Pascal's Wager?

[Deidre]

I do not consider it remotely probable that human suffering or joy can continue after death. So I have nothing to wager against here beyond a completely improbable hypothesis which can be dismissed without evidence.

True spirituality is not found by wagering against unsubstantiated divine wrath. Epicurus (who was an early deist, specifically a polydeist, with some pantheist leanings too) made it clear that the nature of a god worthy of the name, is a superhuman (physical) being, that is totally unconcerned with rewarding or punishing humans for their beliefs and behaviour.

"A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness." - Epicurus, Principle Doctrine #1

The Internet Classics Archive | Principal Doctrines by Epicurus

An angry god, who gets pissy with people who don't believe in his existence, and tortures them until the end of time for their disbelief - despite the fact he is invisible to them - would be a petty and weak little cosmic tyrant, a celestial abusive parent figure, who has no evidence whatsoever for his existence.

He made it clear...
He made his guess clear, like everyone else's guess (as it relates to the notion of who/what a god might be). haha

But...having said that...I like his take.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since one of the meanings of the word "plead" implies in a court, in what court do you plead?

I don't use it in the legal sense....just giving my reason for not having an answer.

 

[Deidre]

I don't consider objective reality (a posteriori knowledge) to be "truth", which I'd require to be immutable. This is because our view of reality is subject to error & revision. So a fact can be objective, but not "true". The only thing I can think of which would qualify as truth would be a priori knowledge, eg, mathematics.
As for subjective things like values, mine aren't "true"....they're just what I hold.

I agree. When I think of 'objective' truth...it's a truth that just is, and requires no belief to make it so.
2+2=4, whether I believe it or not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

The door swings both ways.

Solution?

Join everything and anything so that success is completely insured by which this complete nonsense sprang.

Paper tigers eat paper sheep.

 

[nazz]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

Well for me living THIS life with God is far more rewarding than living without God.

 

[Deidre]

The door swings both ways.

Solution?

Join everything and anything so that success is completely insured by which this complete nonsense sprang.

Paper tigers eat paper sheep.

hahaha Imagine following in some form or another... every religion. I wonder if it'd be even possible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

hahaha Imagine following in some form or another... every religion. I wonder if it'd be even possible.

I can only imagine the vestments. ;0]

 

[McBell]

Likewise your trolling techniques are lame.

It is not my fault you refused to address the point made and instead started down this dreary dead end.

 

[nazz]

My reason for leaving it was that I simply no longer believe that the Bible is based on truths.

I'm a former fundamentalist who used to believe the Bible was God's inerrant, infallible word to humanity. I took the stories in it as literal, historic truth. I no longer see it that way at all. To me it is entirely irrelevant if anything it speaks about really happened. What matters is what lessons I can gain from the stories. So while it may not be factual history it still contains truth.

 

[Bunyip]

Pascal's wager is typically taught to philosophy students as a great example of bad reasoning.

 

[Deidre]

I'm a former fundamentalist who used to believe the Bible was God's inerrant, infallible word to humanity. I took the stories in it as literal, historic truth. I no longer see it that way at all. To me it is entirely irrelevant if anything it speaks about really happened. What matters is what lessons I can gain from the stories. So while it may not be factual history it still contains truth.

That's true, but that can be true of a number of literary works.

 

[nazz]

That's true, but that can be true of a number of literary works.

Yes, of course. I open to learning from all of them. I learn things observing nature or even watching films. For me life is all about this learning.

 

[Deidre]

Yes, of course. I open to learning from all of them. I learn things observing nature or even watching films. For me life is all about this learning.

I agree, I like this comment a lot.

 

[sun rise]

I don't use it in the legal sense....just giving my reason for not having an answer.

I know - I was making ze little joke which the emoji was supposed to indicate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Pascal's wager is typically taught to philosophy students as a great example of bad reasoning.

I'm a philosophy minor, and it's never been mentioned in any of my classes. Granted I don't have any religious philosophy classes, but not even the lower level/intro classes mentioned it. Pascals Wager is the same as going to a casino because you might become rich, and you make trying to get rich the entire purpose of going. It might happen (afterall, who are we really to know if these ancients did really have these visions or not?), but it's extremely unlikely. Except you know it did happen or not with the casino, which, even though a cheap cop-out, is the only saving grace of this "wager" that you may not even get to go "oh well, it's not real anyways."

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not Revoltingest, but his thought coincides with mine, so I will answer as well:

So you would insist that Man is top of the line life form?

Not at all. I would not even say such a thing, much less insist on it.

Not a chance of anything Greater?

What?!? That is much too vague a question to be answerable - or to mean anything really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

hahaha Imagine following in some form or another... every religion. I wonder if it'd be even possible.

The T-Rex System comes close:

Dinosaur Comics - December 8th, 2008 - awesome fun times!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe he knew. It is difficult to picture an intelligent man such as Pascal proposing the Wager seriously.

It must have been a joke.

He didn't actually propose it... at least not to anyone else himself.

It was only published after Pascal died. I'm not sure if we know whether he would have chosen to publish it himself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know - I was making ze little joke which the emoji was supposed to indicate.

Rascal! Wag! Scoundrel!
Sending me to google to find out what "emoji" means.....a pox on you & yours!

 

[Thief]

I do not consider it remotely probable that human suffering or joy can continue after death. So I have nothing to wager against here beyond a completely improbable hypothesis which can be dismissed without evidence.

True spirituality is not found by wagering against unsubstantiated divine wrath. Epicurus (who was an early deist, specifically a polydeist, with some pantheist leanings too) made it clear that the nature of a god worthy of the name, is a superhuman (physical) being, that is totally unconcerned with rewarding or punishing humans for their beliefs and behaviour.

"A happy and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness." - Epicurus, Principle Doctrine #1

The Internet Classics Archive | Principal Doctrines by Epicurus

An angry god, who gets pissy with people who don't believe in his existence, and tortures them until the end of time for their disbelief - despite the fact he is invisible to them - would be a petty and weak little cosmic tyrant, a celestial abusive parent figure, who has no evidence whatsoever for his existence.

Not buying any of that.

When you stand in solitary....yes you can....you might hear only your own Echo.
Do you think that is sufficient to retain your sense of 'self'?

If you could divide your position and be in more than one place at the same moment.....
You could talk to yourself as a perfect reflection.
Would that be sufficient to retain your sense of self?

It's one thing to say I AM!.
It's quite another to hear someone else confirm it.

Does God need us?
If He is able to retain His Person while forever solitary......then no.

But here we are.

so maybe there IS a weakness in the Spirit.
But I doubt we can play it to our own advantage.
He could simply.....start over.