At least, it solved it for me.

The Cost of the Christian Life

Of course, many don’t want to live the Christian life because of the cost—like giving up the pleasures of being a dissolute French gambler.

Pascal anticipates this and has two responses. First, he points out that these costs are nothing compared to what you stand to gain. Even if there is a tiny, finite cost in this life (or even if it costs you this life as a whole), that is still nothing compared to the infinite life of bliss you stand to gain.

Second, Pascal argues that you aren’t really losing anything. Even in this life what you will gain by being a Christian outweighs the self-restraint you must show, leaving you better off even if there were no heaven.

He writes, “Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”

I’m glad this helped you. I know I really enjoyed reading the article the first time I saw it.
I also notice that in your signature you ask what’s important. I think it’s great that you have the desire to discover what is important and what is true and not waste time on all the insignificant stuff.

 

[Nan_S]

rossum:

Unfortunately, accepting the Wager does not tell you which God’s tenets you have to follow. Does God want you to attend a Mosque on Friday, a Synagague on Saturday, a Church on Sunday or whatever? You have to go outside the Wager in order to decide which God(s) are the correct one(s) to follow.

rossum

As I’ve said before, Pascals’ Wager simply asks whether we will choose to believe whether “God” could exist. It doesn’t attempt to name or define God. That responsibility is left to the person who honestly accepts the wager - to seek God with a sincere heart and try in his actions to do God’s will as he knows it. (By the way, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847, definitively states that salvation can indeed be achieved by such seekers.)

See my comments on post #15 above.

 

[adnauseum]

Modernists these days say that the only way to knowledge is rational logic, and since God can’t be logically proved, they reject him. But modernists don’t perceive an obligation to justify the rules they set up for argument, they just assert it as fact.

Pascal’s wager is a subtle turnabout on rationalists. It doesn’t confront them head-on with a rational proof of God. Instead, it switches the ground of the argument to the existential fact that every person makes a choice to accept or reject God, and this choice is indeed a rational one.

The benefit to the rationalist is, even if you can’t convince them of God’s dominion over the world, you draw their attention to the necessity that they make a choice, here and now, in the concrete world.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

Pascal’s Wager is the reason why I ultimately chose to believe in God almost 30 years ago. The objections to Pascal’s Wager are simply attempts to blur the issue, and to avoid the basic question.

A person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him. Incorrect. Having realized that there is no way to disprove the basic premise, a person must accept that it CAN be true, no matter how false it initially feels to him.

The wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic. Side issue/attempt to confuse. Pascals’ wager simply asks whether “God” could exist. It doesn’t attempt to name or define God. That responsibility is left to the person who honestly accepts the wager - to seek God with a sincere heart and try in his actions to do God’s will as he knows it. (By the way, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847, definitively states that salvation can indeed be achieved by such seekers.)

God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one’s bets. Partially correct only. If you truly accept Pascal’s Wager, you must follow through by seeking to find out what God wants and then do it. The reward comes not from the statement of belief; it comes from the follow-through. Saying you accept the bet and then doing nothing is essentially the same as believing you are “once saved-always saved” based on stumbling into a church one time, answering an altar call, and stumbling back out again forever.

This is to assume that there are not several gods ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Nan S:

No, I’m not reducing happiness to just Christianity. At least I’m not trying to. I am simply saying that genuine God-believers (of any religion) who actively follow religious principles are far more likely to live happy trouble-free lives. It’s a good here-and-now reason to accept Pascal’s Wager.
“Tom” was one of those rare happy athiests. He was assigned to the same military unit as me about 22 years ago. We had some very interesting conversations.

Most of the athiests I’ve met are pretty miserable.

Is that because of their atheism - or some other reason: such as being “broke”, because “nothing seemed to go right for” them, or whatever ? Plenty of Christians are “bitter and angry” - is that because of their being Christian ?​

“Mark” was typical. Always broke, bitter and angry at the world, he was after money and revenge. He didn’t give a darn about anyone or anything, unless he thought he could get more money from you. Nothing seemed to go right for “Mark” but it was always someone else’s fault. It was no surprise to learn he was a regular high-roller in the casino

“Kelly” was another miserable athiest. He was smarter than “Mark” - he knew how to get money, and how to use it to convince other people to be his next prey. Lie, cheat, and steal were his guidelines. He ran deceptive TV ads telling how well he personally took care of people’s problems. And he paid others to appear in the TV ads and vouch for him. Those of us who knew him also knew that he didn’t do any of that work - he referred people to someone else who paid him a “finder’s fee.” He was such a sneaky beast that he couldn’t even buy friends.

It’s true that some avowed athiests can and do live happy lives here and now, but having rejected God as a guide, they set up their own fallible human judgment as the ultimate determiner of truth. Which means that, one way or another, even the nicest of athiests still get unhappily mired in situational ethics.

All of the above can be said of Christians - I begin to wonder whether one can find a reason for the dreadfulness of atheism that does not also convict Christianity of being dreadful. IMO, it is not possible to find any argument that shows undeniably that Christianity is preferable to atheism.​

And that IMHO is just as it should be. ##

If you accept Pascal’s Wager and decide to believe in God, you also accept God’s tenets. One of them is that moral absolutes exist - some things are always right, some others are always wrong, and it’s not a matter of the situation and your personal perspective.

But whether they’re miserable or happy in this life, anyone who actively rejects Pascal’s wager also knows that the best they can hope for is eternal oblivion.
Of course it does. But what I said was that someone who is unsure about believing in God (meaning any God, not just Catholic teaching) still has good reason for following God’s laws. It’s a place to start.

If you’ll go back and look at my earlier posts, you see I also said that someone (including any Catholic) who genuinely accepts Pascal’s Wager and believes in God is required to seek God with a sincere heart and try to do God’s will. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:29-31).

This is the essence of Catholic Christianity
I thank Grace and Glory for finding the article on Pascal’s Wager and thank you for reposting the link - I scrolled right by it before. It’s a very good article.

Nothing new in the article for me. This is going to sound arrogant, I think, but I actually came up the idea of “if you believe or not, what might the consequences be” completely on my own when I was your age. It’s what started me back on the road from faithless agnostic to Christian some 30 years ago.

But I was completely unaware that this idea of mine had a name - someone called Pascal - until about two months ago.

 

[Nan_S]

## This is to assume that there are not several gods ##

OK, reword slightly, but the point remains the same: Pascals’ Wager is a basic argument targeted at nonbelievers and skeptics. It simply asks whether you believe that “God/gods/other divine being(s)” could exist. It doesn’t attempt to name or define “God”. That responsibility is left to the person who honestly accepts the wager.

However, if you accept the wager honestly and “believe” in God (whomever and whatever “God” may be) you must seek God with a sincere heart and try in your actions to do God’s will as you know it.

Is that because of their atheism - or some other reason: such as being “broke”, because “nothing seemed to go right for” them, or whatever ? Plenty of Christians are “bitter and angry” - is that because of their being Christian ?​

Most of the atheists I’ve met are miserable because they are reaping the bitter fruit of their own selfishness.

That’s the same reason many Christians are bitter and angry. The difference between the Christian and the atheist is this: the Christian has the instruction and the personal example from Jesus himself how to be much happier in the long run by living UNselfishly.

All of the above can be said of Christians - I begin to wonder whether one can find a reason for the dreadfulness of atheism that does not also convict Christianity of being dreadful. IMO, it is not possible to find any argument that shows undeniably that Christianity is preferable to atheism.​

And that IMHO is just as it should be. ##

The best that the atheist can hope for is eternal oblivion, but he also knows that if he is wrong he will probably receive eternal damnation. The best the Christian can hope for is eternal joy.

And that alone makes Christianity preferable to atheism, IMHO.

 

[cardenio]

My mom’s friend said that even if when we die it turns out to be all wrong, it was worth it for the joy. But you have to see the joy in order to believe it exists.

Christianity, Christian life does not look attractive. Yes, it’s wonderful, but it doesn’t look wonderful from the outside.

Also - the Wager should not be the first step. The wager should be after reasoning through and showing how Christianity is plausible. Prove that Christianity does not go against logic.

Then make the wager.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

rossum

As a non-Christian I have never found Pascal’s wager convincing.

Curiously, I would have thought that if the argument was refutable, Bertrand Russell of all people would have taken a stab at it. After all, wasn’t he supposed to be the pre-eminent logician of the 20th century? Yet I have never seen Russell go near that argument, though he attacks the other main “proofs,” specially in his infamous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian.”

 

[MamaGeek]

threej_lc:

I’m quite fond of this line of reasoning.

I came across it myself when I was in 8th grade. It began my conversion from luke-warmness. I decided that day I would follow God in all things, whether he existed or not. It was only once I had made this commitment of faith that He revealed himself to me.

Josh

Exactly! I think it was this very approach that Pascal advised. He’d tell them to act as if they had faith for one year and see what happened. Faith is a gift, but God will give it if you at least try to live His commandments.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*Faith is a gift, but God will give it if you at least try to live His commandments.*In a sense, God has already given it to us. We just have to open it up and experience the surprise! This goes for Catholics as well as atheists.

 

[rossum]

Gilbert Keith:

rossum

As a non-Christian I have never found Pascal’s wager convincing.

Curiously, I would have thought that if the argument was refutable, Bertrand Russell of all people would have taken a stab at it. After all, wasn’t he supposed to be the pre-eminent logician of the 20th century? Yet I have never seen Russell go near that argument, though he attacks the other main “proofs,” specially in his infamous essay “Why I Am Not a Christian.”

As far as logicians go, I perfer Nagarjuna to Russell.

rossum

 

[Vincent1560]

Big_Easy_Big:

Pascal’s Wager
In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensees. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

I took a philosophy class involving Pascal’s Wager. In response to the statement that you can’t simply believe because you want to, the professor argued that this is a simplification of Pascal’s intention. What Pascal meant according to him is that after using the wager to determine that belief in God is desirable, one should do those things most likely to produce belief, such as hanging out with Christians, attending Church services, reading apologetics and the like. In other words once the course of action is clear the person according to the wager should do those things likely to convince him of God’s existence. An example he gave to illustrate this principle is the following: If I told you I would give you a million dollars to believe there’s water on the other side of the universe that motivation couldn’t produce belief (assuming I had a belief detector of some sort). The logical thing for you to do would be go out and read astrobiology and astrophysics books that support the hypothesis of water existing on the other side of the universe, and do everything possible to expose yourself to information, people and experiences likely to convince you of water existing on the other side of the universe. What Pascal’s Wager does is give motivation to gain belief, its internal logic is not meant or able to provide the belief.

As for the argument about other religions. Since Pascal’s wager is based on a logical cost benefit analysis it would lead a prospective believer to seek out which religion (of the ones having similar stakes) is most likely to be true. After investigating historical support, archeological support and internal message and consistancy a prospective believer would logically come to Christianity over Islam which is very historicall suspect, for example nothing was written down for 200 years after Mohammed (I am not positive of this) whereas most of the New Testament was written within 50 or 70 (depending on who you ask) years of Jesus’ life. Furthermore the extrabiblical, non-Christian proof of Jesus’ existence and actions from the likes of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger etc. are very persuasive. One history professor I had said there is probably more evidence for Jesus having lived than Julius Caesar, such is certainly not the case for Muhammod.

 

[rossum]

Vincent1560:

for example nothing was written down for 200 years after Mohammed (I am not positive of this) whereas most of the New Testament was written within 50 or 70 (depending on who you ask) years of Jesus’ life.

You did right to add that caveat. Mohammed died in 11 AH/632 CE. The standard version of the Qur’an was compiled under Caliph Uthman (23-35 AH, 644-656 CE). The Qur’an is closer to the life of Mohammed than most of the New Testament is to the life of Jesus. For more details see here.

It is better to check things that you are not sure of before posting them here. Google is your friend.

(AH = Anno Hegirae, dating from the Prophet Mohammed’s emigration from Mecca to Medina, the Hijra, in 622 CE.)

rossum

 

[MichaelLewis]

Nan S wrote:

The best that the atheist can hope for is eternal oblivion, but he also knows that if he is wrong he will probably receive eternal damnation.

You (and Pascal) are presuming a lot about God’s character, if he does exist. Perhaps God does not desire that people believe in him, but does desire that people be good epistemic agents. Maybe God will condemn Christians to Hell for believing in him without good reason, and reward atheists with Heaven for being intellectually honest.