The Fruit of Pascals Wager

[Roguish]

Of course not. Somewhere lies the truth. Do I believe that I know what it is? No. Do I believe that you know what it is? No.

That’s (old and) skeptical for ya.

See, if you felt sure that you knew the truth, it would only make sense that you would feel sure that others who espouse a different view do not know it – even if in fact you were wrong. But to acknowledge that you do not know the truth, and at the same time insist that you do know for sure that others also do not know it… now that is… strange, for lack of a better adjective. With all due respect, it feels a bit as if, because of you’re own lack of success at finding the truth so far, you find the thought of others already having found it distasteful. It’s a subtle envy, it seems to me.

Of course I’m no longer talking of Pascal’s Wager now. It’s a general point. I should get flagged for being off-topic, really.

 

[Gorgias]

But would you count yourself, and would you count Pascal’s Wager as an example, of at least the possibility of being reasonable, without being right?

No. I count myself as both ‘reasonable’ and ‘right’. Don’t you see yourself in that light, too?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

He writes off other religions offhand. The only other religions he specifically names in his whole discussion are Judaism and Manichaeism, although he does cast some aspersions towards the ancient greek and roman pantheons. His intent was clearly to be more elaborate than this, but since this is a book of notes, not a finished work, it only contains offhand dismissals.

Edit: he mentions Islam exactly once:

the Mahommedans who have offered us earthly pleasures as the chief good even in eternity,

Which is about as offhand as it gets.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

This is bluntly incorrect. The goal of Pascals wager is to convince someone that it is rational to believe in and obey God, and I have directly shown that there the wager is insufficient for that task due to the existence of other sources of morality which would compel us to disobey God regardless of the outcome of the wager.

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.)

God is only the source of morality for certain definitions of morality. There are moralities which do not appeal to God as a source. You’ve made exactly the mistake I was pointing out in Pascal: simply asserting that we cannot have categorical imperatives without God. You can look in his writings and see: he simply denies the possibility.

 

[LateCatholic]

Does he not account for the loss potential right here?

I don;t see any mention of loss - but like I said, I’m OK with you including it in the discussion. Also note in your quote how Pascal defines the probability of God existing at 50-50.
So many things wrong with it.

 

[LateCatholic]

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.

I don’t think you understand what is meant by infinity. Maybe I misunderstand you as well, so bear with me . Think of infinity as a hotel, with an infinite number of rooms. Each room is filled. BUT - you can always add more. For example, simple tell every resident to move to the next room. Resident in room 1 moves to room 2, resident in room 2 moved to room 3, and so forth. In this way, you can add 1 to infinite, double it, triple it. You can even add infinite to it. But its always infinity. So when you say 1/10, or 1/100 - you haven;t made infinity any bigger. It’s still infinity.

But Cantor showed that there ARE other, bigger infinities. I won’t rehash why (read the references, it’s a well known mathematical proof).

Keep in mind why I brought this up: Pascal says his wager is valid because there is nothing greater than infinite reward. I not only showed mathematically why that is not true (referenced Cantor), I also gave a theological example (reward includes your loved ones). It din’t intend to get into a discussion about Cantor. I just wanted to show yet another reason why Pascal’s Wager is ridiculous. Keep in mind Pascal’s own intent was to show that you cannot use his wager to justify faith in God - but that is what some in this thread are trying to do.

 

[Gorgias]

He writes off other religions offhand.

Are we reading the same document? No, he doesn’t.

The only other religions he specifically names in his whole discussion are Judaism and Manichaeism, although he does cast some aspersions towards the ancient greek and roman pantheons.

Really?

Atheists. —What reason have they for saying that we cannot rise from the dead?

… Other religions, as the pagan, are more popular, for they consist in externals. But they are not for educated people.

… [Against the philosophers who believe in God without Jesus Christ]
Philosophers. —They believe that God alone is worthy to be loved and admired

… History of China. [213]-I believe only the histories, whose witnesses got themselves killed.
[Which is the more credible of the two, Moses or China?]

… Mahomet was without authority. His reasons then should have been very strong, having only their own force. What does he say then, that we must believe him?
… Who renders testimony to Mahomet? Himself. Jesus Christ[215] desires His own testimony to be as nothing.

… The carnal Jews and the heathen have their calamities, and Christians also. There is no Redeemer for the heathen, for they do not so much as hope for one. There is no Redeemer for the Jews; they hope for Him in vain. There is a Redeemer only for Christians.

So, I’m seeing a lot more here than you seem to be seeing. And no, he mentions “Mahommedans” more than once.

 

[Gorgias]

Also note in your quote how Pascal defines the probability of God existing at 50-50.

Huh? “Equal chances of winning and losing” refers to our personal decisions, not the “probability of God existing”.

 

[Roguish]

This is bluntly incorrect.

I know, I know… I was just throwing that stuff out there to see if you’d spot it

God is only the source of morality for certain definitions of morality.

Certain definitions of morality… such as which?

 

[IWantGod]

You couldn’t have read the whole thought because my conclusion is that it is irrational to gamble against the God of Abraham.

Based on the wager alone we don’t know that.

 

[LateCatholic]

But God is the source of morality by definition

Who says God is the source of morality? What definition? God? Euthyphro’s Dilemma again.

 

[LateCatholic]

A critique of the Wager that asserts “well, you could say that about this religion and that faith tradition , so the Wager is invalid” or “the wager doesn’t work because it needs to defend its premises” demonstrates that the person making this claim has never really read the Pensees.

How so? Some in this thread state that the Wager is NOT about Christianity. It clearly is. Yet why is it invalid to claim the same wager (called something else) is not also valid when applied to another religion? The wager clearly COULD apply to Satanism. Some have said that, “Well, Christianity is the ONLY religion that posits infinite bliss and infinite punishment”. How ridiculous is that? So the next religion that comes up with a greater reward (which I actually demonstrated earlier) would supersede Christianity? The whole concept of Pascal’s Wager fails both logically and theologically, as well as from the standpoint of game theory and probability.

Note also the following:

1. In academic circles, Pascal’s Wager is not celebrated because it is correct, but rather because it is one of the first examples of game theory and probability and philosophical thinking. Everyone knows it is invalid.
2. Pascal HIMSELF said his wager is insufficient. He THOUGHT is was valid - but the the point he was making is that even though it may be logically valid (which it isn’t), it is not satisfying (he’s right there). He says to be a Christian requires more than just rational thought and logic, because in the end, it ALONE will fail to justify belief in God.

 

[catholicray]

How ridiculous is that? So the next religion that comes up with a greater reward (which I actually demonstrated earlier) would supersede Christianity?

Let’s fix this wager a little bit…
I’m going to break mathematics with language for a second don’t be too mad…
It’s simple we will say that hell is worse possible loss or [paradoxically] the largest (-∞) with none larger to count. Perhaps the real value is not (-∞) but 0.

Sorry I didn’t make this clear sooner. Would you still wager?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I mean, that’s pretty much what I saw? He doesn’t mention any specific Chinese religions, any specific philosopher-only religions, any specific pagan religions, and mentions Judaism by name. There is no mention of Zoroastrianism, Janism, Hinduism, or Sikhism.

“Moses vs China” would probably play well on Fox News, but to pretend it is anything other than an offhand dismissal is dishonest.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Such as all the theistic ones. (e.g. divine command theory)

 

[Gorgias]

I mean, that’s pretty much what I saw?

Except that this isn’t what you claimed: you claimed “the only other religions he specifically names… are Judaism and Manichaeism”, … which, by the way, is clearly false. (He talks about Mohammed, and about the Roman myths, etc, etc.)

He doesn’t mention any specific Chinese religions, any specific philosopher-only religions, any specific pagan religions

Correct. Not by name. However, he does refer to them collectively.

to pretend it is anything other than an offhand dismissal is dishonest.

His purpose isn’t to give a blow-by-blow explanation of the details of other religions. To assert that it must be, or else be disregarded, is dishonest.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

His purpose isn’t to give a blow-by-blow explanation of the details of other religions. To assert that it must be, or else be disregarded, is dishonest.

Well then I guess you should

Take your pick: either Pascal writes off other religions offhand, or he attempts to demonstrate systematically that Christianity is the only reasonable choice.

 

[Gorgias]

Well then I guess you should

Gorgias:

Take your pick: either Pascal writes off other religions offhand, or he attempts to demonstrate systematically that Christianity is the only reasonable choice.

That’s a very nice try. When you asserted both, I requested that you pick one or the other. You picked “writes off other religions offhand.” I disagree.

On the other hand, by “systematically”, we don’t have to mean “mention each religion individually”, since he describes – systematically – why he prefers Christianity to any other religious tradition or philosophical system: it’s the only one that is well grounded and rationally reasonable.