The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager

[Rajni]

But if there are ones who consider themselves to be "real" Buddhists or Hindus or others, and if they believe their god is personal with them . . . do their scriptures or summaries on the Net clearly say this, like our Bible does? >

Just a couple of examples I can think of until I get more coffee in me are the writings of Rumi (Sufism), Mirabai (Hinduism -- specifically the branch thereof that is comparable to Christianity's bridal mysticism, having sentiments that can be found in the bible's Song of Songs).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...I really, really hate to cut in here...

You know as well as I do that if someone says “Pascal’s Wager” in a mirror three times you appear...

But I get it. I’d do the same thing if someone was mischaracterizing something I cared about.

 

[variant]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument which states that non-believers ought to believe in Christ despite their skepticism of God’s existence and recalcitrance towards faith. If God doesn’t exist and Jesus is merely a myth (which actually isn’t the case), then the non-believer will die and fade away into non-existence. If, however, God does exist and Jesus is truly humanity’s savior (which is the case), then the non-believer won’t achieve eternal salvation in heaven—and the alternative to heaven is perdition, which is extreme.

There are hardened skeptics who view Pascal’s wager with cynicism. They would reply to it by saying, “Why the Judeo-Christian god? How is your argument any different than asking why not believe in Thor, Wotan, and Odin so that you can inherit salvation in Valhalla in case the Vikings were right and everyone else wrong?” The problem with this argument, though, is that practically no one believes in Thor, Wotan, and Odin anymore, but billions of people rightfully believe in Christ. Can billions of people really be delusional?

Indeed, Pascal’s wager is an ethical and moral argument, and non-believers ought to heed its wisdom and come to believe that Jesus is savior, in case they are wrong about God not existing—because if they don’t believe, then they will not achieve eternal salvation in heaven when their time comes. What say you?

People can make up Gods, and they are free promise whatever they want post death. They don't have to deliver anything.

The problem with pascals wager is that I definitely give up some of my own agency to believe in these ideas in return for these promises. If I am ultimately trading for a lie then I have traded something of value for something that is worthless.

The idea that I have more to gain than I have to lose is not correct. Living my life based upon a lie would be to waste the only thing I have of value in such a circumstance.

You would have to wonder what percentage chances I put on the idea that I am going to be gifted anything for believing in the right God. Since I don't think any real God would operate this way (what would be the point?) I consider that chance to be infinitesimal, so not worth the trade.

Does it even make sense that a God would put a overabundance of meaning on belief without evidence, or, does it make sense that this idea comes from people making up a God they don't want to go about providing evidence for?

It makes a lot of sense to me that people who make up Gods and want you to believe in them might appeal to your basic fear of your own mortality. Where it doesn't make sense would be for an actual God to try to manipulate you into belief when it has the option of simply demonstrating it's existence. That God is a little sick in my opinion.

 

[Ken-1122]

And, for all I know, ones might believe their god died for their sins and rose on the third day and now is Lord of all. And they might believe their god makes them more and more immune to fear, in the almighty power of their god's love . . . like the Bible says our God does >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:17)

But if there are ones who consider themselves to be "real" Buddhists or Hindus or others, and if they believe their god is personal with them . . . do their scriptures or summaries on the Net clearly say this, like our Bible does? >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

To me, this means God in us proves Himself to us; it is not only about belief, then. So, this could bring us to what.

Their “Sacred Holy Texts” may not say exactly what you mentioned; that shows the God in you proves himself to you, but they could just as easily mention something in their Texts that is not in the Bible that proves to them that the God in them proves itself to them. IOW whatever it is that your Sacred Holy Text (bible) does for you, their Sacred Holy Text does for them.

 

[com7fy8]

IOW whatever it is that your Sacred Holy Text (bible) does for you, their Sacred Holy Text does for them.

It isn't what the text does, but all Jesus has done for us and God now does in us.

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

Jesus is not the one who abuses people in stress and dominating and dictatorial drives . . . lusts . . . for pleasure and excitement, and in frustration and nasty arguing and complaining and workaholic waste and "fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15). Satan is the one who abuses his children with this stuff and has people in slavery to "fear of death", but Jesus beat Satan while Jesus was the dead Man > Hebrews 2:14-15. And Jesus gives us strength which sets people free > making us strong in God's immunity >

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (Romans 5:6)

Only God is able to give us strength of character of love which makes us immune to Satanic emotions and feelings. This comes through Jesus, not through any religion of human practice and ability. So, of course, ones who claim to be Christians need to evaluate if we really are into this meaning of God's word, or if our effort is self-produced and if our beliefs are in thought only.

 

[Ken-1122]

It isn't what the text does, but all Jesus has done for us and God now does in us.

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:28-29)

Jesus is not the one who abuses people in stress and dominating and dictatorial drives . . . lusts . . . for pleasure and excitement, and in frustration and nasty arguing and complaining and workaholic waste and "fear of death" (Hebrews 2:14-15). Satan is the one who abuses his children with this stuff and has people in slavery to "fear of death", but Jesus beat Satan while Jesus was the dead Man > Hebrews 2:14-15. And Jesus gives us strength which sets people free > making us strong in God's immunity >

"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." (Romans 5:6)

Only God is able to give us strength of character of love which makes us immune to Satanic emotions and feelings. This comes through Jesus, not through any religion of human practice and ability. So, of course, ones who claim to be Christians need to evaluate if we really are into this meaning of God's word, or if our effort is self-produced and if our beliefs are in thought only.

How is that different than a Zoroastrian saying "only Ahura Mazdaa gives us strength of love which makes us immune to Evil thoughts and feelings, not through any religion of human practice or ability".

Every religion wants to say their religion is about having a true relationship with God

 

[Nithavela]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument[...]

No it isn't.

 

[com7fy8]

How is that different than a Zoroastrian saying "only Ahura Mazdaa gives us strength of love which makes us immune to Evil thoughts and feelings, not through any religion of human practice or ability".

First of all, it is written in our Canon Scripture. You didn't actually say a Zoroastrian scripture says this, or that you can quote a well-known Zoroastrian who has said or written this.

If one did, even so > Jesus is the way. There is no other way. Ones can lie and make claims. And God knows what is true.

 

[zephcom]

First of all, it is written in our Canon Scripture. You didn't actually say a Zoroastrian scripture says this, or that you can quote a well-known Zoroastrian who has said or written this.

If one did, even so > Jesus is the way. There is no other way. Ones can lie and make claims. And God knows what is true.

So how did you determine that 'ones' didn't lie about Jesus?

 

[com7fy8]

So how did you determine that 'ones' didn't lie about Jesus?

God is able to communicate to have us know what He has us know. Now, whether it has been really God or not guiding what I believe . . . this of course is an issue. I do not believe I have any unquestionably reliable human source. Ones claim there are historical records, but my opinion is this is not what really proves anything. I was not there, God has been. So, I accept them only because I find that God has me accept the things I do, which are mainly the Canon Protestant Scriptures. But I can't prove I'm right.

But I do experience the God presented in the Bible to be personally sharing with me. The descriptions match, and how He does things with me match with what I have discovered written in the Protestant Canon.

For example, Jesus says He is "gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29) I experience God's love to make me more and more naturally gentle and not conceited . . . humble. But I need much more correction in this, and Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how God does personally correct us, and I keep finding Him to be doing this, so I have compassion and caring for wrong people, instead of welcoming them as an excuse to look down on them. This is not what I was trying to do with myself, not at all what I was even thinking about while I was a religious self-righteous screwball.

Now, whether I really have stopped being a screwball is something worthy of discussion.

 

[zephcom]

God is able to communicate to have us know what He has us know. Now, whether it has been really God or not guiding what I believe . . . this of course is an issue. I do not believe I have any unquestionably reliable human source. Ones claim there are historical records, but my opinion is this is not what really proves anything. I was not there, God has been. So, I accept them only because I find that God has me accept the things I do, which are mainly the Canon Protestant Scriptures. But I can't prove I'm right.

But I do experience the God presented in the Bible to be personally sharing with me. The descriptions match, and how He does things with me match with what I have discovered written in the Protestant Canon.

For example, Jesus says He is "gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29) I experience God's love to make me more and more naturally gentle and not conceited . . . humble. But I need much more correction in this, and Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how God does personally correct us, and I keep finding Him to be doing this, so I have compassion and caring for wrong people, instead of welcoming them as an excuse to look down on them. This is not what I was trying to do with myself, not at all what I was even thinking about while I was a religious self-righteous screwball.

Now, whether I really have stopped being a screwball is something worthy of discussion.

Thank you. You handled that question much better than nearly everyone I've asked.

I do think it worthwhile to point out that there are other religions and philosophies which accomplish what you say for yourself yet you implied that all except your religion are from lies.

Is it possible that the Protestant Canon is just one of many which reflect 'God' to humanity? Making positive identification of God and any communication He is responsible for has been an issue for me for a very long time.

At this point in my life and the studying I've done, I honestly don't believe that Jesus ever taught a religion. Rather He taught a way of life which is void of religion. The religion rose out of the teachings of the Apostles. If that is true, then there would be no religion which is the 'only' religion endorsed by God.

So I wonder how people can be so sure -they- have the one and only 'true' religion. And it does seem that each and every religious person is convinced that only they possess the 'true' religion and all the others are 'wrong'.

Even you dismissed fully half of the people in the world who profess to be Christian by specifying the "Protestant' Canon. Those passages you quoted are surely in the Catholic Canon also.

I do find it interesting that people can claim so very many people are wrong with their choice of religion based on which really amounts to emotions and feelings when surely people in other religions experience similar emotions and feelings about their religion.

Anyway, thank you again. Your response did not satisfy my curiosity but it did show more thought and clarity than most who have made similar claims as you did.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You know as well as I do that if someone says “Pascal’s Wager” in a mirror three times you appear...

But I get it. I’d do the same thing if someone was mischaracterizing something I cared about.

At least you seem to agree that whatever its merits or demerits, Pascal's Wager does seem to get misconstrued much more often than need be. Of course, I get it, too: Who really wants to read the cobbled fragments of an old philosophical scientist just to understand 1 and a 1/2 pages worth of his argument?

 

[Zoii]

Gautama Buddha was a mere mortal man, but Jesus is the living and eternal son of God. Big difference.

No most people don't accept that. What you believe in has ZERO to do with truth - It has, for the vast majority of people, got everything to do with where you were born and how you were raised.

If you were born in Pakistan then your christian notions would be called absurd and childish since its well known there that Allah is God and the notion God had a son that was himself seems ridiculous and unsophisticated.

If you were born in India then you'd be Talking about God in terms of his many forms from Brahma to Vishnu as part of the Hindu religion. Your views on Jesus would seem preposterous.

if you were born in USA then likely you are Christian.

If you were born in Tibet then you would follow Buddhism and not worship any God but understand Buddhas philosophies.

And if you were born in China you are likely to be atheist. Indeed atheism is one of the fastest growing philosophies while Christianity is the fast declining philosophy.

 

[Rebecca12]

I'm going to take the theists' side on this one. You can't just switch beliefs on and off like a light switch, no. But, if you were to immerse yourself in a religion, going to services a few times a week, studying the holy texts at every opportunity, only associating with members of that religion and excluding non-believers from your life, you will almost certainly end up believing in that religion. That doesn't make it true, and it works for any religion, even nonsense like Scientology. But it isn't impossible to cause yourself to believe something different. It's just brainwashing.

Why do you believe this is likely? Do you have data to back this up? Many atheists I know became atheists after immersing themselves in religion.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why do you believe this is likely? Do you have data to back this up? Many atheists I know became atheists after immersing themselves in religion.

What I described is a general checklist for cult practices. If doing that didn't work to convince people of bonkers stuff that they wouldn't normally believe, then Scientology would't be a thing.

 

[Rebecca12]

What I described is a general checklist for cult practices. If doing that didn't work to convince people of bonkers stuff that they wouldn't normally believe, then Scientology would't be a thing.

That doesn't mean that anyone who immersed themselves would be convinced. You have to have some kind of vulnerability. Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment by cults. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Moral Orel]

That doesn't mean that anyone who immersed themselves would be convinced. You have to have some kind of vulnerability. Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment by cults. - PubMed - NCBI

I didn't say anyone, but most folks who would want to believe something, yes. Some factors make people more susceptible, but that doesn't mean most folks are immune to the techniques. Add to that the fact that some of the things I mentioned would be self-imposed things that cause them to be more susceptible (like cutting out non-believers from your life). Look at how easily people are influenced just by politics when they let themselves live in an echo chamber of exclusively conservative or exclusively liberal news sources. Humans like things that are familiar. If you immerse yourself in a religion, it will be the only familiar thing you've got, and you'll develop an appeal for it.

Take a good look at my list again. It isn't as simple and nice as simply going to church and reading the Bible regularly.

 

[Silmarien]

I didn't say anyone, but most folks who would want to believe something, yes. Some factors make people more susceptible, but that doesn't mean most folks are immune to the techniques. Add to that the fact that some of the things I mentioned would be self-imposed things that cause them to be more susceptible (like cutting out non-believers from your life). Look at how easily people are influenced just by politics when they let themselves live in an echo chamber of exclusively conservative or exclusively liberal news sources. Humans like things that are familiar. If you immerse yourself in a religion, it will be the only familiar thing you've got, and you'll develop an appeal for it.

Take a good look at my list again. It isn't as simple and nice as simply going to church and reading the Bible regularly.

I'm not sure to what degree I would associate the Pascalian approach with genuine brainwashing. Granted, the latter definitely exists, but I think you primarily see it in environments where churches foster a constant heightened emotional state, combined with fear-based theology and such a strong focus on correct belief that people are taught to surpress any doubts they might have.

There's a strong element of the Pascalian in my relationship with Christianity, and it's really very different than brainwashing. I think the idea is that if your barriers to faith are emotional rather than intellectual, it's your passions that need to be straightened out, so some sort of intellectual assent combined with ritual is the answer even if nothing "feels" real. (Granted, in the Catholic context, rituals are sacramental, so there's a theological aspect to the suggestion.)

The mind is complicated, and there are disciplines like meditation and contemplative prayer that do effect the way we perceive reality: Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality. So Pascal's Wager doesn't require brainwashing techniques--you don't need to cut off all of your secular friends and toss out every book you own aside from the Bible. Assuming that really works at all, since the problem with artificial social bubbles is that they have a tendency of bursting as soon as you have any sort of contact with the outside world.

 

[zippy2006]

There's a strong element of the Pascalian in my relationship with Christianity, and it's really very different than brainwashing. I think the idea is that if your barriers to faith are emotional rather than intellectual, it's your passions that need to be straightened out, so some sort of intellectual assent combined with ritual is the answer even if nothing "feels" real.

Agreed. Brainwashing is immersion in a falsehood. Pascal's Wager begins with the premise that the subject matter cannot be known to be true or false, and it is therefore approached in a way that prescinds from those categories.

I'm going to take the theists' side on this one. You can't just switch beliefs on and off like a light switch, no. But, if you were to immerse yourself in a religion, going to services a few times a week, studying the holy texts at every opportunity, only associating with members of that religion and excluding non-believers from your life, you will almost certainly end up believing in that religion. That doesn't make it true, and it works for any religion, even nonsense like Scientology. But it isn't impossible to cause yourself to believe something different. It's just brainwashing.

Immersion need not be excessive. It need not put one out of touch with extra-religious reality, though it can.

 

[stevil]

Pascal’s wager is a wise, astute argument

Pascal's wager does nothing for me.

People tend to do risk assessments.
Risk = likelihood X severity

For example
If I boil an egg, the likelihood of me overcooking it and it becoming hard and dry in the middle is high. The severity however is very low as I will still eat the hard and dry egg. Its taste and texture aren't perfect but its not really a big deal. So I would consider the overall risk to be low.

With Pascal's wager it tries to counter a person's assessment of Christianity's god's existence of being highly unlikely by putting the severity to the maximum possible (torture for all eternity).

It's much like Chain Letters (which has been a practice for hundreds of years), that threaten some absurdly high consequence for non compliance. e.g. "Send this on to 10 people within a week or you will die". Severe consequence, low likelihood.

A person that is extremely risk adverse, extremely fearful. May not be willing to take the risk and might follow this. These people are in the vast minority.

In my view Pascal's wager is a big fail. I know what it's trying to do, it's trying to fear people into believing in Jesus without bothering with the burden of proof. It doesn't care why you come to Jesus, only that you do come to Jesus.
It goes completely against my own personal philosophy of giving people real information and allowing them to make considered choices. Allowing them to exert their own free will, rather than resorting to tricks of coercion.