Pascal's Wager

[JohnMichaels]

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.

I can’t say I know what you mean is evident where, but I’ll check out this thread you suggest. I would however say I used to believe in souls, just not in the same way you do. I’m still up in the air about it

 

[Gorgias]

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

LOL…!

You gotta get used to the way that he talks; when you’re sufficiently desensitized to the way he uses sarcasm and condescension (especially to non-believers), it won’t surprise you anymore…

 

[system]

The thing is, that isn’t what Pascal is recommending. Instead, he says:

Note Pascal’s logic here: first, you’re not just playing a game of logic, but you’re trying to convince yourself of the truth; you’re trying to “attain faith”. He asks you to look at those who have faith, and do the things that they did, as they were growing in faith: the use of sacramentals, participation in Mass. And, even as they only “acted as if they believed,” yet were still “cured of an ill” and came to belief, you too may come to true belief.

Pascal isn’t just saying “this is a good bet, so take it,” to the exclusion of true belief!

Gorgias has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

To expound on his post, if you read the Pensees in its entirety, Pascal’s point is that if you follow the teachings of Christ and His Church–truly live them–you will truly believe. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as the saying goes.

The problem, as G.K. Chesterton ever-so-sagely noted, is that, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”

Even for believers, living out the faith is a monumental challenge. But, as the lives of the saints bear witness, it is a challenge whose reward is a “peace that surpasses understanding,” in this life as well as the next.

Of course, most of us probably won’t become saints in this life and the wager is considered “a last resort” for the heart that just refuses to be persuaded by logical argument, or any other means of evangelization for that matter. For my part, my faith has mostly come from philosophical argument, historical evidence, prayer and personal experience. I can’t honestly say I’ve done a very good job of living out the Church’s teaching. But I can attest to the fact that when I do make any effort to be more just a little bit more faithful, both my faith and understanding seem to notably increase.

P.S. to the OP, if you haven’t completely read Pascal’s Pensees, I strongly recommend it. Pascal was the first Christian philosopher to present a case for the faith to the “scientific rationalist” mindset. A former atheist myself, I found his arguments quite compelling, particularly the argument from Jewish history and prophecy. His points as to the callousness of the soul that has stopped searching, as well, should give pause to all but the most hardened of hearts.

 

[prodigalson2011]

The thing is, that isn’t what Pascal is recommending. Instead, he says:

Note Pascal’s logic here: first, you’re not just playing a game of logic, but you’re trying to convince yourself of the truth; you’re trying to “attain faith”. He asks you to look at those who have faith, and do the things that they did, as they were growing in faith: the use of sacramentals, participation in Mass. And, even as they only “acted as if they believed,” yet were still “cured of an ill” and came to belief, you too may come to true belief.

Pascal isn’t just saying “this is a good bet, so take it,” to the exclusion of true belief!

Gorgias has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

To expound on his post, if you read the Pensees in its entirety, Pascal’s point is that if you follow the teachings of Christ and His Church–truly live them–you will truly believe. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” as the saying goes.

The problem, as G.K. Chesterton ever-so-sagely noted, is that, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.”

Even for believers, living out the faith is a monumental challenge. But, as the lives of the saints bear witness, it is a challenge whose reward is a “peace that surpasses understanding,” in this life as well as the next.

Of course, most of us probably won’t become saints in this life and the wager is considered “a last resort” for the heart that just refuses to be persuaded by logical argument, or any other means of evangelization for that matter. For my part, my faith has mostly come from philosophical argument, historical evidence, prayer and personal experience. I can’t honestly say I’ve done a very good job of living out the Church’s teaching. But I can attest to the fact that when I do make any effort to be more just a little bit more faithful, both my faith and understanding seem to notably increase.

P.S. to the OP, if you haven’t read Pascal’s Pensees, I strongly recommend it. Pascal was the first Christian philosopher to present a case for the faith to the “scientific rationalist” mindset. A former atheist myself, I found his arguments quite compelling, particularly the argument from Jewish history and prophecy. His points as to the callousness of the soul that has stopped searching, as well, should give pause to all but the most hardened of hearts.

 

[JohnMichaels]

P.S. to the OP, if you haven’t read Pascal’s Pensees, I strongly recommend it. Pascal was the first Christian philosopher to present a case for the faith to the “scientific rationalist” mindset. A former atheist myself, I found his arguments quite compelling, particularly the argument from Jewish history and prophecy. His points as to the callousness of the soul that has stopped searching, as well, should give pause to all but the most hardened of hearts.

I suppose I could. You all like to recommend a lot of reading
I don’t mind. I love to learn stuff
I would however say I’d consider myself the least likely to convert through “compelling argument” as it goes against the reason I made the choice to begin with.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I suppose I could. You all like to recommend a lot of reading
I don’t mind. I love to learn stuff
I would however say I’d consider myself the least likely to convert through “compelling argument” as it goes against the reason I made the choice to begin with.

Well, ya know. Reading is the gateway to knowledge.

I understand what you mean, though, about not feeling likely to be converted by argument. In all truth, my conversion was initially very emotional, based on a particularly powerful personal experience. But being the born-skeptic I am, I know that had I left it at that my conversion would have lasted all of about 2 weeks. You may have noticed the two quotes in my profile signature. I chose the quote from Abp. Sheen to reflect my initial conversion experience and the quote from Fr. Pisegna to reflect the pursuit of knowledge that followed.

And I think that’s how it is for many, though not all, people. For most of us, for good or ill, the mind often follows the heart. Which is exactly why we are so prone to rationalize our evils, etc. But that’s a discussion for another thread. Anyway, I guess all I was trying to say was that I understand where you’re coming from, but don’t let your feelings get in the way of the search. And on that note I wanted to comment on something you said earlier:

…

I can, however answer a question asked a few times about a comment I made about finding a religion I could support morally, or that fit my views.

First, this process started at a young age. 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.

I think this is a misguided approach to finding truth. There are some things which don’t make sense to most of us which we can nevertheless know, with a good deal of certainty, to be true. The inner workings of a computer, for instance, would baffle most people. The harmonic logic of a Debussy piece would be mind-boggling to all but the most musically astute. It takes a very long time of dedicated study and practice to really understand some of the intricacies of things such as these.

Similarly, it takes a lot of study (and, in some cases, practice!) to really understand some of the moral teachings of the Church. But just as we can use a computer and see that it really works, or listen to a Debussy piece and hear that it really is musical, so we can either look at the lives of those who do faithfully follow the Church’s teachings, or follow them ourselves, and see that they really work.

For instance, I will go out on a limb and guess that one of the moral teachings of the Church that you feel you cannot assent to is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. If so, you are far from alone in this. But I would encourage you, as I myself had to do (this teaching was a huge stumbling block to me), to look around and find faithful Catholics with homosexual orientations who have found fulfillment and peace of soul in the Church’s teaching. The group Courage is a good place to start, or the Catholic blogger Steve Gershom. From there, studying what the Church teaches about human sexuality as a whole may lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation for its position on this issue.

P.S., if I’m wrong about the preceding assumption, my apologies in advance.

 

[JohnMichaels]

For instance, I will go out on a limb and guess that one of the moral teachings of the Church that you feel you cannot assent to is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. If so, you are far from alone in this. But I would encourage you, as I myself had to do (this teaching was a huge stumbling block to me), to look around and find faithful Catholics with homosexual orientations who have found fulfillment and peace of soul in the Church’s teaching. The group Courage is a good place to start, or the Catholic blogger Steve Gershom. From there, studying what the Church teaches about human sexuality as a whole may lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation for its position on this issue.

P.S., if I’m wrong about the preceding assumption, my apologies in advance.

I’ll start here and double back. You’re wrong & right actually. You’re right on the guess of one of the teachings I cannot assent to. However, you are incorrect in a way I take blame for.

Saying “doesn’t make sense to me” was a broad statement & I apologize. I did not mean to say I cannot understand reasoning behind them, in fact that is WHY I am on this message board. To understand the reasons our (theist & myself) views can be so different on subjects we have the same information about.

Difference being I don’t want to challenge anyone’s beliefs, just understand them.
(& I do plan to get into gay marriage. I don’t have questions about why the church is against homosexuality - the book is quite clear)

When I used the term make sense, I meant in essence “If I find a teaching that, despite research I just cannot bring myself to agree with”

& just for a moment to go back to your story. I’ll sum up by saying…If I had a personal experience I’d reflect on it. I just can’t work off yours or anyone else’s. But, I’m sure you’ve heard that before. My apologies

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Prodigal

P.S. to the OP, if you haven’t read Pascal’s Pensees, I strongly recommend it. Pascal was the first Christian philosopher to present a case for the faith to the “scientific rationalist” mindset. A former atheist myself, I found his arguments quite compelling, particularly the argument from Jewish history and prophecy. His points as to the callousness of the soul that has stopped searching, as well, should give pause to all but the most hardened of hearts.



Pascal does not pretend to prove that God exists. What he does prove is that it is foolish not to believe that God exists. That foolishness resides in the heart, not in the head. The atheist would like to believe that* he knows *God does not exist. This is not possible. What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him and has fled God as fast and far away as he can go. But God, the proverbial Hound of Heaven, is forever on his trail and has his scent.

So the heart looks back, sooner or later. The heart slows down, sooner or later. The heart stops in it tracks and turns to meet the Hound, sooner or later, because the heart has reasons reason cannot know.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Pascal does not pretend to prove that God exists. What he does prove is that it is foolish not to believe that God exists. That foolishness resides in the heart, not in the head. The atheist would like to believe that* he knows *God does not exist. This is not possible. What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him and has fled God as fast and far away as he can go. But God, the proverbial Hound of Heaven, is forever on his trail and has his scent.

So the heart looks back, sooner or later. The heart slows down, sooner or later. The heart stops in it tracks and turns to meet the Hound, sooner or later, because the heart has reasons reason cannot know.

now now now…I think I’ve been very good so far. No need to put incorrect facts in my mouth, or anyone’s mouth when you can just add “what I assume” before you start generalizing what everyone feels. please?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**now now now…I think I’ve been very good so far. No need to put incorrect facts in my mouth, or anyone’s mouth when you can just add “what I assume” before you start generalizing what everyone feels. please? **

I was summarizing what Pascal thinks, not what everyone feels. But if you feel the shoe does not fit, just don’t wear it. Don’t criticize me for representing Pascal’s wager. This thread is about Pascal, not you.

 

[JohnMichaels]

John

**now now now…I think I’ve been very good so far. No need to put incorrect facts in my mouth, or anyone’s mouth when you can just add “what I assume” before you start generalizing what everyone feels. please? **

I was summarizing what Pascal thinks, not what everyone feels. But if you feel the shoe does not fit, just don’t wear it. Don’t criticize me for representing Pascal’s wager. This thread is about Pascal, not you.

You DID, then you veered in a direction I never seen Pascal claim.

What he does prove is that it is foolish not to believe that God exists. That foolishness resides in the heart, not in the head. The atheist would like to believe that he knows God does not exist. This is not possible

Seems like a fine summary until " What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him and has fled God as fast and far away as he can go"

This seems to me, unless I am mistaken, to be opinion of yours. However, If Pascal did indeed say this somewhere I profusely apologize for my ignorance on the topic

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**Seems like a fine summary until " What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him and has fled God as fast and far away as he can go"

This seems to me, unless I am mistaken, to be opinion of yours. However, If Pascal did indeed say this somewhere I profusely apologize for my ignorance on the topic **

I was summarizing Pascal, so it was necessary to interpolate because of the need for brevity.

Pascal was very convinced that believing in God was an affair of the heart, and that we are drawn to God by love. It follows, then, that we are drawn away from God by fear. What else would draw us away? It certainly wouldn’t be logical, because there is certainly nothing particularly logical about atheism. It is pure and simple denial. So why would anyone deny unless he is afraid of what he denies? But God’s love persists, and like gravity it draws us constantly toward him, even when we would rather not be drawn.

For example, why would you, an atheist, be drawn to this forum? Because your heart has felt the spiritual gravitation that pulls us all toward God even when we persist in convincing ourselves that there is no God to pull us toward him. The “reasons of the heart” (Pascal’s phrase) have eclipsed for a moment the reasons of the head, which should lead you not even to bother with Catholic Answers.

No?

 

[JohnMichaels]

John

**Seems like a fine summary until " What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him and has fled God as fast and far away as he can go"

This seems to me, unless I am mistaken, to be opinion of yours. However, If Pascal did indeed say this somewhere I profusely apologize for my ignorance on the topic **

I was summarizing Pascal, so it was necessary to interpolate because of the need for brevity.

Pascal was very convinced that believing in God was an affair of the heart, and that we are drawn to God by love. It follows, then, that we are drawn away from God by fear. What else would draw us away? It certainly wouldn’t be logical, because there is certainly nothing particularly logical about atheism. It is pure and simple denial. So why would anyone deny unless he is afraid of what he denies? But God’s love persists, and like gravity it draws us constantly toward him, even when we would rather not be drawn.

For example, why would you, an atheist, be drawn to this forum? Because your heart has felt the spiritual gravitation that pulls us all toward God even when we persist in convincing ourselves that there is no God to pull us toward him. The “reasons of the heart” (Pascal’s phrase) have eclipsed for a moment the reasons of the head, which should lead you not even to bother with Catholic Answers.

No?

My problem will all of this is it is still your opinion. You’re welcome to it, but there is a ban on atheism so I can’t explain why it’s your opinion except to ask you politely to not “insert” your opinion where you feel it best explains what is to be drawn without at least qualifying it as opinion - whereby negating my need to defend myself and get banned

Seems fair, no?

You did ask a question I can answer. Why I’m here. There is something going on in this world, and we always fight. From what I’ve seen in these arguments, is we fight because neither of us REALLY understand (or want to understand) the other’s position

So I am here to learn what you believe. You want to know Christ, I want to know his followers. Not in the same way, obviously. I’m a human behavior kinda guy, hard to explain I guess.

In turn, you can ask me questions if you’d like (most of you who replied have) & I play by the house rules. I make every concession NOT to promote my views and to approach things from a theist side.

I thought about making a thread somewhere detailing how I arrived where I am. It would be a long story. Don’t know where it would go or if anyone would be interested.

But to sum up, I wanna know whats behind the scripture. Not because my heart felt anything. I’ve always had questions about the bible. all my life. I’m at Catholic Answers for answers not …whatever you were trying to do with that conspicuous wording

cheers

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So I am here to learn what you believe. You want to know Christ, I want to know his followers. Not in the same way, obviously. I’m a human behavior kinda guy, hard to explain I guess.

To some degree I share that interest (and have expressed it in other threads). But since I’m not a member of your target audience unfortunately that means my understanding is not an instance of the desired bridge being built. But all the same I hope it makes you feel better knowing that some one else understands your motivations.

There was a Jehovah’s Witness that used to come around when I was working from home. I let him stop by once a week for about 6 months. I got a much better understanding of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their interpretation of the Bible and how they engage the world from those interactions.

I thought about making a thread somewhere detailing how I arrived where I am. It would be a long story. Don’t know where it would go or if anyone would be interested.

If and when you do it may be helpful to add a link to the thread in your public profile. It may make the thread easier for you to find should you want to refer to it to explain to some one else why you are here. It also may be easier for others to “discover.”

While there’s a ban on threads directly related to atheism there are other “softer” labels that seem to be okay, such as “non-Catholic” or “non-religious” (both of which are inclusive of dispositions that are not atheistic, but seems to be a narrow enough description to communicate as much as needed). Topics on these other labels seem to live longer before the thread becomes an example of Godwin’s Rule too.

 

[JohnMichaels]

There was a Jehovah’s Witness that used to come around when I was working from home. I let him stop by once a week for about 6 months. I got a much better understanding of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their interpretation of the Bible and how they engage the world from those interactions. .

I did the same thing! They called it Bible Study. They seemed to do more of a tally to explain things.
If I brought up a passage supporting X, they’d show me 4 against X. Therefor X is wrong. Or at least, that’s how it came across to me.

As for ways to side-step atheism. I only really mention it so readers understand my perspective. But here in this forum I’m operating from an agnostic point of view with a theist slant when I say things. Meaning, I’ll go ahead and grant God. I’ve no interest to debate if he does or doesn’t exist.

Its complicated but yes, I’m glad to see someone else share my motivation. While you may not be my “target audience” you may have already learned things I don’t know. I envy your advanced knowledge!

cheers

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John, I believe this quote will satisfy your demand to know whether I made something up or Pascal said it in so many words.

“There is a virtuous fear, which is the effect of faith; and there is a vicious fear, which is the product of doubt. The former leads to hope, as relying on God, in whom we believe; the latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe. Persons of the one character fear to lose God; persons of the other character fear to find him.” Blaise Pascal

I know this is not exactly the way I phrased it, but I think my sentiment expressed earlier is the same as Pascal’s.

It is surely difficult to discuss Pascal without some reference to why atheists don’t believe, and why Pascal thinks that if they reason it through they will see why they ought to believe. The reasons of the head do not have to oppose the reasons of the heart.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Well here’s three things you should consider:

1- Is the belief in a god a bet, wouldn’t a great god know when we are pretending to believe and when we actually don’t ( suppposing he exists), isn’t that a dishonest behavior?

2- What if you pick a wrong god out of the thousands, what if the Muslim or the Hindu or other sort of gods exist, would you truly take that risk?

3-Why would a God send a disbeliever who was unable for any reason to believe in his existence to an eternal damnation ( This isn’t the Catholic theology teaching/ Invincible ignorance); and if it happens that such a god exists would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t, I dislike dictators.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

libral

1- Is the belief in a god a bet, wouldn’t a great god know when we are pretending to believe and when we actually don’t ( suppposing he exists), isn’t that a dishonest behavior?

You can’t fake belief in god. You count on God to exist as more likely and more hopeful a state to be in than in the other state. Then you love God and surrender your will to God. He will know if you are faking it. The reasons of the heart are rarely faked. It is reason itself that more often plays the whore.

2- What if you pick a wrong god out of the thousands, what if the Muslim or the Hindu or other sort of gods exist, would you truly take that risk?

If you pick out no god, and there is a God, the true God is not going to help you.

**3-Why would a God send a disbeliever who was unable for any reason to believe in his existence to an eternal damnation ( This isn’t the Catholic theology teaching/ Invincible ignorance); and if it happens that such a god exists would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t, I dislike dictators. **

What would be such a r eason you couldn’t believe in God?

 

[JohnMichaels]

John, I believe this quote will satisfy your demand to know whether I made something up or Pascal said it in so many words.

“There is a virtuous fear, which is the effect of faith; and there is a vicious fear, which is the product of doubt. The former leads to hope, as relying on God, in whom we believe; the latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe. Persons of the one character fear to lose God; persons of the other character fear to find him.” Blaise Pascal

I know this is not exactly the way I phrased it, but I think my sentiment expressed earlier is the same as Pascal’s.

It is surely difficult to discuss Pascal without some reference to why atheists don’t believe, and why Pascal thinks that if they reason it through they will see why they ought to believe. The reasons of the head do not have to oppose the reasons of the heart.

You read what you consider a related quote, though it’s not in the actual wager. I also think he approached it in a much nicer way. Your way sounded far less tolerant. I don’t hesitate to say that had Pascal included the line you did in the wager, it would have had FAR less converts.

He also says

It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness.** It is more dangerous yet to leave him ignorant of either**; but very beneficial that he should be made sensible of both

I think I aided you in this

cheers

 

[JohnMichaels]

Well here’s three things you should consider:

1- Is the belief in a god a bet, wouldn’t a great god know when we are pretending to believe and when we actually don’t ( suppposing he exists), isn’t that a dishonest behavior?

2- What if you pick a wrong god out of the thousands, what if the Muslim or the Hindu or other sort of gods exist, would you truly take that risk?

3-Why would a God send a disbeliever who was unable for any reason to believe in his existence to an eternal damnation ( This isn’t the Catholic theology teaching/ Invincible ignorance); and if it happens that such a god exists would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t, I dislike dictators.

You’re treading dangerously my friend, be careful.
I don’t have your answers, but my best guess from a theist perspective would be

1. Approaching belief from a dishonest angle is discouraged
2. If I’m the God you didn’t pick, I’d at least be sympathetic to some form of belief, however misguided
3. I can’t answer 3. Too hard