The Fruit of Pascals Wager

[Gorgias]

That’s not what we need for the argument to work. We need it to be possible for specifically the Judeo-Christian to be possible, because “just any old God” doesn’t get us the eternal reward/punishments we need for the rest of the argument.

Read. The. Pensees.

That’s what Pascal does, there. He talks about why the only reasonable belief is belief in the Christian God.

Seriously. The argument works. You can’t cut out a major part of it, and then claim that the remainder doesn’t work.

So for me, I can escape the wager by simply denying the possibility of the Judeo-Christian God’s existence on the basis that the doctrine of the trinity is logically self-contradictory.

Actually, that doesn’t put you outside the Wager. It puts you squarely inside of it – you’re in the part that says “OK – deny God. If you’re right, you’ve lost nothing by attempting to believe in Him. If you’re wrong, though…”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Of course Pascal’s Wager is logically flawless. But a “faith” based on Pascal’s Wager is a very impoverished faith, and therefore not True Faith. It is only an intellectual assent to the sensibleness of “betting on God”.

There is actually a glaring flaw: what is moral for us to do is independent of rewards. So let us reframe the wager slightly by focusing on Abraham’s decision to sacrifice Isaac.

Scenario one: Abraham just decides to sacrifice his son on a whim. This is clearly immoral and Abraham should not have made that decision.

Scenario two: Abraham decides to sacrifice his son because someone promised him a $20 reward if he did it. This is clearly immoral and Abraham should not have made that decision.

Scenario three: Abraham decides to sacrifice his son because someone promised him $20 if he did it, and promised to torture Abraham if he didn’t. This is still clearly immoral and Abraham should not have made that decision.

Scenario four: Abraham decides to sacrifice his son because someone promised him an infinite reward if he did it, and an infinite punishment if he didn’t. This is still clearly immoral and Abraham should not have made that decision.

So this reveals the problem with the wager: it assumes that outside of theological dictates, there are no categorical imperatives. In other words, that we cannot have any reasons to disobey God outside of balancing rewards and punishments. But we can have such imperatives. So it is therefore possible that even if God exists, and the punishments exist, that we might have overriding reasons for disobeying (such as justified belief in the immorality of killing our children.)

 

[catholicray]

“Thus our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the infinite at stake in a game where there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the infinite to gain.“

Blaise Pascal

@LateCatholic
Does he not account for the loss potential right here?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Go ahead the Trinity is a simplification of something we can’t actually express nor comprehend. It’s a symbol of the truth.

It is a bald-faced logical contradiction. Just look at the contortions theologians go through to try to justify it[1]. They just say, in a nutshell, “we refuse to define the terms used in the trinitarian claims, but if you define the terms in such a way that they lead to a logical contradiction, you’re misrepresenting our beliefs.”

I believe it is possible to prove that for any possible consistent definition of terms the trinitarian position violates the law of non-contradiction. So the only two possible outcomes of the trinitarian belief are 1) a logical contradiction or 2) an empty equivocation.

So lets return to the wager. Lets suppose that people thought there was a God of the geometers and he had the shape of an Euclidean square circle. If you didn’t believe in his round corners, you would go to geometry hell forever. Now people would rightly point out that it is impossible for such a being to exist, since square circles are provably self-contradictory, and so they would not fear this God of the geometers. Nevertheless, the believers would dance around and say “You can’t handle the truth! You could be wrong about square circles, so you’re going to go to geometry hell!”

If you’re wrong, though…”

In this scenario, no one is going to take the God of Geometer believers seriously. Claiming we might be wrong about explicit logical contradictions is tantamount to claiming our reason is unreliable, which immediately derails the wager. After all, we cannot reasonably wager when our reason itself is faulty.

[1]

Trinity and mystery

As I have noted in earlier posts ( here and here ), when Trinitarian theologians refer to the doctrine of the Trinity as a “mystery,” they ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[catholicray]

You haven’t read much about the Trinity from actual Catholic Theologians have you?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ed Feser is a well known real actual Catholic theologian though? It seems to me that Catholics who feel like they know about the trinity have just read a bunch of “preaching to the choir” books and thereby convinced themselves that theologians have the issue sorted out, without bothering to actually think about what the theologians are saying.

If you think I am mischaracterizing the blog post, I can easily quote the sections which support my earlier paraphrase. But since you seem to like reading, I believe you’ve probably already found them on your own.

 

[catholicray]

I stand corrected my apologies. This is a good bit of reading. My response will be slow in coming forth.

 

[catholicray]

Actually, that doesn’t put you outside the Wager. It puts you squarely inside of it – you’re in the part that says “OK – deny God. If you’re right, you’ve lost nothing by attempting to believe in Him. If you’re wrong, though…”

I 2nd this

 

[Gorgias]

In this scenario, no one is going to take the God of Geometer believers seriously. Claiming we might be wrong about explicit logical contradictions is tantamount to claiming our reason is unreliable, which immediately derails the wager. After all, we cannot reasonably wager when our reason itself is faulty.

Again: the Wager is not about the “god of Geometer”, or Zeus; it’s not about Islam or Judaism. After discussing why the only rational faith is Christianity, Pascal proceeds to offer his Wager. In fact, he explicitly asserts that our reason is reliable, and that’s why Christianity is reasonable!

So… if you want to continue to discuss a proposition that Pascal is not discussing, have at it! Just don’t claim that you’re talking about Pascal’s assertions, ok?

It seems to me that Catholics who feel like they know about the trinity have just read a bunch of “preaching to the choir” books and thereby convinced themselves that theologians have the issue sorted out, without bothering to actually think about what the theologians are saying.

You seem enamored with the project of calling out logical fallacies. I’m sure you’ll appreciate me calling you out here, then: just because there might be Catholics who are mistaken, don’t imply (let alone prove!) that Catholicism itself is mistaken.

 

[Gorgias]

It is a bald-faced logical contradiction. Just look at the contortions theologians go through to try to justify it[1]. They just say, in a nutshell, “we refuse to define the terms used in the trinitarian claims, but if you define the terms in such a way that they lead to a logical contradiction, you’re misrepresenting our beliefs.”

I believe it is possible to prove that for any possible consistent definition of terms the trinitarian position violates the law of non-contradiction.

OK, then… let’s see the proof!

(Incidentally, I disagree with your characterization of Feser’s blog post, but your assertion of a proof is far more intriguing. So… I’m calling you – let’s see your cards!)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I posted one a bit over a year ago. If you’re interested in revisiting this, I suggest a separate thread so as not to de-rail this one.

Does the Trinity have one mind or three minds? Philosophy

When I say “thing” I mean specifically “Whatever it is you’re referring to when you say the father/the son/God.” It doesn’t matter if it’s essence is identical to its substance or if it is a potato. I will clarify my earlier position: I claim that the diagram I drew is a qualitatively exhaustive depiction of how you can talk about God’s relations. That is to say: when you talk about two different “things” on the ends of a reflexive relation involving God, you are either talking about parts …

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Matt Fradd of Ascension Presents, did a youtube video on Pascal’s Wager and said up front
in is controversial. I don’t know if I’m allowed to put a link here.
But he liked it.
In the sense that it can lead someone into a relationship with Christ it can be good.
But if someone presents it as a means of guaranteed Salvation, it certainly would be bad.

---

It can really only work as a starting point.

 

[runningdude]

In conclusion I believe Pascals Wager shows explicitly that a rejection of the God of Abraham is intellectually irrational. The atheist is therefore left to reject God without intellectual excuse. This also shows that faith is not necessarily the suspension of reason.

Pascal’s Wager is intellectual dishonesty. It posits that that one has “Everything to gain”, and “Nothing to lose” by accepting the faith. The Catholic faith demands more than acceptance, but active embrace.

What does a monk gain by sacrificing all material gains for a life of prayer, if he is only hedging his bets against going to Hell. What does a college student gain by turning down sex and drugs? What does one gain by holding to strict rules that limit earthly pleasures if one is only seeking to avoid an eternity of no pleasure?

What does a potential Catholic father gain by breaking the heart of his lovely Jewish girlfriend so that he can raise his future children will have a mother who will teach them to go to mass and avoid Hell.

Pascal’s wager only offers a cold world devoid of the hope and warmth that is faith in Jesus Christ. Avoiding material pleasures just to avoid the potential life long void of death is not a meaningful life. We strive to love one another and do good, rather than merely hedge our bets against punishment.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Again: the Wager is not about the “god of Geometer”, or Zeus; it’s not about Islam or Judaism. After discussing why the only rational faith is Christianity, Pascal proceeds to offer his Wager.

Pascal, in his Penses:

I see many contradictory religions, and consequently all false save one. Each wants to be believed on its own authority, and threatens unbelievers. I do not therefore believe them.

I guess that settles it.

Sarcasm aside, you’re right about what Pascal tried to do. But there is a reason why everyone remembers the wager, and no one remembers his argument for the exclusive reasonability of Christianity: its easy to see that the wager has some teeth, while his arguments about Christianity were thoroughly unconvincing.

The point is, the wager works for anyone who can argue that their religion satisfies reasonability criteria, and Pascal’s offhand write off of everything-but-christianity isn’t going to convince anyone other than Christians desperate not to have to face the wager themselves.

 

[catholicray]

The Fruit of Pascals Wager Philosophy

Part 1 First thank you to everyone who has contributed to this conversation. Communication is a wonderful part of life and I have enjoyed every moment ours. Thank you for challenging me as well. I love when someone demands that I think! I would ask no less of anyone whose thinking I oppose. Rebuttal I took the time to google a refutation of Pascals Wager and thus far every objection offered on this thread copies what we can study without emotion. First, I assure you that these objections do n…

The Fruit of Pascals Wager Philosophy

Part 2 Probability Pascals Wager does not attempt to examine or come to any conclusion about the probability of the existence of any God. It uses probability rather than concludes it. Even so Pascal uses probability in a way that is definite. Allow me to explain. hellfire = -∞ The statement hell does not exist is given a probability value of (∞ - 1) Likewise, the statement that a God does not exist who will punish with eternal hellfire for not worshipping him is given a probability value …

The Fruit of Pascals Wager Philosophy

Pascal also made the incorrect statement that you would lose nothing from believing if you are wrong. This is not true either. While this may be true it doesn’t hurt the conclusion. Why? Because Pascals conclusion is really based on what you stand to lose. Remember if you lose Pascals Wager your loss is absolute or (-∞) Let’s assume that the life of a believer is total loss. Variable x = number of years lived. Therefore, the loss for belief is (-x) Wait let’s use something more definitive. …

While the above is not directly Pascal (accidentally) I believe it answers your concerns here.

Consequently we are now considering the following:

The Fruit of Pascals Wager Philosophy

Had a chance to read Cantor (still haven’t read Pascal

). I agree with Cantor that there are an infinite infinities. At the same time I disagree with @LateCatholic that there is a value greater than infinity. Now maybe I misunderstand Cantor. As far as I can tell his conclusion is based on the numbers and number sets that can be found between each whole number. Where I think Cantor is wrong is that when he observes whole numbers this way, he fails to account for the value of the whole nu…

 

[Gorgias]

I guess that settles it.

Nice proof-texting.

He goes on to explain why the other religions don’t rise to the level of rationality, and why Christianity is not “threat”. But hey… it’s easier and more fun to proof-text, huh?

But there is a reason why everyone remembers the wager, and no one remembers his argument for the exclusive reasonability of Christianity: its easy to see that the wager has some teeth, while his arguments about Christianity were thoroughly unconvincing.

Says you.

I think that the Wager gets the attention that it does because it attempts to demonstrate the reasonability of Christianity through math – and, it utilizes a ‘new’ math of that time (statistics) to do so!

Pascal’s offhand write off of everything-but-christianity

Take your pick: either Pascal writes off other religions offhand, or he attempts to demonstrate systematically that Christianity is the only reasonable choice. One or the other, please – you can’t have your cake and eat it too… and expect us to take you seriously.

If Pascal really does assert this, then he is indeed a foolish man. For reason is a very poor tool, and one wielded just as adeptly by pro and con alike. To the extent that it’s just as likely to mislead, as it is to guide.

Reason is the foundation of many false beliefs.

Wow. Just… wow. You and Kappa need to get together – you truck in the same logical fallacies!

To repeat: the claim that some make logical errors in their treatment of a particular assertion does not demonstrate that the assertion is deficient (but rather, simply that the person arguing is in error). But hey – nice try! Any port in a storm, eh?

 

[catholicray]

you can’t have your cake and eat it too… and expect us to take you seriously.

Fun fact: The original saying was, “You can not eat your cake and have it too.”

The current way we say it doesn’t actually pose a problem if you think about it.

 

[Roguish]

There is actually a glaring flaw: what is moral for us to do is independent of rewards.

I said it was logically flawless, not flawless in every way.

That aside, your counterargument isn’t an argument against the soundness of Pascal’s wager. It is an argument against obeying God, based on your a priori assessment that God demands immoral acts, as exemplified (as you see it) by His demand that Abraham sacrifice his son. Indeed, your argument revolves around your perception that God Himself is immoral.

That’s fine (though crazy), but it has nothing to do with Pascal’s wager.

P.S. Off topic: note that God actually prevented Abraham from going ahead with the sacrifice. It was a test of faith. Abraham passed. Would you?

P.P.S. On-topic: by saying that morality could be (or is) a reason to disobey God, you’re basically subjecting God to morality. But God is the source of morality by definition, and He subjects you to it. (Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant. You’re still subject to it even if you refuse to acknowledge that God is morality’s source.)

 

[Roguish]

Being reasonable, and being right, are two different things.

Amen. But am wrong to feel that you’re reasonable rather than right? (That’s a whole lot of R-words in one sentence. We call that an alliteration. But I digress. )

 

[Gorgias]

Being reasonable, and being right, are two different things.

Yes. We see that demonstrated here all the time.