And then.... there's always Pascal's Wager
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
I'm not insulting you Sojourner, I'm insulting organised religion. Many people think that religion is a taboo subject, but not me my friend. If you are insulted, or more usually 'offended' by people ridiculing your religion, well - I'm afraid that's just tough tittys.
Yes, Martin, you have a right to ridicule anything you like.
I suppose I'm not used to it, that's all. I've never been on a forum where this issue has arisen. I belong to several private Catholic mailing lists, so I've never actually taken part in regular Internet discussions of religion. So this was definitely a first for me -- and probably a LAST. If I were ever to do it again (and I don't think I am likely to), I should at least be smart enough to know that one person against the numbers that are against me is a formula for disaster. Had there been ten Catholics ready to go to battle here, you'd be history. :roll:
I suppose I'm not used to it, that's all. I've never been on a forum where this issue has arisen. I belong to several private Catholic mailing lists, so I've never actually taken part in regular Internet discussions of religion. So this was definitely a first for me -- and probably a LAST. If I were ever to do it again (and I don't think I am likely to), I should at least be smart enough to know that one person against the numbers that are against me is a formula for disaster. Had there been ten Catholics ready to go to battle here, you'd be history. :roll:
Joined
·
544 Posts
*yawm*
No one takes Pascal's Wager seriously anymore. I had a very intelligent teacher once, who was a theist, but at least accepted it was silly.
The reason is because the argument is logically flawed. It sets up a false dichotomy between "believe in God" and "disbelieve in God", and works out the probabilities and the potential desirabilities of the outcomes having done that.
In reality the choice is not like that, we have a multitude of choices: "disbelieve in God"; "beleieve in the Christian God"; "believe in Allah"; "follow the HinduGods"; "follow Sikhism", etc. etc.
Now not only does the multitude, perhaps infinitude, of choices knock out the validity of the probability, but very often believeing in the wrong God is worse than believeing in none at all - at least in Islamic or Christian faiths, for instance.
This is not up for dispute. And I'm not about to go drawing up logic tables for you if you want to argue about it. If that wasn't clear to you, then there's even an introductory Logic textbook which demonstrates how the argument is flawed.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192893203/ref=sib_rdr_dp/026-5132013-1547656
Turn to page 94 for a description of the flaws in the argument.
EDIT: I won't be able to get back to people on these threads for a few days till I have some more time.
No one takes Pascal's Wager seriously anymore. I had a very intelligent teacher once, who was a theist, but at least accepted it was silly.
The reason is because the argument is logically flawed. It sets up a false dichotomy between "believe in God" and "disbelieve in God", and works out the probabilities and the potential desirabilities of the outcomes having done that.
In reality the choice is not like that, we have a multitude of choices: "disbelieve in God"; "beleieve in the Christian God"; "believe in Allah"; "follow the HinduGods"; "follow Sikhism", etc. etc.
Now not only does the multitude, perhaps infinitude, of choices knock out the validity of the probability, but very often believeing in the wrong God is worse than believeing in none at all - at least in Islamic or Christian faiths, for instance.
This is not up for dispute. And I'm not about to go drawing up logic tables for you if you want to argue about it. If that wasn't clear to you, then there's even an introductory Logic textbook which demonstrates how the argument is flawed.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192893203/ref=sib_rdr_dp/026-5132013-1547656
Turn to page 94 for a description of the flaws in the argument.
EDIT: I won't be able to get back to people on these threads for a few days till I have some more time.
From http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm
"Pascal's Wager," so-called because it was devised by the brilliant Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), is an apologetics method in the form of a wager aimed at getting atheists and agnostics to consider the possibility that God exists and that there is a heaven and hell. The beauty of Pascal's Wager is that it is an appeal to the chief God worshipped by atheists; their reason. Fr. Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.F.C., explains in his apologetics handbook, Evidence for Our Faith (available from This Rock for $19.95):
Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means to an end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man cannot avoid wagering about it. In practice, he must stake everything on one of two propositions, either (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life.
Under one guise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on "B." Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable--even from the viewpoint of self-interest--to stake all on "A." If you bet everything on "B" and "A" is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all on "A" and "B" is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures.
Pascal describes the thoughts of the typical man in these words: "I know not whence I came or whither I go. I only know that on quitting this world, I shall fall forever either into nothingness or into the hands of an angry God [Heb. 10:31] . . . And yet I conclude that I should pass all the days of my life without bothering to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I do not want to take the trouble . . . I intend to go forward without looking ahead and without fear toward this great event, facing death carelessly, still uncertain as to the eternity of my future state [Pensees III, 194]. . . . In other words, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy but an intellectual blunder to wager on "B," that is, to refuse to recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would soon have faith if he renounces pleasure. At least he should search for the truth. "According to the doctrines of chance, you should search earnestly for the truth, for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost. 'But,' you say, 'if God had wished me to worship him, he would have left me signs of his will.' Indeed, God has done so [Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16]; but you ignore them."
"Pascal's Wager," so-called because it was devised by the brilliant Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), is an apologetics method in the form of a wager aimed at getting atheists and agnostics to consider the possibility that God exists and that there is a heaven and hell. The beauty of Pascal's Wager is that it is an appeal to the chief God worshipped by atheists; their reason. Fr. Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.F.C., explains in his apologetics handbook, Evidence for Our Faith (available from This Rock for $19.95):
Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means to an end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man cannot avoid wagering about it. In practice, he must stake everything on one of two propositions, either (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life.
Under one guise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on "B." Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable--even from the viewpoint of self-interest--to stake all on "A." If you bet everything on "B" and "A" is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all on "A" and "B" is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures.
Pascal describes the thoughts of the typical man in these words: "I know not whence I came or whither I go. I only know that on quitting this world, I shall fall forever either into nothingness or into the hands of an angry God [Heb. 10:31] . . . And yet I conclude that I should pass all the days of my life without bothering to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I do not want to take the trouble . . . I intend to go forward without looking ahead and without fear toward this great event, facing death carelessly, still uncertain as to the eternity of my future state [Pensees III, 194]. . . . In other words, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy but an intellectual blunder to wager on "B," that is, to refuse to recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would soon have faith if he renounces pleasure. At least he should search for the truth. "According to the doctrines of chance, you should search earnestly for the truth, for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost. 'But,' you say, 'if God had wished me to worship him, he would have left me signs of his will.' Indeed, God has done so [Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16]; but you ignore them."
Joined
·
544 Posts
Sojourner, perhaps you might try replying to the point at and, responding to the point that Pascal's wager is logically flawed - which, incidentally, is why no serious philosophers of religion use it anymore - rather than copy-and-pasting an excerpt from someone else which restates your argument in a slightly more persuasive way than you did. That was just evasion.
In the limited choice that actually is the wager itself, I do not see an absence of logic:
(A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not.
------
Did you think, by the way, that I could "turn to" a page of the book you referenced earlier by going to http://www.amazon.com? Was the book supposed to magically come through the computer screen into my hands? There are various forms of the so-called refutation, but I am not concerned with anything but the initial statement of the wager itself.
Admittedly, once the wager is made, there are other decisions to be made, but that the wager is the first step seems eminently logical to me.
If you can show me how it is not, without taking the wager past the matter with which it is directly concerned, i.e., (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not., I would be interested in hearing your argument.
Now, I'm not a philosophy student, and perhaps you are, so you may have an advantage by virtue of your knowledge, but I did study a bit of logic in college and seem to recall that A and not A are legitimate choices.
But perhaps I am mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time.
(A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not.
------
Did you think, by the way, that I could "turn to" a page of the book you referenced earlier by going to http://www.amazon.com? Was the book supposed to magically come through the computer screen into my hands? There are various forms of the so-called refutation, but I am not concerned with anything but the initial statement of the wager itself.
Admittedly, once the wager is made, there are other decisions to be made, but that the wager is the first step seems eminently logical to me.
If you can show me how it is not, without taking the wager past the matter with which it is directly concerned, i.e., (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him); or (B) that there is not., I would be interested in hearing your argument.
Now, I'm not a philosophy student, and perhaps you are, so you may have an advantage by virtue of your knowledge, but I did study a bit of logic in college and seem to recall that A and not A are legitimate choices.
But perhaps I am mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time.
Joined
·
544 Posts
Actually, you can just "turn" to the page off Amazon. There's a feature called "look inside" that allows you to actually see the pages. But that's besides the point.
I've said this once before already, but Pascal's wager is logically flawed because it sets up a false dichotomy between two choices that don't exist in reality, namely:
A: God exists
B: God does not exist
(or, if you like, A v ?A).
It then goes on to work out the probabilities of "good outcomes", and demonstrates that even if the probability of God existing was very low, one is rationally obliged to worship him because the reward in the end will be so great as to make disbelieving pointless even for the selfish.
The logical fallacy, as I have said, is in the false dichotomy between A and B. Pascal acted as if it was a choice between believing in the Christian God, or believing in no God. This does not exist in reality. He presupposed nature about the divine of which he had no claim to knowledge.
We do not have a choice between "God exists" and "God does not exist", as Pascal believed. We have a choice between "God does not exist", "the Christian God exists", "the Muslim God exists", "the Sikh God exists", "Zeus and the Greek Gods exist", "Isis, Osiris, and the Egyptian Gods exist", "an all-powerful omniscient spaghetti monster exists" and so on ad infinitum.
This fact is enough to make the argument fall down already when it's drawn out on a logic table (incidentally, I am not about to draw one out here, hence I posted the link so you could see one done).
The crucial point, however, is that according to most of these Gods, believeing in other Gods is worse than believing in none. The Christian God is very adamant on people not worshipping other idols, or gods. The Islamic Allah is even harsher.
Thus when the false dichotomy set up by Pascal is replaced by a set of choices closer to reality, the entire argument breaks down.
And no I'm not a philosophy student, and never have been. But then it doesn't take one to see how Pascal's wager unravels.
I've said this once before already, but Pascal's wager is logically flawed because it sets up a false dichotomy between two choices that don't exist in reality, namely:
A: God exists
B: God does not exist
(or, if you like, A v ?A).
It then goes on to work out the probabilities of "good outcomes", and demonstrates that even if the probability of God existing was very low, one is rationally obliged to worship him because the reward in the end will be so great as to make disbelieving pointless even for the selfish.
The logical fallacy, as I have said, is in the false dichotomy between A and B. Pascal acted as if it was a choice between believing in the Christian God, or believing in no God. This does not exist in reality. He presupposed nature about the divine of which he had no claim to knowledge.
We do not have a choice between "God exists" and "God does not exist", as Pascal believed. We have a choice between "God does not exist", "the Christian God exists", "the Muslim God exists", "the Sikh God exists", "Zeus and the Greek Gods exist", "Isis, Osiris, and the Egyptian Gods exist", "an all-powerful omniscient spaghetti monster exists" and so on ad infinitum.
This fact is enough to make the argument fall down already when it's drawn out on a logic table (incidentally, I am not about to draw one out here, hence I posted the link so you could see one done).
The crucial point, however, is that according to most of these Gods, believeing in other Gods is worse than believing in none. The Christian God is very adamant on people not worshipping other idols, or gods. The Islamic Allah is even harsher.
Thus when the false dichotomy set up by Pascal is replaced by a set of choices closer to reality, the entire argument breaks down.
And no I'm not a philosophy student, and never have been. But then it doesn't take one to see how Pascal's wager unravels.
They do not make the entire book available, as anyone who is familiar with the "Look Inside" feature would know.Monkeydust said:
I believe the choice is valid as a starting point, and further, that most people who do believe in God believe that there is just ONE "true" God and that He is known by many names in different cultures.
Such tables are available on the Internet if one searches for information on Pascal's Wager. Much information about the so-called "refutations" is easily available and I'm confident it's the same thing you described.
The Catholic Church, as a matter of fact, teaches that he who through no fault of his own does not believe in Christ may still attain salvation. I'm sure you didn't know that.
You can read the words correctly, but you do not understand them properly. I don't mean this as an insult at all.
I view the wager as a starting point; it's not the whole story, I agree. But for someone flailing in the breeze and without even at point at which to start thinking, I find it acceptable.
I think it only unravels if you try to have it accomplish more than the first step. At least, that is how I am using it. Stripped of its local ("Christian") features, it is valid for the general idea of "Is there a ruler of the universe?"
I think it is a poor motivator, though, because it approaches the question not from an understanding of what the human heart really and truly seeks but from a childish point of view of "What do I have to do to stay out of trouble?"
I must admit that it had no effect on my own conversion from agnosticism, but I think it's valid up to a point -- the point at which you find the logical problems. Yes, anyone who concludes A still has to do a lot of work.
In the end, people come to belief not by logical argument but by the Lord's touching them in the depths of their souls.
Joined
·
544 Posts
I'm not too concerned about how good or bad Pascal's Wager is as a starting point. I feel what's more important is the fact that it's wrong, insofar as it sets up a false dichotomy between "God" and "no God" from the outset.
Historically, for the majority of human history man has not believed in monotheism at all, but a number of gods. Even today, this is the case for some.
More importantly, if it's all "the same thing", why on earth would he set out different laws and rules for different people. The Christian God is very different to the Islamic one, why would it seem so if it were the same deity?
I didn't say a word about the Christian God in the passage you quoted, I simply spoke about "most gods".
And it seems true to me that most gods do indeed not like the worship of other gods.
'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Seems pretty clear to me.
No it's not! That's the whole point of what I've been saying.
Once it's stripped of the presupposition that one God is the "true" one, and it is revealed in the light of a multiplicity of possible gods, it loses all validity as an argument to convince one to follow faith. Fact.
And incidentally, it's not so much directed at the question "Is there a ruler of the universe?", as it is "Should I follow one?".
Do they, now?
Historically, for the majority of human history man has not believed in monotheism at all, but a number of gods. Even today, this is the case for some.
More importantly, if it's all "the same thing", why on earth would he set out different laws and rules for different people. The Christian God is very different to the Islamic one, why would it seem so if it were the same deity?
I'm sure you didn't realize that this point presupposes some a priori reason for Catholicism to be considered before other religions.
I didn't say a word about the Christian God in the passage you quoted, I simply spoke about "most gods".
And it seems true to me that most gods do indeed not like the worship of other gods.
How about the first commandmant:
'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
Seems pretty clear to me.
I fail to see how it can be a "starting point" when it is demonstrably logically flawed. If you know this, to use it as an argument to gain converts is only possible if you are lying to them.
ARghhhhh!
No it's not! That's the whole point of what I've been saying.
Once it's stripped of the presupposition that one God is the "true" one, and it is revealed in the light of a multiplicity of possible gods, it loses all validity as an argument to convince one to follow faith. Fact.
And incidentally, it's not so much directed at the question "Is there a ruler of the universe?", as it is "Should I follow one?".
Joined
·
891 Posts
Dear Monkeydust,
I think that Pascal's wager was designed by Pascal to make beleif in God a pragmatically justifiable choice. Atheists are some of the more practical people I know - cant see it, cant touch, dont understand it - wont buy it. I think its a good attempt. I cant say that I've delved much into its pros and cons, which is actually surprising considering how much philosophy my compatriots and I delve into. I tried accessing page 94 to look at the logic chart, and it seems that I cant access the copyrighted material. From my point of view, that of a beleiving Catholic, its very much a non-sequitur. God sees no honor in someone beleiving in something simply to hedge one's bets. A great deal of what seperates our actions into virtue or vice is our intent. If you are giving up on the search for truth simply to play it safe, even if you make the right bet, you are selling out your intellectual honestly and integrity. In the Catholic faith, one's conscience is the final arbiter. Non-beleivers can be saved just as beleivers can, provided that they are open to truth, and follow it where it leads them, without prejudice. So in my mind, you could lose the bet simply by being too dishonest and pragmatic, even if you choose beleif. If I werent thinking this way, however, I would think that only way belief would lose the wager would be if the true "God" thought atheism was inherently worse than choosing a false God. According to the Christian faiths, atheism is usually considered worse, because it is considered unnatural - total lack of piety, not just misplaced. Its the same with Judaism, although I dont know if it is the same in Islam, although I would guess probably. Buddhism is probably neutral about it. Of course, if you didnt limit the possibilities or create likelihoods with beleif, a decision would become almost impossible. Sorry for rambling, hope I added something to the debate.
Peace
Homeskooled
I think that Pascal's wager was designed by Pascal to make beleif in God a pragmatically justifiable choice. Atheists are some of the more practical people I know - cant see it, cant touch, dont understand it - wont buy it. I think its a good attempt. I cant say that I've delved much into its pros and cons, which is actually surprising considering how much philosophy my compatriots and I delve into. I tried accessing page 94 to look at the logic chart, and it seems that I cant access the copyrighted material. From my point of view, that of a beleiving Catholic, its very much a non-sequitur. God sees no honor in someone beleiving in something simply to hedge one's bets. A great deal of what seperates our actions into virtue or vice is our intent. If you are giving up on the search for truth simply to play it safe, even if you make the right bet, you are selling out your intellectual honestly and integrity. In the Catholic faith, one's conscience is the final arbiter. Non-beleivers can be saved just as beleivers can, provided that they are open to truth, and follow it where it leads them, without prejudice. So in my mind, you could lose the bet simply by being too dishonest and pragmatic, even if you choose beleif. If I werent thinking this way, however, I would think that only way belief would lose the wager would be if the true "God" thought atheism was inherently worse than choosing a false God. According to the Christian faiths, atheism is usually considered worse, because it is considered unnatural - total lack of piety, not just misplaced. Its the same with Judaism, although I dont know if it is the same in Islam, although I would guess probably. Buddhism is probably neutral about it. Of course, if you didnt limit the possibilities or create likelihoods with beleif, a decision would become almost impossible. Sorry for rambling, hope I added something to the debate.
Peace
Homeskooled
When the Wager is a response to the question, "Is there a Creator of the universe?" it is totally logical. There either is or isn't.
And the question itself is in its most common form.
Your problem with the Wager is your preconceptions and prejudices and your refusal to restrict yourself to the simple question involved. It's a very simple question not unlike, "Is there a kitten on the couch?" There either is a kitten there, or there is not.
You cannot "reveal" the question any better than the question does itself. It simply asks if there is a Creator of the universe. You cannot contribute to the question; it is just there. Is there a book in your hand? How difficult is that?
The question provides all you need; is there "a" Creator, it asks? You deal only with the question, not your personal prejudices.
Joined
·
544 Posts
Homeskooled, I agree with that point almost entirely. If I was considering faith and belief in God I'd rest it on its own truth, not on some cost-benefit analysis. In fact if I was a God I'd take delight in frustrating the ambitions of those "playing the game".
Sojourner, you seem to have somewhat missed the point. Pascal doesn't simply ask you to believe in the abstract concept of a God or some divine Creator, but rather asks you to follow from that to pursue a set of beliefs in order to reach Heaven, or paradise. That's the whole point of the wager, and the reason why the probabilities he sets out rationally obligate you to follow God's teachings.
Because of this second point - that you have to follow a set of beliefs that God/gods decree - the question is not simply as simple as "is a cat on the couch?" or "is there a book on my hand?" because the adherence to a set of divinely-ordained beliefs necessarily requires knowledge of what beliefs you're following. And you cannot follow beliefs without knowing which are the right ones.
Thus Pascal's wager has to entail the chance that the God you pick might be the wrong one. The argument only works if the supposition is made that there's only one God/gods to choose from. In fact there is a multiplicity.
The one guilty of this...
Sojourner, you seem to have somewhat missed the point. Pascal doesn't simply ask you to believe in the abstract concept of a God or some divine Creator, but rather asks you to follow from that to pursue a set of beliefs in order to reach Heaven, or paradise. That's the whole point of the wager, and the reason why the probabilities he sets out rationally obligate you to follow God's teachings.
Because of this second point - that you have to follow a set of beliefs that God/gods decree - the question is not simply as simple as "is a cat on the couch?" or "is there a book on my hand?" because the adherence to a set of divinely-ordained beliefs necessarily requires knowledge of what beliefs you're following. And you cannot follow beliefs without knowing which are the right ones.
Thus Pascal's wager has to entail the chance that the God you pick might be the wrong one. The argument only works if the supposition is made that there's only one God/gods to choose from. In fact there is a multiplicity.
The one guilty of this...
...is in fact Pascal. He failed to abstract himself from his own Christian convictions, and thus made a number of a priori presuppositions before the argument even got started.
Standard rejection:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
The outline pro and con in simple terms:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
Points out the statistical issues (waging has a cost):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Mentions particularly Denis Diderot's response:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
What Pascal's Wager demonstrates is that it is reasonable to believe
in God.
As with any decision that involves probabilities, your decision is
based on an assessment of probabilities that may be themselves beyond
proof.
It could lay the groundwork in a skeptic for the gift of faith.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
The outline pro and con in simple terms:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
Points out the statistical issues (waging has a cost):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Mentions particularly Denis Diderot's response:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
What Pascal's Wager demonstrates is that it is reasonable to believe
in God.
As with any decision that involves probabilities, your decision is
based on an assessment of probabilities that may be themselves beyond
proof.
It could lay the groundwork in a skeptic for the gift of faith.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
