Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[Altfish]

That is way over-simplification since he has chapter(s) on how he is not asking us to pretend to believe in God nor deceive yourself into believing God with no proof.

LINKS, LINKS, LINKS

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For me, the wager fails on the simplest of grounds -- the difference between believing and behaving as if you believe. The former is claimed to get you to heaven, the latter not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you are sure God is not vengeful and that there is no punishment for not follow the true religion, then the argument breaks. If there is a chance it is true in your mind, then you shouldn't wager infinite pain and lose infinite blessing/pleasure.

So from that, you start your journey to truth. What the truth is - will have a different explanation on how it should be arrived at of course. But we can all work on this toolkit together.

For example, let's assume Buddhism, is true. I don't know how to lay a scenario to find that, but I can't assume it's true. So it's layered, maybe I should seek to find some mystics, try to get a mystic experience to get the ball rolling.

Maybe, in this case, I should read different religions, travel. Maybe meet different people of different religions and if a monk of the right religion can show truth, maybe I can benefit.

Maybe part of my toolkit would be to not follow Quran in this case, because, it would not have proof in this case. So only follow truth.

Maybe part of my toolkit would be to act according to recommendations of ascetics of Buddhism if I perceive good energy and light from them and justice from them.


I am trying to show how it can be open ended, but specific.

Well I am humble enough not to presume as to knowing anything about any God, even if I was sure of there being such, which I'm not. So whatever I might expect from having such a belief would still be an unknown to me - given that I just don't trust religions as to providing pertinent answers.

I have looked into Buddhism actually and that belief system, more or less, I can agree with to some extent, which places it above most others as to influencing me. And mostly because it tends to accord with how I see morality and life in general.

 

[PureX]

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.

I agree. Without the religious context, the logic of the proposition is far easier to recognize and accept. But then, I guess we have to consider the circumstances of the time in which it was presented.

 

[PureX]

I do like that even the original proposition did not state nor conclude that "God exists". If it had, I would reject it outright, simply because no human can prove that premise. Instead, the focus was on our accepting or rejecting the possibility that God exists. Which is exactly where I think the focus ought to be. And it then proposes that this decision should be made based on it's value to us. Which I also agree with when proof is not available. After that, it becomes an individual, subjective value determination. And that's where I leave it. So all in all, I guess I don't have a problem with it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

I think you've done that. Pascal is arguing that you should believe in HIS god, because you have everything to gain if he's correct and nothing to lose. You've generalized the wager in a way that makes it incoherent when you refer to the religion in question as X or a variable. If you do that, it becomes believe some religion, since you have everything to gain if one is correct and nothing to lose whatever religion or god you choose.

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

But Pascal died centuries ago, and thus has nothing further to add. His arguments have been successfully refuted to my satisfaction and that of uncounted millions of others. If you would like to continue his argument for him in his absence, then you can attempt to refute the refutation of Pascals last words on the topic. If not, then the discussion ended with the last refutation of Pascal.

It's very long. Every counter argument, he has pages and pages addressing them. This is a very elaborate argument. I want to see if anyone reads the original and understands it like me or they trust Academia of Western nature (Satan behind it all)?

Nobody understands it like you. Many have indicated that we understand Pascal's argument to be an argument for believing in his God, and apparently none that see the argument as you do.

Actually, western academia didn't give me my interpretation of the Wager or its refutation except in the sense that it teaches reasoning. The argument is flawed in my judgment. That's my judgment, not some author's or professor's.

It assumes potential one religion might be true. That's all, and it doesn't matter which one it is for the sake of argument

Then it ceases to be Pascal's Wager, or even a coherent argument. It becomes that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by guessing the right religion and believing it, which is useless advice.

Nope, it talks about why sacrificing that time and pleasures, is still worth it. In fact, there are pages and pages about this from many angles. I can't do it justice, he argues this point from many angles and counter to counter arguments, and went in great detail.

It may have been worth it to Pascal to choose religion, but that wouldn't make devoting time and other resources to a false religious belief valuable or pleasurable to somebody that gets no benefit from religious belief or practice. What pleasure could a secular humanist that is secure in his beliefs gain by adding a god or a religion to them? Many of us come from a religion. We've already seen what pleasure comes from belief and what pleasure comes from unbelief, and find the latter preferable. Pascal may have been right about himself given his time and place, where bucking the church would likely be a lot less pleasurable than going with the flow, but this is the 21st century, where there is no social cost to atheism in many places, which can be as pleasant or more pleasant than a religious life.

he makes no assumption that God wants you to pretend to believe in him. This is a big ignorance that is spread about it.

That would be the best I could do. I don't decide what I want to believe and then believe it. I can't.

I am arguing most of western Academia has deceived you regarding this argument.

No, you are claiming it without evidence. That is different from presenting an argument.

He uses Christianity as a variable, try to keep up with the thread. He doesn't assume for it to be true, just uses it as an example, if it's the truth, what would be expected of you.

You think we're deceived? You don't even have the wager correct.

For example, let's say Islam is true. It would mean Christians and Jews should not risk not knowing it to be true, and strive to find the truth. The example I would provide for this would be different then his examples of assuming Christianity is true. For example, I would describe a different path to truth then his assumption of Christianity. But his argument applies in all cases, he just uses Christianity (assumption is true), and so how would that work if Christianity is true.

And if one were true but not the other, guessing and picking the wrong one might work out the same as atheism - off you go to the fire.

in his argument Islam is false, and Christianity is the variable of the true religion.

Yes, and Pascal wants you to choose his God. He says you have everything to gain and nothing to lose if you do. But you want him to be saying that your God is also a good choice, so you replace Christianity with religion X, as if it doesn't matter to the truth of the wager what religion X is. Think about other examples of replacing a specific with a general term, and how they go from right or wrong to both and neither. If I claim that 3+4=7, I have made a claim that can be said to be correct or not. If I attempt to generalize from 7 to X, 3+4=X, the claim is neither right nor wrong if X is allowed to be any integer. The statement only makes sense in the specific form. Pascal's Wager is like that as well. If it doesn't specify which God or religion to bet on, then it's not Pascal's Wager. It's not clear what one is being asked to bet on if a specific God is not named.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not. It assumes only one religion. You gotta include all religions. Everyone is going to hell in someone else's religion.

I always assumed this as well, but as I touched on a few posts back, Pascal doesn't actually assume only one religion.

In the preamble to the Wager, Pascal specifically addresses the beliefs of "the Turks" (i.e. Islam) and "the brutes" (by which I assume he means Pagans).

The way he addresses them is irrational crap, but he does address them.

 

[Tiberius]

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?

Pascal's wager fails on at least two counts.

First, it encourages belief for selfish reasons, namely, to avoid punishment. You really think God is going to be fooled by this?

Secondly, it encourages belief in whatever religion has the worst hell, so you can avoid the worst punishment. I have a religion, it's called Tiberianism. My hell is the worst hell because it's as bad as all the others combined, but I also give you paper cuts on your fingertips and then make you pout your fingertips in lemon juice. Thus, Pascal's wager says you should believe in my religion, since my hell is the worst.

 

[viole]

He saying strive to find truth, not to believe.

And how does it work? How can I learn anything useful from Pascal’s Wager? Can you make me an example?

ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, it encourages belief for selfish reasons, namely, to avoid punishment. You really think God is going to be fooled by this?

That part at least is generally in line with Pascal's Catholic beliefs. It's not so much that Pascal think that God is "fooled" as much as God has instituted the sacraments as a means of salvation, and participating in the sacraments is an action that people can decide to do or not do.

His arguments don't work at all in "sola fide" Protestantism, but Pascal wasn't arguing for Protestantism.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

Pasqual's Wager is an absolutely worthless argument. It's basically saying I'm going to believe this to hedge my bets, JUST IN CASE it happens to be true. First off, that's not genuine belief, that's simply pretending like you believe JUST IN CASE. Secondly, you would have to pretend to believe in every single religion in order to cover all the bases. Thirdly, if the only reason you are a decent and moral person is because you fear the consequences of not being moral and decent then you're not truly a moral individual.

 

[blü 2]

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?

Please refresh my memory.

How does he address THE obvious argument ─ with all those terrible consequences if you offend God, how can you tell which God you need to believe in?

 

[F1fan]

It's very long. Every counter argument, he has pages and pages addressing them.

This is a very elaborate argument. I want to see if anyone reads the original and understands it like me or they trust Academia of Western nature (Satan behind it all)?

But the most notable thing about the argument is that it admits God cannot be known as existing.

 

[Heyo]

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?

I think it has it's weaknesses but some arguments are quite interesting:
"Contre Mahomet.
LA Religion Mahométane a pour fondement l’Alchoran &
Mahomet. Mais ce Prophète qui devait eſtre la derniere
attente du monde a-t-il eſté prédit ? & quelle marque [128]
a-t-il que n’ayt auſſi tout homme qui se voudra dire Prophète ? Quels
miracles dit-il luy mesme avoir faits ? Quel mystere a-t-il enseigné
selon sa tradition mesme ? Quelle morale, & quelle félicité ?
[§] Mahomet eſt sans autorité. Il faudroit donc que ses raisons
fuſſent bien puiſſantes ; n’ayant que leur propre force." Pensées XVII

 

[KWED]

It's very long. Every counter argument, he has pages and pages addressing them.

This is a very elaborate argument. I want to see if anyone reads the original and understands it like me or they trust Academia of Western nature (Satan behind it all)?

So basically, you are making an unsupported assertion, and then asking others to do your work for you.
Seems reasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

II want to see if anyone reads the original and understands it like me or they trust Academia of Western nature (Satan behind it all)?

This conspiracy bs, undermines your entire case.

 

[KWED]

Academia has misconstrued this argument.

Wow! Another random on the internet who claims to have disproved science/academia, etc.
It's odd than none of you have yet collected your Nobel prizes for your groundbreaking discoveries.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For example, let's say Islam is true. It would mean Christians and Jews should not risk not knowing it to be true, and strive to find the truth. The example I would provide for this would be different then his examples of assuming Christianity is true. For example, I would describe a different path to truth then his assumption of Christianity.

But his argument applies in all cases, he just uses Christianity (assumption is true), and so how would that work if Christianity is true.

It's very clear. Western Academia misconstrued it.

I think it's hilarious how you have basically just acknowledged that you can use this "wager" word for word to argue for ANY religion at all and it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"universally" as in that it can be applied to anything you can come up with, only really limited by your own imagination.

Just like I pointed out in my previous post. You can take this "argument", replace "catholicism" by any other religion / faith based claim and it "works" just the same.

This makes the argument worthless and meaningless.

 

[KWED]

It assumes potential one religion might be true. That's all, and it doesn't matter which one it is for the sake of argument, even if all wrong, you have to....

So it isn't a choice between heads or tails. It is a choice between hundreds of possible outcomes - only one of which is correct.

And lastly, he makes no assumption that God wants you to pretend to believe in him. This is a big ignorance that is spread about it.

You miss the point here. God doesn't want you to pretend. You have to believe in your heart. Some versions of god are even angrier with hypocrites than with simple disbelievers (Islam, for example). Given this, the sensible option is to maintain disbelief based on evidence and rational argument rather than lie to god in the hop of tricking him.

This is one of the main stumbling blocks of Pascal's wager - the idea that god doesn't know if you are lying to him, or that he doesn't care if you don't really believe.