Pascal's Wager

[prodigalson2011]

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.

And I applaud that. My point, though, is that one should not assume that one does have all the same information as those with whom he disagrees. I am not saying that you don’t, so please don’t take it that way, but I think it is important to remember that the way and extent to which information is presented varies depending on the source. To quote David Byrne, “Facts all come with points of view.” Most secular media, for example, keeps a tight lip about research that supports the Church’s teachings on many things and skews the Church’s voice when it reports on its affairs or even its doctrines.

The “condom controversy” in Africa is a prime example. The popular line, echoed through virtually every major media outlet in the Western world, was that the Church and its teaching on contraception was a major, if not the leading, contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic. Most people still believe that. But no one paid much attention when a Harvard researcher who had specialized in studying exactly that issue came out and said that the Pope, who had taken major heat from many prominent people (Richard Dawkins comes immediately to mind), had been right all along: the places where the Church had the greatest influence had the lowest rates of infection, while every area where contraception was introduced and accepted showed a dramatic increase in infection rates.

Similar instances could be cited for research on homosexual marriage (one of the most damning studies of which was conducted by a scientist who was, himself, homosexual.)

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)

What “book” are you referring to? If you mean the Bible, I must disagree. It never presents a logical argument for the immorality of homosexual activity. If you mean the Catechism, then I will agree that it does present a basic argument for it, but it’s hardly what I’d call extensive or sufficient to make a definitive case. Things like JPII’s “Theology of the Body” give the Church’s teaching on sexuality a much more in-depth treatment.

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”

I understand what you mean. Perhaps we should take this conversation to another thread, but I would be interested in discussing some specific instances of this in regards to Catholicism.

& 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

No need to apologize! I wouldn’t expect you to be converted by my experiences. I only shared that fact in the interest of honesty, lest you get the impression that my conversion was a purely intellectual matter.

 

[JohnMichaels]

The “condom controversy” in Africa is a prime example. The popular line, echoed through virtually every major media outlet in the Western world, was that the Church and its teaching on contraception was a major, if not the leading, contributing factor to the AIDS epidemic. Most people still believe that. .

Knowing how far we’re straying off the topic of this thread, I’ll say I didn’t have issue with that. Media is biased on both sides, & there are a number of topics I did support the church’s position on. Even IN regards to homosexuality. DADT, for example

I considered starting an “Ask an Atheist” thread but figured it would get shot down fast. Though it wouldn’t be to question my views on God’s existence, but rather for what you suggested. A place to go over differences I have with teachings. Or heck, just to see where I stand on an issue, and how I came to the conclusion I did. Idk where to place, or a proper name for such a thread though

 

[prodigalson2011]

Knowing how far we’re straying off the topic of this thread, I’ll say I didn’t have issue with that. Media is biased on both sides, & there are a number of topics I did support the church’s position on. Even IN regards to homosexuality. DADT, for example

I considered starting an “Ask an Atheist” thread but figured it would get shot down fast. Though it wouldn’t be to question my views on God’s existence, but rather for what you suggested. A place to go over differences I have with teachings. Or heck, just to see where I stand on an issue, and how I came to the conclusion I did. Idk where to place, or a proper name for such a thread though

Well, seeing as they are presumably questions of moral philosophy, I would say either this or the Moral Theology subforums would be appropriate.

As for thread titles, a simple synopsis of your view on the particular topic to be discussed in that thread would suffice, I think.

 

[underacloud]

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.

Well, that’s simply a silly position…if god revealed himself to you as a malevolent dictator and threatened you with eternal torment if you didn’t worship him, you’d refuse because you “dislike dictators”?

Do you dislike dictators more than you’d dislike whatever unimaginable torments an all powerful god could throw at you? He wouldn’t be much of a god at all if that was the case.

It would, as per Pascal’s wager, be best to play along and do what this god asks of you.

The relevant factor is god’s existence or not; not whether you happen to like that god.

Your other questions are fair and require more contemplation. One thought regarding your second point - the fact that there are thousands of different belief systems doesn’t mean that one of them isn’t right, or that many of them aren’t pointing towards a common, but partly-obscured, truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**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. **

The Wager was not meant originally by Pascal to be read in isolation from the rest of Pensees. In another place he says:

“The kingdom of God is within us; the universal good is within us, is ourselves – and not ourselves…. He who hates not in himself his self love, which leads him to make himself God, is indeed blinded.”

Perhaps what Pascal says is more offensive to you than what I said. I did not say you are blinded by self love. When you speculate off the cuff, you should first know what you are talking about. It’s obvious you haven’t read Pensees. There are many passages that people full of self love and no love for God would find offensive. But I do believe Pascal was right to say these things. The truth might hurt some people … especially the people who know the truth applies to them. If it applies to you, I’m sorry for having offended. I happen to agree with Pascal, having been an atheist myself, that atheism is the flight from God out of fear, not conviction.

If and when you return to God, and confront his love with your own, maybe you will realize you had nothing to fear all along?

 

[JohnMichaels]

. In another place he says:

“The kingdom of God is within us; the universal good is within us, is ourselves – and not ourselves…. He who hates not in himself his self love, which leads him to make himself God, is indeed blinded.”

As a matter of fact I do not find that offensive. Not in the least. He’s still claiming I’m honest, just blinded.

"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.

I do not find this quote offensive. Not in the least. The interpretation of “Fear to Find him” is open. I can think of different variations of what that means. Left open in this way, I find it fair. Agree or Disagree with the sentiment.

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

• First, If you were as you claim an atheist you’d know we don’t all feel the same way about anything. If you’re basing that feeling of not wanting god to exist off of your own experience, I’d say to state it. not paint it as an overall view of all atheists. Pascal never implied such,
• Secondly, That implies an atheist really does accept god, just doesn’t want to. Another factual assertion Pascal did not make. At least that I’m aware of
  Italics - Again, an assertion an atheist is somehow faking it. Again not labeled as your opinion. Just factual. Pascal never said that.
  (EDIT: If in fact I’m wrong and somehow these bold assertions are clearly made in quotes not provided here, wow, I’d be done instantly)

But the worst part in this, is that I had to spell this out. Try as I might to resolve this, no luck. You apologize in a veiled way. Only to point out the truth must hurt me. Sounds very self righteous. You’d rather me not feel welcomed here? That is saddening to me

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Well, that’s simply a silly position…if god revealed himself to you as a malevolent dictator and threatened you with eternal torment if you didn’t worship him, you’d refuse because you “dislike dictators”?

Do you dislike dictators more than you’d dislike whatever unimaginable torments an all powerful god could throw at you? He wouldn’t be much of a god at all if that was the case.

It would, as per Pascal’s wager, be best to play along and do what this god asks of you.

The relevant factor is god’s existence or not; not whether you happen to like that god…

You can call me a delusional , but at the end I was poiting to a personal decision rather than a fact.

 

[JohnMichaels]

You can call me a delusional , but at the end I was poiting to a personal decision rather than a fact.

I’m not sure what you were doing at the end, but in this post I can tell you what you weren’t doing. Making much sense.

and if it happens that such a god exists would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t, I dislike dictators

You are implying that hypothetically this God, which in your words created “eternal damnation” does exists. You then go on to say you personally wouldn’t worship him because you dislike dictators.

You can’t say that. That implication only a fool would make “And if it turned out hell was real, nah man, I’d be all like BURN ME, I DISLIKE DICTATORS”

I’m an atheist because I don’t believe. But in the face of evidence, one would bow before one would burn. It’s called self-interest, look into it

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

I’m not sure what you were doing at the end, but in this post I can tell you what you weren’t doing. Making much sense.

You are implying that hypothetically this God, which in your words created “eternal damnation” does exists. You then go on to say you personally wouldn’t worship him because you dislike dictators.

You can’t say that. That implication only a fool would make “And if it turned out hell was real, nah man, I’d be all like BURN ME, I DISLIKE DICTATORS”

I’m an atheist because I don’t believe. But in the face of evidence, one would bow before one would burn. It’s called self-interest, look into it

You are saying that " eternal damnation" doesn’t make any sense when the whole thread is on how to escape from it if a god exists?

In the face of evidence, I would definetly accept that this God is real, but accepting his reality doesn’t mean accepting him.

Aren’t you familiar with those who risk their lives standing against dictators?

 

[JohnMichaels]

You are saying that " eternal damnation" doesn’t make any sense when the whole thread is on how to escape from it if a god exists?

In the face of evidence, I would definetly accept that this God is real, but accepting his reality doesn’t mean accepting him.

Then you mean to phrase your question differently. Instead of " would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t"
Perhaps the alternative " would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t want to"

See the difference between asserting you would be openly defiant, & just saying you’d be unhappy with the proposition?

Sounded like you were misquoting Hitchens. Who says he thinks it would be a terrible thing if it turned out to be true. Because of the reasons you state. But that implication is that he’d disapprove, not act in rebellion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aren’t you familiar with those who risk their lives standing against dictators?

When your father disciplined you or asked you to do something that you didn’t want to do, did you call him a dictator?

On what grounds? That you couldn’t have your own way in everything?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**But the worst part in this, is that I had to spell this out. Try as I might to resolve this, no luck. You apologize in a veiled way. Only to point out the truth must hurt me. Sounds very self righteous. You’d rather me not feel welcomed here? That is saddening to me **

Some of the statements in your last post are fragile to say the least. You say Pascal never said this, never said that. How do you know? Are you basing your claim of the small part of Pensees that deals with the Wager? Or have you read all of Pensees? I can tell from what you’ve said that you don’t really know Pascal well, and don’t realize how offensive he could be. He was most offensive to the Jesuits, to be sure. I’ll put all that aside.

You are most welcome here. What you should get used to is that I don’t play with kid gloves. The truth sometimes does hurt. It should hurt if you’re not used to it, just as going on a diet should hurt if you’re not used to it. All exchanges do not have to be saccharine. I have correctly summarized Pascal’s views, and I have backed those summaries with quotes from Pascal.I don’t apologize for any of that. You should not be saddened by anything I’ve said. I did not call you names. I only explained my view of where you are coming from because I came from there too. And all atheists do have certain traits in common, believe me. One of them is their obstinate refusal to see, as Pascal would simply put it, that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by embracing the love of God.

If you don’t like my posts, put me on your ignore list. Thank you.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Aren’t you familiar with those who risk their lives standing against dictators?

When your father disciplined you or asked you to do something that you didn’t want to do, did you call him a dictator?

On what grounds? That you couldn’t have your own way in everything?

Not everyone is disciplined by a dictator, that’s for sure, but can you explain what does this have to do with a God?

If there is God who tortures you eternally for not believing or for any other reason, that’s not a good god, even in this life, the philosophy of Epicurus on suffering is another rational reason against the existence of an all powerful, all good creator.

 

[JohnMichaels]

If you don’t like my posts, put me on your ignore list. Thank you.

You’re still missing it. I’ll give it one last go from a different angle

My feelings aren’t hurt. What upsets me is you can claim to know how others feel, guising it as Pascal’s (mind) saying you are interpreting what he means.
Pascal does say some things I don’t agree with, but he doesn’t seem to assert what another feels, only what he thinks they feel.
You do no such thing. You assert fact. Upsetting further is that you do it with no fear of ban, but I cannot defend my position and not risk ban. My only contention is that you not assert factual claims of the atheist mind or feeling. Just add a small qualifier.
All you ever had to do, was add in your statement 1 word, or even a series

You said) What he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him
Could have said
A) What I think he wants is to feel is that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him
or
B) I think Pascal is saying The Atheist wants to feel that God does not exist, because he has the fear of God in him

The latter 2, not offense to me (offensive in that I don’t feel I should have to defend my position, therefor no need to worry about being banned. In fact, we could have had dialog had you phrased it any of the 2 ways I did. meaningful dialog even)

I’ll use an example

“I think some of what I’m saying is sinking in”

I’m claiming my opinion that the words I’m taking time to write here make sense to you
In reality it is clear you do not understand.

See how that second part I stated factually that you just don’t get it? I think you don’t, but again that’s my opinion (with no qualifier. comes off as mean-spirited, doesn’t it?)

(I will say that, no, I have not read the nearly 300 pages. Please, paste me the quote where he asserts factually to know the feelings of every other man, and paints it in that wide scope. Do this, & I’ll owe you my deepest heartfelt apology)

It is your choice how, or if this continues. I can’t explain it another way. I just tried to think of one - no go

cheers

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Libral

**If there is God who tortures you eternally for not believing or for any other reason, that’s not a good god, **

You don’t get to judge God. He gets to judge you.

“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

God is not unreasonable. If you ask for everlasting hell, he will give it to you. Repudiating him will get you what you want. No?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John
**
(I will say that, no, I have not read the nearly 300 pages. Please, paste me the quote where he asserts factually to know the feelings of every other man, and paints it in that wide scope. Do this, & I’ll owe you my deepest heartfelt apology)**

I’m not going to do that because, based on previous requests from you, I have the sinking feeling that you would having me running back and forth to Pascal to answer other question about Pascal. You need to do your own homework. The best thing for you to do, is read all of Pascal’s Pensees, then ask yourself if Pascal has spoken fairly to you as an atheist. I thinkyou will find he has. Also, having been an atheist myself, I have spoken fairly to you. I know not only how atheists think and why they think the way they do (I have been studying the subject for years and talking to atheists); I also know how to overcome those essentially negative kinds of thoughts. The way is very simple. The atheist has to close his mind to Nogod and open his heart to God. Until he does that, he will be busy spending and wasting himself looking for reasons not to believe.

“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

That is a reason to believe. Pascal has hit the proverbial nail right on its head.

Everything to gain. Or everything to lose.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Libral

**If there is God who tortures you eternally for not believing or for any other reason, that’s not a good god, **

You don’t get to judge God. He gets to judge you.

“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

Matthew 7:21

 

[JohnMichaels]

John
**. Also, having been an atheist myself, I have spoken fairly to you. I know not only how atheists think and why they think the way they do (I have been studying the subject for years and talking to atheists); I also know how to overcome those essentially negative kinds of thoughts. The way is very simple. The atheist has to close his mind to Nogod and open his heart to God. Until he does that, he will be busy spending and wasting himself looking for reasons not to believe.
**

You just proved you don’t know. You can’t study atheists, its not a common thread. No pattern in how we feel. Sorry. I will ignore you then, you seem to hold firm you position that you CAN assert fact with no evidence, despite the actual fact I cannot engage in this kind of debate.
It is unfair of YOU, not Pascal. since I cannot question him for his unfairness, and there is no such ban in the world, but there is on these forums. get it now? sheesh. goodbye, sir

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

You just proved you don’t know. You can’t study atheists, its not a common thread. No pattern in how we feel. Sorry. I will ignore you then, you seem to hold firm you position that you CAN assert fact with no evidence, despite the actual fact I cannot engage in this kind of debate.
It is unfair of YOU, not Pascal. since I cannot question him for his unfairness, and there is no such ban in the world, but there is on these forums. get it now? sheesh. goodbye, sir

But this isn’t an atheism or evolution debate to get banned, he is trying to study atheists, not that I agree with him but why atheists can’t be studied?

 

[JohnMichaels]

why atheists can’t be studied?

There is a difference between study and asserting your research is complete. He said he knows. He then re-asserted he knows from his personal talking to the atheists he did speak to.
You have to see that sample size is extremely limited. Not to mention atheists don’t have a dogma they follow. Many of them feel different ways on different issues. Came to their conclusions differently.

It’s better to say “In my experience the atheists I’ve talked to seem to feel this way”
then to outright claim factual knowledge of atheists minds due to talking to some of them. Absurd if you ask me