PASCAL'S WAGER

[rossum]

Barrister,
The Barrister:

f you are looking for proof of God’s existence, then you should look into Intelligent Design and the many books written by its adherents and its detractors. Do a search on Amazon.

I am aware of ID, and I have read a number of web articles on both sides. I think that ID is too low on scientific results. Dr Dembski has noted that there needs to be more scientific work done on ID. For the moment I find that the scientific results from ID are too meagre to justify the wide ranging conclusions proposed. Until there is the evidence ID will have an uphill struggle in the scientific world. In science the evidence is what counts in the long term.

You should also note that no scientist has ever proved that God does not exist.

“Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.” Science does not deal in proof, science deals with “the current best explanation of the data we have collected so far.” If you want proof ask a mathematician, not a scientist.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Carl,

Carl:

I see, rossum, that you are an atheist.

Be careful with assumptions. In my post I said that “I do not follow any of the three Abrahamic religions,” and if you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist. In numerical terms I am further from atheism than you are:

There were also gathered there ten thousand Brahmas… There were twelve thousand Shakras…

(Vimalakirti Nirdesa Ch 1)

That is twenty two thousand Gods just to start with, no doubt I could find more if I bothered to look. If you require a label then I could be called an “irrelevantist”, Gods are of no real importance and are pretty much irrelevant in Buddhism. Just because I do not believe in the Abrahamic God does not mean that I am an atheist. Are you an atheist because you do not believe in Apollo?

rossum:

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

Yes there is a lot of paradox in that statement, intentionally so. If you want to know where I got it from then look at Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought.

To get back to Pascal’s Wager. You have rejected the “Mohammed’s Wager” version of your own argument. Why do you expect me to accept the “Jesus’ Wager” version when there is no logical difference between them? If you are rejecting your own argument then that argument cannot be very strong since you obviously see a weakness in it.

As I said, if I did accept the Wager then I would become a Hindu since the odds on finding the right God are much higher in Hinduism. Even in its own terms Pascal’s Wager fails as a vehicle for Christian apologetics. I think that you oversold its merits in your opening post.

Pascal’s Wager sounds good when preaching to the choir. I suspect that this is because the choir shares the implicit choice of God v no-God. I see that as a false dichotomy since there are other possible choices. Simply by using Allah as one of the alternatives the implicit assumption is made more explicit and this weakness in the argument made clearer.

rossum

 

[carnap72]

I don’t think Pacal’s Wager is successful and this is why. If Pascal begins by admitting that reason can decide nothing here, and that any hypothesis is as likely as any other, then why should we limit the betting options to two: either there is the Roman Catholic God who exists or there is no God?

Surely the word ‘God’ has been defined in multifarious ways throughout history? It is not true that Pascal’s concept of God is the same as a Hindu’s concept of Brahma, or a Muslim’s concept of Allah, or an ancient Greek’s concept of Zeus, or John Stuart Mill’s concept of a finite God, etc. The concepts of God are even reproduced exponentially if we stop to consider what ones there could be which have not had any historical adherents.

So how can we say with any justification that Pacal’s concept is the only legitimate contender? What criteria do we employ to choose among them? Clearly, Pascal’s wager does not take us one step beyond the ignorance and doubt with which it tries to contend.

 

[The_Barrister]

rossum:

Barrister,

I am aware of ID, and I have read a number of web articles on both sides. I think that ID is too low on scientific results. Dr Dembski has noted that there needs to be more scientific work done on ID. For the moment I find that the scientific results from ID are too meagre to justify the wide ranging conclusions proposed. Until there is the evidence ID will have an uphill struggle in the scientific world. In science the evidence is what counts in the long term.

“Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.” Science does not deal in proof, science deals with “the current best explanation of the data we have collected so far.” If you want proof ask a mathematician, not a scientist.

rossum

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t berate someone for failing to prove the existence of God and then excuse yourself for failing to prove His non-existence.

Either prove the non-existence of God, or forever hold your peace and your piece on this topic. The problem from your standpoint is that the science of proving the existence of God, although incomplete, is light years ahead of anything on the other side. I’ll understand if you are unwilling or unable to admit it.

 

[Carl]

carnap

*I don’t think Pacal’s Wager is successful and this is why. If Pascal begins by admitting that reason can decide nothing here, and that any hypothesis is as likely as any other, then why should we limit the betting options to two: either there is the Roman Catholic God who exists or there is no God? *

I think I’ve dealt with this objection in post #10. I can’t speak for Pascal, but your comment seem to elicit this reply: first decide whether it is in your interest to believe in God(s), then decide which god(s) offers the winning hand.

I have no problem in finding in Jesus the God of love … for what other God could offer such a loving hand? Presumably, that would be Pascal’s reasoning. If you can find a God who shows more love for us than Jesus, who would be willing to die a horrible death for our sake, I’d like to know who that god is.

Name him.

 

[Carl]

rossum

and if you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist. In numerical terms I am further from atheism than you are:

I don’t follow this. There is a long tradition of atheism in the history of Buddhism in the sense of denying a Creator God.

No such tradition exists in the Catholic Church.

What are you talking about?

 

[Carl]

BARRISTER

The problem from your standpoint is that the science of proving the existence of God, although incomplete, is light years ahead of anything on the other side.

Well said.

Not only with ID, but also with the Big Bang, establishing a moment of Creation, as opposed to the now defunct premise assumed by Einstein and others that the universe is infinite, eternal, and therefore needs no Something that started it all.

Not exactly compelling arguments for God, but more science on the Catholic side than the other side has to disprove the possibility of a Creator.

Yet I ask that we get back on point with Pascal and save that item for another thread.

 

[Scholastic]

Pascal’s wager isn’t even an argument. It’s an attempt to make an unbeliever believe by means of invoking emotions. You shoudn’t believe something because it’s safer, but because it’s true. Only the traditional arguments for God’s existence can prove that God’s existence is true, and more than just convenient.

 

[rossum]

Barrister,

Science deliberately limits itself to deal only with things that are observable. This means that there is a limit to the things that science can deal with. Even within these limits, science does not deal with Truth (capital-T), it only deals with the best information we have at the moment. I do not expect science to deal with the existence or not of God; that is a topic for philosophy or theology. Philosophers and theologians have been arguing about the existence and properties of various Gods for a very long time. I do not see those arguments coming to a resolution any time soon.

I have no real interest in the existence or not of God. As I said to Carl, I am indifferent to the existence or non-existence of Gods. In this thread all I am saying is that Pascal’s Wager is not a good argument for encouraging people to believe in God. I think that Carl rather oversold its merits in his opening post.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Carl,

rossum: I am Buddhist. In numerical terms I am further from atheism than you are
Carl: I don’t follow this. There is a long tradition of atheism in the history of Buddhism in the sense of denying a Creator God.

As I showed by my quote from the Vimalakirti Nirdesa, the Buddhist scriptures mention large numbers of Gods. This is not my definition of atheism. Some Buddhists certainly have a more atheist interpretation of Buddhism than I do; this is not an area where Buddhism is dogmatic. Buddhists do agree on the unimportance of Gods. When I said “numerical” all I meant was that an atheist has 0 Gods, you have 1 God and I have 22,000 Gods.

I note that you have not addressed my point about how you reject Pascal’s Wager when “God” is replaced with “Allah”.

… let us say: ‘Either [Allah] is or he is not.’ But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong. . . Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. Which will you choose then? . . . Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that [Allah] 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. . . . And thus, since you are obliged to play, you must be renouncing reason if you hoard your life rather than risk it for an infinite gain, just as likely to occur as a loss amounting to nothing… Thus our argument carries infinite weight, when the stakes are finite in a game where there are even chances of winning and losing and an infinite prize to be won.

I repeat, if you are not prepared to attend a mosque on Friday, with the potential infinite gain of Paradise, then why should I attend a church on Sunday? If Pascal’s argument does not convince you then why do you expect it to convince me?

rossum

 

[Carl]

Only the traditional arguments for God’s existence can prove that God’s existence is true, and more than just convenient.

I think you have a point but you carry it too far. The problem with the traditional arguments is that they do not compel us to believe. That is what the atheist is looking for. Pascal found compulsion in the wager argument, since virtually everyone is compelled to see an argument for his own self interest. God made us that way. In theology that self interest might be translated as the virtue of hope. Hope by itself is not sufficient … but it may lead to faith and good works. I think this might be the ultimate strength of Pascal’s wager … that it opens the door to understanding and love that had been closed by the refusal to hope.

 

[Carl]

rossom

I note that you have not addressed my point about how you reject Pascal’s Wager when “God” is replaced with “Allah”.

I don’t reject Pascal’s wager when God is replaced with Allah. Moreover, you pick a religion that was originated by a man (Mohammed) who studied Judaism and Christianity before he announced himself the prophet of a new religion. Many of his religious ideas are derivative.

It seems you are not reading my posts. I answered you on this several times. I think Pascal would say it is better to believe in God (Allah) than in no God, if that is the culture you were raised in and you have no other God to consider. As to which God is the most worthy to be be believed in, that question has to be answered after you decide that God(s) is preferable to Nothing. For Pascal it was a no brainer. No doubt he had access to knowledge of all the world’s major religions, including Islam. He took the God who shows the most love … doesn’t just talk about love, but shows it … the God-Man Jesus.

 

[AnAtheist]

The usual refutations of PW have already been presented, but some detail is missing yet.

Pascal made two assumptions (God/no God) and presented two choices (believe/not believe). That makes four possible scenarios:
God/belief → good (win!)
God/not believe → bad (loose)
no God/believe → neutral (nothing)
no God/not believe → neutral (nothing)

Thus he concluded believe → win! / not believe → loose.

This conclusion is wrong for two reasons:

1. no God/believe → neutral (nothing) On the contary you loose very much. You spend time praying you could spend on insert arbitrary sin here, that hurts nobody else and is real FUN]. You may think and do things without the fear of a prosecution, that never comes.
2. God (but not the one you believe in)/believe → VERY bad (loose). Potentially worse than non-believing, if that really existing diety is particulary jealous of other even non-existing dieties, but doesn’t care much about non-belief.

This has been said, but not that drastically: The wager dictates to choose the religion with the best heaven and worst hell, that would be Islam then.

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

The usual refutations of PW have already been presented, but some detail is missing yet.

Pascal made two assumptions (God/no God) and presented two choices (believe/not believe). That makes four possible scenarios:
God/belief → good (win!)
God/not believe → bad (loose)
no God/believe → neutral (nothing)
no God/not believe → neutral (nothing)

Thus he concluded believe → win! / not believe → loose.

This conclusion is wrong for two reasons:

1. no God/believe → neutral (nothing) On the contary you loose very much. You spend time praying you could spend on insert arbitrary sin here, that hurts nobody else and is real FUN]. You may think and do things without the fear of a prosecution, that never comes.
2. God (but not the one you believe in)/believe → VERY bad (loose). Potentially worse than non-believing, if that really existing diety is particulary jealous of other even non-existing dieties, but doesn’t care much about non-belief.

This has been said, but not that drastically: The wager dictates to choose the religion with the best heaven and worst hell, that would be Islam then.

Although some topics of God vs. No God are more difficult to argue then others, the two here are so easy for me to reconcile.

1. “On the contary you loose very much. You spend time praying you could spend on insert arbitrary sin here, that hurts nobody else and is real FUN].”

The contradiction to this statement is probably the most fundemental reason I returned to faith.

Christianity does not make an attempt to squash our “fun”. On the contrary, Christianity is the doctrine of true joy. It is just not always apparent at first. It takes time for most, and effort from most, to learn that the route to happiness is the reduction of pride and selfishness and adoption of love and humility. Sin, hurts everyone. This becomes more and more clear as one opens his/her heart to the love of God. On this I could go on and on. Simply because there is no person other then yourself who is a direct witness to your sin, this is not the same as others being indirectly victims of your sin. Take the sin of adultry. One may suggest that as long as you do not get caught there is no harm done. But if one is logical and truthful, he/she would have to admit to the fact that attention and love has been taken from where it should be administered, on the spouse. It becomes either / or, not both! It is not “fun” to hurt others, whether directly or indirectly. Take drug use, may not seem sinful until your child is witnessing you stumbling around the house, or face up in a casket at a young age. I challenge to you to name a sin that is “fun” and that hurts nobody.

1. Even easier to dispute. If God is love and God is good then God will not condemn anybody who makes an whole-hearted effort to develope a relationship with Him. If God is mean, evil and vengeful then we are all doomed.

 

[AnAtheist]

Mijoy2:

I challenge to you to name a sin that is “fun” and that hurts nobody.

Easy:

• working on a Sunday
• having sex with your partner
• worship Thor in front of a oak tree
• listening to Black Metal

Mijoy2:

Even easier to dispute. If God is love and God is good then God will not condemn anybody who makes an whole-hearted effort to develope a relationship with Him. If God is mean, evil and vengeful then we are all doomed.

Then please consider this, just in case Jesus was not the Messiah:
God (Exo 34:14):

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God;

 

[Tantum_ergo]

<< * working on a Sunday
* having sex with your partner
* worship Thor in front of a oak tree
* listening to Black Metal>>

Working on a Sunday is not a sin. Having sex with your partner in a marriage is not a sin; otherwise it is adultery, fornication, or homosexual actions which are intrinsically disordered. All are sins; therefore, all hurt somebody.
Worshipping Thor is not a sin if you happen to believe in Thor. While Catholics (and others) believe that Thor is not the true God, and would encourage non believers in Christ to find Christ, the only way you’d be sinning by worshipping Thor is if you did NOT believe in him and were doing it for some other agenda.
Listening to “black metal” CAN be sinful. Any music which is in and of itself a vehicle for evil–using evil words or promoting evil–is an occasion of sin. There are SOME people who can listen without perceiving the evil (apparently), or at least think they can, but the fact remains, if you are SERIOUSLY listening to and taking joy in salacious, blasphemous, or other “sinful” music, that’s the sin.

As for your Exodus quote, nice way to cut and paste out of context “scripture”. I guess you don’t remember the one about the Devil quoting scripture for his own purposes, eh?

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

The wager dictates to choose the religion with the best heaven and worst hell, that would be Islam then.

It dictates nothing of the sort. It dictates the religion which best serves our interest. What religion could do that better than the one founded by a God willing to hang bleeding on a cross for our sake?

That is not Islam.

 

[AnAtheist]

Tantum ergo:

Working on a Sunday is not a sin.
Worshipping Thor is not a sin if you happen to believe in Thor.

Both deeds are in direct violation of the 10 commandments (the latter in all 3 versions).
Tantum ergo:

All are sins; therefore, all hurt somebody.

If a sin by definition hurts somebody (or everybody), then you never find one, that doesn’t.
Tantum ergo:

As for your Exodus quote, nice way to cut and paste out of context “scripture”. I guess you don’t remember the one about the Devil quoting scripture for his own purposes, eh?

What context in Exodus implies, that it is ok to worship other gods?

btw, If a quote suits you, it’s God’s inspired words. If it doesn’t, it is out of context. :banghead:

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

AnAtheist

The wager dictates to choose the religion with the best heaven and worst hell, that would be Islam then.

It dictates nothing of the sort. It dictates the religion which serves our interest best.

(emphasis by me)
Quite right. I say that implies an afterlife in a nice heaven, and not suffering in a bad hell. Our life is rather short compared to eternity.

What religion could do that better than the one founded by a God willing to hang bleeding on a cross for our sake?

Very good question! Not answered by the wager that is.

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

Easy:

• working on a Sunday
• having sex with your partner
• worship Thor in front of a oak tree
• listening to Black Metal

Then please consider this, just in case Jesus was not the Messiah:

Working on a Sunday may be sinful (depends). However, from a viewpoint of invincable ignorance it would, of course, not be sinful.

It may be sinful for me. But that is because I believe in God and wish to please Him. For me to turn my back on my belief would hurt others because there are others who gain benefit from my attempts at faithfulness and it (I hope) it helps strenghten them.

Having sex with your partner outside of marriage. Hmmmm read “The theology of the Body” or many many other works on this matter. One example (of many), two people have sex outside of marriage. Then one decides the relationship is over because someone more appealing to them has come along. The other is lfet broken-hearted and deeply hurt. It takes some thinking but sex and marriage are not to be seperated without “hurting others” sooner or later.

Worshipping Thor, hmmmm, who is Thor? Doesn’t take much smarts to realize worshipping Thor is foolish. Not sure about sinful, I suppose it would depend on ones mental capacity.

Black Metal? Does Black Metal make noise?