Pascal's Wager

[Strathos]

I think you are missing the point. Pascal’s wager is a flawed premise.

I think you're missing the point as you're interpreting it to be something it was never intended to be (an argument to convince unbelievers).

 

[Occams Barber]

Au contraire. I didn't run; I addressed the issue directly. How is the creator of matter made of matter?

One word

Jesus
OB

 

[Rivga]

. How is the creator of matter made of matter?

He appears that way to you so you can comprehend things better,
Or
He is not this is just how you are working through what it is witnessing
Or
any one of the other "Magic" reasons that people can come up with.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Perhaps you should actually read the Pensees.

Pensee 226 addresses this:

"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. And yet, after a trifling reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us"

Paschal considered this option; that the wager might be played for another religion; but largely considered this an obfuscation, if an atheist uses this argument. The wager is couched in agnostic, deistic language for a reason. Substantially, this is no longer Paschal's wager at all, therefore. Essentially this is no grounds to dismiss such an important proposition, but a sincere person would thus be spurred to investigate the religions in question, to determine which religion to wager with, instead of it being a "trifling reflection". From here, Paschal has other arguments for Christianity. The importance is not diminished nor the argument weakened, by there being more than one religion.

Paschal's wager is anyway misunderstood, as others noted above as well. It is largely an exersize in probability and desirability of outcome, rather than a substitute for faith.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To address thus the actual question: Why am I a Christian and not a Hindu?

The easy answer, I believe Christianity to be true. Whether my belief is informed by my cultural background or not, this is what I believe, but that background really doesn't matter. To dismiss the validity of something on account of the background of the person espousing it, is anyway the fallacy of Bulverism.

For I see Sin as a visceral reality. There are real injustices, real wrongs, and I cannot see these as only conventions. Some things are absolutely evil, and some superficially good things are surreptitiously so as well, depending how they are procured. This seems clear to me. Christianity addresses this, in fact harps on it, and its central act is an act of Atonement.

Hinduism doesn't address this. It often falls into pantheistic fancy or process, or Divine perspective claptrap. If these things were true, then it wouldn't matter anyway if I played the Wager, as all was god anyway, or evil actions actually 'good'. Even the Bhakti cults fall into this trap. I cannot abide excusing evil. No, Hinduism fails to address the moral life I see unfold, and in a Paschal Wager argument vis a vis a three way bet, its position is not dissimilar to the atheist one. If I considered them equally, Hinduism should not be chosen, as a stated goal is largely to escape rebirth. Moksha is sought, which the other options would have another spin of the wheel if we had chosen wrongly anyway. The very fact that I am weighing this option, means I have not as yet been liberated, so I would be reborn regardless. So nothing is lost by not choosing it.

 

[Occams Barber]

To address thus the actual question: Why am I a Christian and not a Hindu?

The easy answer, I believe Christianity to be true. Whether my belief is informed by my cultural background or not, this is what I believe, but that background really doesn't matter. To dismiss the validity of something on account of the background of the person espousing it, is anyway the fallacy of Bulverism.

For I see Sin as a visceral reality. There are real injustices, real wrongs, and I cannot see these as only conventions. Some things are absolutely evil, and some superficially good things are surreptitiously so as well, depending how they are procured. This seems clear to me. Christianity addresses this, in fact harps on it, and its central act is an act of Atonement.

Hinduism doesn't address this. It often falls into pantheistic fancy or process, or Divine perspective claptrap. If these things were true, then it wouldn't matter anyway if I played the Wager, as all was god anyway, or evil actions actually 'good'. Even the Bhakti cults fall into this trap. I cannot abide excusing evil. No, Hinduism fails to address the moral life I see unfold, and in a Paschal Wager argument vis a vis a three way bet, its position is not dissimilar to the atheist one. If I considered them equally, Hinduism should not be chosen, as a stated goal is largely to escape rebirth. Moksha is sought, which the other options would have another spin of the wheel if we had chosen wrongly anyway. The very fact that I am weighing this option, means I have not as yet been liberated, so I would be reborn regardless. So nothing is lost by not choosing it.

It may not be reasonable to assess the validity of a god concept based on the cultural background of its believers but it is eminently reasonable to argue that a belief in the concept is a product of that culture. To argue otherwise is patently ridiculous.

The remainder of your post appears to be a statement of your particular view of the world and the amazing fact that your God belief neatly coincides with your worldview and all else (to quote you) is ‘claptrap’.

That argument has all the circularity of a carnival ride.

OB

 

[Larniavc]

I cannot abide excusing evil

Do you excuse God from dictating the kids to have their skulls dashed?

 

[Occams Barber]

...basically, despite all of the trumped up misrepresentation that Pascal's Wager receives from skeptics and unbelievers, it really is nothing more than a suggestion by Pascal for a person to place himself or herself into the best possible position (i.e. stand within close earshot of the Church and it's teaching) until such a time he or she finds faith. It's not a stand in for faith. And I'm not sure why Pascal's wager always gets trounced on so heavily. My guess is that no one reads the Pensees in full, so more often than not, people take his whole 'gamble' out of the full context in which he placed it.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

It's great that you've actually read the Pensees (in full no less) but, no matter what the correct interpretation might be, @Rivga s point is based on the common understanding of the wager.

What he is asking is "Why this god and not that one?"

Playing around with legalistic arguments about what Pascal really meant is exactly what I meant by tap dancing in Post #18. It is a form of avoidance.

Why are Christians so reluctant to look this question square in the eye and answer honestly without evasion?
OB

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It may not be reasonable to assess the validity of a god concept based on the cultural background of its believers but it is eminently reasonable to argue that a belief in the concept is a product of that culture. To argue otherwise is patently ridiculous.

Tell me, do you believe in the validity testing abilities of Scientific Method or that scientific findings and laws reflect reality? Is this not just a Western cultural construct to do so, couched in Western philosophy and history? Anyone else to follow and credit Scientific Method would inherently entail a proportion of westernisation, as to logic and philosophic precepts.
In like manner I follow a westernised culturally-appropriate religion, but this says nothing as to the validity of such beliefs, if arrived at through the prism of one's culture.
Ideas stand of their own accord, but to dismiss someone else's adherence to them on the grounds of being merely cultural, is a recognised logical fallacy.

The remainder of your post appears to be a statement of your particular view of the world and the amazing fact that your God belief neatly coincides with your worldview and all else (to quote you) is ‘claptrap’.

Not really what I said though. I have empiric and experiential evidence of the existence of evil. Something that denies or runs completely contrary to the evidence supplied, is rightfully set aside.

That argument has all the circularity of a carnival ride.

OB

One cannot escape the culture one is born into, or the forces that shaped your thought. If it is circular to agree with what I consider reasonable, then everyone is going around the magic roundabout.

Welcome to the Carnival!

 

[Nithavela]

What are you going to say?

I'm going to offer him peanuts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Do you excuse God from dictating the kids to have their skulls dashed?

I think sir, you are confused. I am a Christian, not a follower of a bronze age monolatric National religion. There is something called the fulfilment of Scripture, occuring to allow the mythopeoic landscape to exist in which the Incarnation could occur. This is anyway an involved question on punishment and justice, that I do not believe your flippant response warrants an exposition on.

But yes, mandating killing would be wrong. The question is more the principle, than the narrative, which is afterall set in fallen circumstances.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would apologise on behalf of Christian apologists everywhere, for overlooking his obvious intervention in human history, and then humbly offer him the finest bag of peanuts I could acquire in the afterlife.

I'm going to offer him peanuts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think the replies filled with tap dancing and the rather poor attempts at ridicule of the OP, speaks volumes.

 

[Chesterton]

One word

Jesus
OB

One word: Christmas.

He appears that way to you so you can comprehend things better,
Or
He is not this is just how you are working through what it is witnessing
Or
any one of the other "Magic" reasons that people can come up with.

Oh, so the "elephant" isn't really an elephant? Well that answers your OP then. The Supreme Being is the Supreme Being.

 

[Rivga]

Oh, so the "elephant" isn't really an elephant? Well that answers your OP then. The Supreme Being is the Supreme Being.

There is the small case of you
1) Worshiping false idols - religions are really hot on this!
2) Preying to the wrong God
3) Worshiping in the wrong place

All these are crimes in most religions are they not?

 

[bhsmte]

If Pascal's wager is motivating to some, cool.

Doesn't do much for me.

 

[Rivga]

If Pascal's wager is motivating to some, cool.

Doesn't do much for me.

The assumption that having a religion does not come at a cost, has always come across as a major hole in the augment . I always assumed it was because more people come at assuming just continuing as a Christian is not a cost.

I have never been a theist (unlike the majority of other non-believers) and converting to Christianity always seemed costly to me. The different starting positions must make you view it in a different light.

 

[bhsmte]

The assumption that having a religion does not come at a cost, has always come across as a major hole in the augment . I always assumed it was because more people come at assuming just continuing as a Christian is not a cost.

I have never been a theist (unlike the majority of other non-believers) and converting to Christianity always seemed costly to me. The different starting positions must make you view it in a different light.

Well, I was a Christian for most of my life. I simply could not buy the Christian story any longer as I gained knowledge and pretending to do so, is not something I am good at.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I was a Christian for most of my life. I simply could not buy the Christian story any longer as I gained knowledge and pretending to do so, is not something I am good at.

This

 

[Phil 1:21]

You've effectively been asked why you've chosen Christianity over any other religion and you're all running for cover.

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." John 6:44

Well, I was a Christian for most of my life. I simply could not buy the Christian story any longer as I gained knowledge and pretending to do so, is not something I am good at.

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1 John 2:19