Pascal's Wager

[MPat]

…but what sets that apart from self deception?

Let’s put it this way: is it self deception to do one’s best to persuade oneself that 0.9999… = 1? That is one of many true but hard to believe mathematical statements. We have many good formal proofs (“infallible” for all practical purposes, if you wish) for that statement. So, would going through those proofs again and again until one’s brain gives up and accepts the statement count as “self deception”? I would say that it is not “self deception”, because it wouldn’t be “deception” if it was done by someone else.

Or, if you want something “less infallible” - would it be “self deception” to try to persuade oneself that Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics are true? Would you say it is “self deception” to persuade oneself of truth of Darwinian evolution?

Or let’s look at something even more “less infallible”. Is it “self deception” when a judge (or jury, or some other institution) declares that defendant is “not guilty” without anything close to a proof that the defendant is innocent? For example, when the evidence indicates that the defendant is guilty - but that evidence is just not strong enough to go beyond “reasonable doubt”? Would you say it is “self deception” to act as if the defendant is not guilty in such case - even if there are good reasons to think that such way to act is perfectly rational given the evidence?

And Pascal’s Wager is supposed to be like that: as a precondition, the “audience” consists of the ones who have no idea if God exists (“It is all so complicated!” or something like that - if someone can make a decision on different grounds, Pascal’s Wager is irrelevant, just as presumption of innocence is irrelevant if we have definite proof of guilt or innocence). Then that argument shows that in such case it is rational to act as if one had a belief that God exists (and it is also rational to have such a belief). Is it “self deception” to act in the way that seems to be rational given the evidence?

In other words, the Pascal’s Wager is supposed to say: “God is to be presumed to exist, unless it can be demonstrated that He does not exist.”.

 

[tafan]

Hello. New here, had a question & figured this would be the best place. I read the sticky on the ban of atheist questions, I am an Atheist but my question isn’t a challenge of God, but a philosophical inquiry on this wager. Actually a spiritual one too now that I think of it, but from an Atheist perspective & I need a believers thoughts.

The wager, to my naive view says my odds are best to believe. But can I believe & be saved without believing? Assuming I’d be convinced this was the correct God, setting aside the debunking of the question. Can just playing the odds and going through the motions of theology without actually believing in a God suffice to avoid the penalty or is there a provision for that?

I’m not trying to decide this for myself, just get a handle on the concept. Could one theoretically get into Heaven not believing, just by acting like anyone else who does believe?

PS: if this post does get me banned, I apologize. I tried this on yahoo answers and got nowhere in terms of a serious answer. Just trolls

I would encourage you to take the time to read Pascal’s wage itself. Some will say you need to read many of the other Pensee’s to understand, but I disagree, it stands well on its own. It addresses the very point that you make, and does so quite well:

“I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.-- 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.

Pascal’s wager is one way to start approaching God. Its certainly not the only, but I think it quite effective. I actually thing lots of good Christians got their start (so to speak, I understand Baptism was the real start). exactly by the means of Pascal’s Wager, without ever really knowing it. They reach a point in their life where they say: “Well, this isn’t working, why not give it (Christianity) a try, what do I have to loose?”

 

[JohnMichaels]

I would encourage you to take the time to read Pascal’s wage itself.

They reach a point in their life where they say: “Well, this isn’t working, why not give it (Christianity) a try, what do I have to loose?”

I had before but thank you for the refresher.

I’d have far too much to lose personally, but as I said before I understand the thought behind the wager, just wanted to come at it from a different perspective.

I took it more as an educated risk. It appeals to me on a purely logical basis. It is, on its face alone, a no-lose proposition. So I wondered if one could “fake” it I guess, & I was answered.

Reading your post however brought me to a slight variation. Imagine you didn’t believe, but then decided to give it a go per the wager. “Follow the way by which they began” & so on.

But then, before you can begin maybe you get in a fatal car accident. Did you save your eternal soul by merely accepting (with good intentions) to follow the path, just never got the chance?

PS - I’m not tryin to gotcha anyone. I don’t know these things. They won’t affect any outcome, just my curiosity. But I’m just pointing out I am seriously trying to be as respectful while I’m here as possible

 

[SentinelofTruth]

I have to say I can’t stand pascal’s wager. If you approach God out of fear, then you aren’t really approaching God. It doesn’t count unless it’s done altruistically. That’s part of the definition of approaching God.

empther:

The nuns told us a story in grammar school.

A girl was a bad girl. She didn’t believe in God. She didn’t go to Mass. She ran around with the wrong crowd. She got into all kinds of trouble.

But she did do one thing right. Her mother got her into the habit of saying the rosary at bedtime, and she continued this habit because it made her feel good to do what her mother said.
Then the girl died. She went to Heaven.

The meaning is that God will find some way to save us as long as we’re not completely degenerate and hateful.

Saying a prayer every night doesn’t send you to heaven. Dedicating your entire life to the will of God is what sends you to heaven. Just being ‘not completely degenerate and hateful’ isn’t nearly enough to send you to heaven. I used to think only the world’s worst sinners went to hell, but I was wrong. I also used to think I was on the verge of sainthood, but I was wrong about that too. Now that I’m significant holier than I was then, I recognize the enormity of my sin and can no longer see myself going to heaven if I died now, and even five years ago, I was no minion of satan. Mediocrity is not enough.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**I’ve always been inquisitive. Things must make sense to me, though. If I can find even 1 thing in a teaching that I can look at and go “that doesn’t make sense to me” the entire thing gets thrown out. **

Without having to answer this question in detail, as it would skirt the ban on atheism talk, I would ask you to consider in your mind why atheism makes any sense to you. One of the reasons I stopped being an atheist was that atheism made no sense to me at all. Not only did it not offer sense, it did not offer hope.

As to other comments in this thread, yes Pascal’s wager does hinge on fear of losing what is most precious to us … the state of everlasting life with God. But that is a natural fear we all have, offending those we love and losing them forever. It is a selfish fear, to be sure. But it is a natural fear that is preached throughout the New Testament. We are told constantly by Jesus and Paul and others that if we do not believe, we are lost. That is not a mild threat. It is a dead serious one. Pascal simply picks it up and runs with it.

“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

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.” 2nd Timothy 2:11-12

 

[JohnMichaels]

Without having to answer this question in detail, as it would skirt the ban on atheism talk, I would ask you to consider in your mind why atheism makes any sense to you. One of the reasons I stopped being an atheist was that atheism made no sense to me at all. Not only did it not offer sense, it did not offer hope.

I think I can answer this easily enough. It isn’t sense to be made. Atheism to me wasn’t like switching religions. It can’t offer me anything cause there isn’t anything attached to it.

No ideology I can read through and dissect as I would anything else.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

No ideology I can read through and dissect as I would anything else.

Good analysis. And that is why it has no appeal to me. It is empty.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

John, are you a materialist? (I know virtually all atheists are, I just don’t feel comfortable making the assumption). If you are, I have an argument for you (it wouldn’t be directly about God, so I don’t think it would be circumventing the ban).

 

[JohnMichaels]

John, are you a materialist? (I know virtually all atheists are, I just don’t feel comfortable making the assumption). If you are, I have an argument for you (it wouldn’t be directly about God, so I don’t think it would be circumventing the ban).

I had to look up a basic meaning, though there is a lot of varying views through the years. Seems to be the belief that there is nothing beyond this world. Only that which can be observed. If I’m wrong in my assessment please correct me.

Since being or defending materialism would require me to know for sure, I’ll say no I’m not.

EDIT: My best guess is nothing supernatural, for the sake of your argument. I just can’t prove it definitively. Plus I’ve read so little on the subject

 

[Viki63]

Jn 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Jn 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me
1 Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.

All these quotes from Jesus, and others, seem to indicate that faith begins with trying to keep the commandments, i.e. attending church, avoiding sin, helping others. If we start out on the right path, God will be alongside us, and will give us the faith to continue.
When I first became a Christian, I remember asking myself: Okay, I’m going to follow Jesus, and be a Christian. What do Christians do? They don’t steal or swear. So I’m going to stop doing those things." Those were my first steps.
I had a long way to go, and still do. But it’s like teaching a toddler to walk: God is pleased with our first clumsy steps. He will help us learn to walk like an adult eventually.

 

[tafan]

I have to say I can’t stand pascal’s wager. If you approach God out of fear, then you aren’t really approaching God. It doesn’t count unless it’s done altruistically. That’s part of the definition of approaching God.

Interesting dichotomy. Pascal was closely associated with the Jansenist Augustians at the convent of Port-Royal. Historians have debated for years if Pascal was a Jansenist, but at the very least he would have espoused a quite rigorous form of Christianity, just such as you portray in your second paragraph. Yet you hate his wager.

As to “it doesn’t count unless its done altruistically”, you are mistaken in your understanding of the purpose of the wager and, IMO, your statement. The wager is a means of starting down the path. Yes, the greatest commandment is to love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind. But few people can start out on the path to holiness at that point. And we should not say anything short of reaching the point “does not count”. That is for God to decide, not ourselves.

There is lots of wisdom in all of Pascal’s Pensees, but I particularly like his wager. As I stated above, many people start out making the wager (or something very close to it) and end up going quite far on their path to holiness.

 

[JohnMichaels]

As to “it doesn’t count unless its done altruistically”, you are mistaken in your understanding of the purpose of the wager and, IMO, your statement. The wager is a means of starting down the path.

I’d tend to agree with this line of thinking. I’ve read on this forum alone stories of how people reach the goal, but not every path is the same. Would seem to me getting to that point would be more important than how you got to that point.

So long as you get there. & that’s just my view from the outside

Good show, tafan

 

[empther]

From Sentinaloftruth post 24

Saying a prayer every night doesn’t send you to heaven. Dedicating your entire life to the will of God is what sends you to heaven. Just being ‘not completely degenerate and hateful’ isn’t nearly enough to send you to heaven. I used to think only the world’s worst sinners went to hell, but I was wrong. I also used to think I was on the verge of sainthood, but I was wrong about that too. Now that I’m significant holier than I was then, I recognize the enormity of my sin and can no longer see myself going to heaven if I died now, and even five years ago, I was no minion of satan. Mediocrity is not enough.

If all that is true than only a handful of people will get to Heaven.

So the devil wins! :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

God couldn’t come up with a better plan than that?

 

[JohnMichaels]

If all that is true than only a handful of people will get to Heaven.

So the devil wins! :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

God couldn’t come up with a better plan than that?

If your profile thing didn’t say “Catholic loyal to the Pope, don’t even try to change me” I’d think you were more a non-theist than I am.

you’re allowed to say that stuff? I’m blown away, no joke

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John
**
you’re allowed to say that stuff? I’m blown away, no joke **

Why?

 

[JohnMichaels]

John
**
you’re allowed to say that stuff? I’m blown away, no joke **

Why?

Well, that sounds like something I could say, if I wanted to be disrespectful on your forums. Snide remarks “How come God couldn’t do better than X” & I’m fairly sure it would result negatively for me.
(setting aside the fact I don’t believe actual discourse can take place when 1 side acts this way & understanding it was a remark made mostly in jest)

Seems like its valid to use the argument theist vs theist (in the context of some’s faith being stricter than others in this case)
How is that not an attack on someone’s faith as it would be if I said it?

(I’m not arguing for any lifting of a ban or anything, I genuinely do not understand)

 

[tafan]

If your profile thing didn’t say “Catholic loyal to the Pope, don’t even try to change me” I’d think you were more a non-theist than I am.

you’re allowed to say that stuff? I’m blown away, no joke

There is a wide range of thought allowed in the Church. Why are you blown away?

You do realize the Church only declares saints, and has never declared anyone condemned.
What you see with all people on their way to holiness: the further they get down the path, the more they are aware of their sinfulness. Hence there are post such as SentinalOfTruth’s.

A priest told us once that invariably when someone comes into confession after a year or so, they have a very short list of sins. Often only remembering the serious sins, if even that.
Yet when someone goes to confession weekly, they often know their sins in great detail.

The problem with non-Catholics who say they can go directly to God for forgiveness, is that they rarely do. They don’t even take time to make a private examination if conscience. We can’t get better if we don’t know what we are doing wrong.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For anybody who’s interested, there’s a two hour documentary on St. Peter tonight on EWTN.

 

[JohnMichaels]

There is a wide range of thought allowed in the Church. Why are you blown away?

You do realize the Church only declares saints, and has never declared anyone condemned.
What you see with all people on their way to holiness: the further they get down the path, the more they are aware of their sinfulness. Hence there are post such as SentinalOfTruth’s.

All I’m saying is, if you haven’t seen the sentence "God couldn’t come up with a better plan than that? " used by someone on my side, you haven’t been looking

& that’s fine. I still get taken aback when I see it used in different context

 

[SentinelofTruth]

empther:

If all that is true than only a handful of people will get to Heaven.

So the devil wins!

God couldn’t come up with a better plan than that?

It’s not God’s fault that we humans choose to sin.

JohnMichaels:

Since being or defending materialism would require me to know for sure, I’ll say no I’m not.

Interesting. The Holy Spirit’s influence is evident here. I refer you to the thread ‘prove the existence of the soul’ in the philosophy forums.