Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[PureX]

Then he knew his arguments were flawed and in the typical way of apologetics waffled on for pages to hide the flaws

To be fair, I think we have to consider the time and the culture he was working in. The world is a lot more secular, now. And a lot of people are much more sophisticated in terms of logic and reasoning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's irrelevant to his argument, he is saying, say Christianity is true and these things are important, then it's expected Muslims strive to find these truths. He is trying to make touring complete since other faiths belief in hell. So he is saying, consider these traits of Christianity as true, which he does believe is true but is besides the point. No Muslim should risk not knowing them in this case.

This is true.

Read the Wager in context. When he talks about "wagering that God is," he's talking about orthopraxy. Catholic orthopraxy, specifically.

 

[Link]

To limit his argument to time and place and his version of truth, is the problem. It can be applied universally.

 

[Link]

Read the Wager in context. When he talks about "wagering that God is," he's talking about orthopraxy. Catholic orthopraxy, specifically.

Elaborate how that refutes anything I said?

 

[Yazata]

My biggest objection to Pascal's Wager is that it's basically arguing that one should believe in the truth of whatever proposition would offer the biggest payoff if it was indeed true.

But is it really epistemically justifiable to make our judgements of truth into a function of our desires in that way? It seems to be an argument for wishful-thinking, reducing to something like 'X is true because it's in my interest that it be true!' I don't think that epistemology works that way.

Is this kind of argument even religiously justifiable? Isn't Christian (or Muslim) faith supposed to be something more than this kind of self-interested calculation? Isn't it supposed to arise in the deepest levels of one's heart as love for God as opposed to concern for one's self?

Can this kind of calculation even lead to true religious faith in someone that doesn't already believe the premises? It seems to be arguing that if we don't know which (if any) religious path is true, then it's most rational to (believe? adhere? pretend? something, that part is crucial but unclear) to the path that offers us the biggest jackpot. So not only do I think that the wager fails on epistemological grounds, it also seems to fail on purely religious grounds.

While it's often presented as an argument that should convince atheists and agnostics, I don't think that Pascal was really addressing anyone other than himself.

His 'day job' was as a mathematician. He thought in terms very much like Descartes, in terms of logical derivations and proofs. His intellectual ideal was a deductive logical justification for every theorem.

Except... as he himself was aware, his own religious faith didn't look anything like that. As religion was tremendously important in his life, that created a good deal of cognitive dissonance.

It just so happened that he had been thinking about probability theory, particularly in terms of gambling strategies.

So he had the idea that his own religious faith might receive a mathematical justification in exactly that sort of way so as to render it rational to his own satisfaction.

 

[Link]

My biggest objection to Pascal's Wager is that it's basically arguing that one should believe in the truth of whatever proposition would offer the biggest payoff if it was indeed true.

This is not true, it's used as a variable, say x is true and is a version of a religion with heaven and hell. It doesn't have to be true and he elaborates we should approach truth which is why he discussed how Muslims should not risk it and come to Christianity as well. Hell-fire is equivalent in both, so he already dealt with this assumption.

 

[Link]

So far, no one understood original as I have. I will elaborate how I understood it in a few days, I got to work on a computer assignment.

Thanks everyone who participated.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The original proposition was unfortunately painted into a specifically religious landscape. And that throws a lot of people off the logic track. But let's remove that religiosity and try to consider the proposition based solely on the logic track.

The proposition asserts that:

1. God either is, or is not.

A. If God is not, nothing is gained or lost by rejecting God as a possibility.

B. But if God is, then whatever the idea of God might offer us becomes available to us when we choose to trust in that idea.​

C. (conclusion) If trusting in the idea that God is offers us nothing, then nothing is lost or gained from our trusting in that idea. However, if trusting in the idea that God is does offer us something, then there is something to be gained from our trusting that God is, and there is something to be lost by our not doing so.
​

Once we remove the religious jibber-jabber, I think the proposition becomes logically sound.

What do you all think?

So we can choose God or no God (of whatever description we like) and henceforth ignore all religions? That would be nice.

 

[Link]

Good point. But religions are 'hot-button' subjects. People easily fly off the handle just at the thought of it. I am not particularly keen on it, myself. But as an artist I can understand myth and artifice as representational, so the logic of the proposition wasn't lost in it for me.

Thanks for that PureX, I will detail explain this argument after I hand in my assignment (due in 3 days).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He is smart guy, he predicted counter arguments or versions of his argument that people will misconstrue it. This is why he went into great elaboration and wrote many pages of it.

Indeed. Here's one example:

225. Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree.

226. Infidels, who profess to follow reason, ought to be exceedingly strong in reason. What say they then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. (Is this contrary to Scripture? Does it not say all this?)

If you care but little to know the truth, here is enough of it to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. This would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where it concerns your all.

IOW:

"Atheists point out that Turks (i.e. Muslims) have their own religion, prophets, etc.; why pick Christianity over these other religions? To them I say that the Bible predicted that these false religions would arise, and anyhow, I'm talking about the religion that actually matters: Christianity."

 

[PureX]

So we can choose God or no God (of whatever description we like) and henceforth ignore all religions? That would be nice.

We sure can. However, it turns out that a lot of people can't manage to ideate their own God without the help of religion. And many can't hold onto it, meaningfully, without religion. So, for them, religions are part of the process. And although I have little use for religion, myself, I have to respect the fact that a lot of other people seem to need and want it.

 

[icehorse]

@Link As others have asked, i will ask: please provide a link to the version you want us to read. This is just basic civility and respect for others.

 

[Link]

Indeed. Here's one example:


IOW:

"Atheists point out that Turks (i.e. Muslims) have their own religion, prophets, etc.; why pick Christianity over these other religions? To them I say that the Bible predicted that these false religions would arise, and anyhow, I'm talking about the religion that actually matters: Christianity."

All I ask is people read the whole thing. It's easy to quote out of context or isolate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most people don't read original and so misconstrue it.

All the counter arguments to it, I think he predicted it and refuted it already by counter to counter arguments in his works.

What do people think of it?

It's a stupid argument.
(Bad premises.)
Don't need the long version.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Elaborate how that refutes anything I said?

Pascal's Wager - the original version, at least - is an argument for Catholic Orthopraxy.

Since you don't follow Catholic Orthopraxy (you don't, do you?), we can infer that you don't accept the reasoning of Pascal's argument.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We sure can. However, it turns out that a lot of people can't manage to ideate their own God without the help of religion. And many can't hold onto it, meaningfully, without religion. So, for them, religions are part of the process. And although I have little use for religion, myself, I have to respect the fact that a lot of other people seem to need and want it.

Which I believe is one of the fallacies of the Wager - having some prerequisites in order for it to function - some particular god and some projections onto such as to properties.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All I ask is people read the whole thing. It's easy to quote out of context or isolate.

I ask the same of you.

I even posted a link to the relevant chapter of Pensées to help you.

 

[Link]

Pascal's Wager - the original version, at least - is an argument for Catholic Orthopraxy.

Since you don't follow Catholic Orthopraxy (you don't, do you?), we can infer that you don't accept the reasoning of Pascal's argument.

His universal application and as a variable, I do. But I don't accept his version of what the true variable is. But he wrote in a way, that has universal application even if Christianity is wrong.

He argues against all religions and why Christianity is true, with this argument, to show, why they should not settle for falsehood and risk the next world.

When he says the religion that matters, he means, the one he and his society believes is true. He means yes this argument would work if Islam is true and Christianity is false, but he is going to provide the example of Christianity being true and all other religions false, and why this argument still works with them believing in hell (some of them like Muslims).

 

[Link]

I ask the same of you.

I even posted a link to the relevant chapter of Pensées to help you.

I have the original in a book printed out in university (not a book, but those paper books made by Professor and all you do is pay for the printing really and cost of that). I will scan later.

But thanks for the link, it might be easier to read online and quote online then to scan.

 

[Link]

Which I believe is one of the fallacies of the Wager - having some prerequisites in order for it to function - some particular god and some projections onto such as to properties.

This is not true, there can be an array of potential gods/creators and he is arguing we better strive to find the right one because there exists potential of hell and heaven. This doesn't mean other Creators (hypothetical true only God) can't exist in religions where there is no hell.

This is not assumed.