The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

Pascal was a 17th century skeptic, and pretty explicitly at odds with attempts to rationally demonstrate metaphysical doctrines. His work, on top of being published posthumously, ended up on the Catholic List of Prohibited Books, so it's a little odd to argue that its intent was to scare people into anything. It was obviously considered a danger to the faith.

Appealing to a "burden of proof" over something like the Wager is also somewhat strange, given that his thesis was that Christianity was reasonable but not provable. The whole point is that in the absence of compelling rational reasons to fall on one side or the other, decisions need to be made on other grounds.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
@Silmarien & @zippy2006

First of all, did you two read this chain of responses from the beginning? My original point was about the assertion that it's impossible to will yourself to believe something different. That adds some context, but I'm still going to disagree with you guys :p

Brainwashing doesn't have to occur in full on cult-mode. It can happen in degrees. Watching television has an actual hypnotizing effect, but that doesn't mean you're fully mesmerized catching up on This is Us. Think about my politics in an echo chamber example; that's the same thing.

Whatever religion you pick, you're going to feel better about it if you immerse yourself in it. The more you immerse, the more better you'll feel. And it's harder to burst that bubble when the core tenants of the religion you picked tells you not to trust outsiders when you do come into contact with them. Again, think of my politics example. When someone has been entrenched in fake news for long enough, and they talk with someone in the real world with real information, they simply don't believe them.

Brainwashing is just a kind of indoctrination. The information, beliefs, and values don't have to be true, or false, or unknown. It's a technique that can be applied to anything because the human mind is too malleable.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Brainwashing doesn't have to occur in full on cult-mode.

Okay.

It can happen in degrees. Watching television has an actual hypnotizing effect, but that doesn't mean you're fully mesmerized catching up on This is Us.

Okay... Not sure if I would call TV mild brainwashing, but I'm following.

Whatever religion you pick, you're going to feel better about it if you immerse yourself in it. The more you immerse, the more better you'll feel. And it's harder to burst that bubble when the core tenants of the religion you picked tells you not to trust outsiders when you do come into contact with them.

It sounds like we're back in cult-mode now.

Again, think of my politics example. When someone has been entrenched in fake news for long enough, and they talk with someone in the real world with real information, they simply don't believe them.

Isn't that cult-mode?

I said that immersion need not be excessive to the point that it puts one out of touch with the rest of reality. Is that what you're disagreeing with? Does all immersion put one out of touch with reality?

Brainwashing is just a kind of indoctrination. The information, beliefs, and values don't have to be true, or false, or unknown. It's a technique that can be applied to anything because the human mind is too malleable.

Brainwashing has a negative, anti-intellectual connotation. Yet according to your definition dating your wife before you married her was brainwashing since the activity was enjoyable, recursive, and shaped your consciousness in a particular way.

If your definition of brainwash is really meant to be morally neutral then we're on the same page, for Pascal's proposal is not anti-intellectual and is very similar to dating your future wife. Yet I wouldn't use the word "brainwash." Well... I suppose it depends on your wife. :D
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Okay... Not sure if I would call TV mild brainwashing, but I'm following.
It was an analogy in that watching television puts you in a bit of a trance, but not full on hypnosis mesmerization. You can have your attitudes and beliefs shifted without accepting them whole-heartedly as well. I wasn't really saying that television is brainwashing people... Well, it is, but that wasn't my point.
It sounds like we're back in cult-mode now.

Isn't that cult-mode?

I said that immersion need not be excessive to the point that it puts one out of touch with the rest of reality. Is that what you're disagreeing with? Does all immersion put one out of touch with reality?
Like I said, brainwashing could be used even for true things. But even for false things, being "out of touch with the rest of reality" is bad phrasing, I think. I mean, Scientologists still know that fire is hot and ice is cold, for example. They have additional beliefs that they don't have a good reason to hold.

Think about inductive arguments you've heard in the past. How many of them have actually calculated probabilities? Almost none probably. But you have a feeling of what's more likely in some situations based on things you've experienced. Brainwashing can give you that same feeling without sound reason to support it, that's all.
Brainwashing has a negative, anti-intellectual connotation. Yet according to your definition dating your wife before you married her was brainwashing since the activity was enjoyable, recursive, and shaped your consciousness in a particular way.
Not necessarily. There could be an aspect to belief in the fact that my wife loves me, but dating someone you like is just experiential evidence that future dates will be enjoyable as well. And even to the point of fact that my wife loves me, if she's kind to me, isn't that a good enough definition of "loving" for me to have sound reason to find it to be true?
If your definition of brainwash is really meant to be morally neutral then we're on the same page, for Pascal's proposal is not anti-intellectual and is very similar to dating your future wife. Yet I wouldn't use the word "brainwash."
I think brainwashing can cause people to believe things, or at least believe things are likely, without good reason to believe them at all. It doesn't mean those things are automatically false, but it certainly isn't an intellectual endeavor.

Going to church, reading the Bible and having a pleasant feeling associated with those activities is not a sound reason to believe the universe has a personal creator. But those activities produce that belief in a lot of people.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,733
✟247,488.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The whole point is that in the absence of compelling rational reasons to fall on one side or the other, decisions need to be made on other grounds.
Like I said, it doesn't resonate with me.
The Christian gig is a claim, claims have the burden of proof.

But also the thing about the Christian claim is that it is a poorly formed claim (from the perspective of being able to verify or falsify it). So it is a Sagan's dragon, being an unproveable claim, and the further a person goes down the rabbit hole, looking for verifiable things, then the more elaborate and elusive the claim becomes.

In my opinion, to try and tack on an element of fear, such that, "well, IF the claim is true then you have much to lose, so you may as well just go with it.."
It just seems a highly dishonest and coercive approach to me.

I'm of the position that if the claim can't be evaluated then we ask the claimer to better define the claim and in the meantime, we ignore it. Don't worry about the "Ifs"
I'm not about to walk around with a string of garlic around my neck to ward off the vampires.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
First of all, did you two read this chain of responses from the beginning? My original point was about the assertion that it's impossible to will yourself to believe something different. That adds some context, but I'm still going to disagree with you guys :p

I did, actually. :) Obviously I agree with your initial point, and I was happy to see that you made it, but I do think you're pushing the brainwashing and indoctrination angle too much.

Brainwashing doesn't have to occur in full on cult-mode. It can happen in degrees. Watching television has an actual hypnotizing effect, but that doesn't mean you're fully mesmerized catching up on This is Us. Think about my politics in an echo chamber example; that's the same thing.

Brainwashing pretty much by definition involves systematic, intentional thought control. I would define it differently than indoctrination, which tends to just involve teaching people something in an uncritical manner. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since I'm not sure we should default to hard skepticism and go around teaching children that we're not sure whether stealing and lying is really bad.

In that sense, living in an echo chamber environment is likely to lead to a degree of indoctrination, but it can't really be compared to Clockwork Orange.

Whatever religion you pick, you're going to feel better about it if you immerse yourself in it. The more you immerse, the more better you'll feel. And it's harder to burst that bubble when the core tenants of the religion you picked tells you not to trust outsiders when you do come into contact with them. Again, think of my politics example. When someone has been entrenched in fake news for long enough, and they talk with someone in the real world with real information, they simply don't believe them.

This can be true in certain cases, but I think your mistaking extreme situations for the norm. I used to live in a pretty intense progressive echo chamber, but didn't suffer a psychotic break when exploring Catholic social teachings for the first time. Similarly, I haven't come to mistrust non-Christians, though I no longer identify with them in the way I once did.

I think brainwashing can cause people to believe things, or at least believe things are likely, without good reason to believe them at all. It doesn't mean those things are automatically false, but it certainly isn't an intellectual endeavor.

Going to church, reading the Bible and having a pleasant feeling associated with those activities is not a sound reason to believe the universe has a personal creator. But those activities produce that belief in a lot of people.

The problem is that we're back to Pascal's problem: there is no default position here that can automatically be associated with truth. I somehow managed to indoctrinate myself into some sort of anti-Christian, anti-theistic worldview as a child. I think it was because I was really into science and was picking up on the Zeitgeist, but there was really no rational reason behind that sort of hostility.

I've torn apart the naturalistic assumptions behind that worldview, and there are no longer any compelling reasons to believe that Christianity could not be true. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but you're not going to really find a perfect argument in either direction. So how do you choose? Because Pascal's right that you can't really just sit on the fence and not make a choice on a question like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Like I said, it doesn't resonate with me.
The Christian gig is a claim, claims have the burden of proof.

To be fair, Pascal's Wager is aimed at skeptics, not atheists. Genuine skepticism would involve neither accepting nor rejecting the Christian worldview, because both are possible. So the question is really what someone who sees Christianity as a live option but remains on the fence ought to do.

But also the thing about the Christian claim is that it is a poorly formed claim (from the perspective of being able to verify or falsify it). So it is a Sagan's dragon, being an unproveable claim, and the further a person goes down the rabbit hole, looking for verifiable things, then the more elaborate and elusive the claim becomes.

Falsifiability is only a valid criterion in scientific research, and even there it does face challenges. I think when it comes to fullblown worldviews, it's coherency and internal consistency that matter, as well as the ability to survive whatever potential defeaters can be brought to bear when historical claims are part of the puzzle.

In my opinion, to try and tack on an element of fear, such that, "well, IF the claim is true then you have much to lose, so you may as well just go with it.."
It just seems a highly dishonest and coercive approach to me.

Not necessarily. I think it's better to look at a more neutral claim, though, like the immortality of the soul. Believing that you'll be stuck with yourself and your decisions forever leads to a very different perspective on life than viewing it as fleeting and finite. All else being equal, is it better to assume that the stakes are high when they might be low, or that they're low when they might be high?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It was an analogy in that watching television puts you in a bit of a trance, but not full on hypnosis mesmerization. You can have your attitudes and beliefs shifted without accepting them whole-heartedly as well. I wasn't really saying that television is brainwashing people... Well, it is, but that wasn't my point.

Like I said, brainwashing could be used even for true things. But even for false things, being "out of touch with the rest of reality" is bad phrasing, I think. I mean, Scientologists still know that fire is hot and ice is cold, for example. They have additional beliefs that they don't have a good reason to hold.

Think about inductive arguments you've heard in the past. How many of them have actually calculated probabilities? Almost none probably. But you have a feeling of what's more likely in some situations based on things you've experienced. Brainwashing can give you that same feeling without sound reason to support it, that's all.

Okay, sure.

Not necessarily. There could be an aspect to belief in the fact that my wife loves me, but dating someone you like is just experiential evidence that future dates will be enjoyable as well. And even to the point of fact that my wife loves me, if she's kind to me, isn't that a good enough definition of "loving" for me to have sound reason to find it to be true?

Perhaps you would be justified in believing that she loves you, but exclusive dating still seems to be immersion/brainwashing on your definition.

I think brainwashing can cause people to believe things, or at least believe things are likely, without good reason to believe them at all. It doesn't mean those things are automatically false, but it certainly isn't an intellectual endeavor.

Right... The Pensees are available online, and I revisited them for this conversation. The Wager begins around section 233, or Pg. 66.

At first blush I don't think Pascal is saying that immersion is an intellectual endeavor. Yet you are saying that the beliefs which flow from that immersion entail intellectual assent, and this assent is unjustified if the immersion is non-intellectual.

Pascal seems to be saying that the passions impede belief, and that once they are abated belief naturally ensues. Pascal would probably say that it is the heart rather than the reason which believes, and therefore immersive engagement of the heart with God and religion is the key to belief.

The crux of your objection seems to be the nature of act of belief in God. Is that belief intellectual, heart-based, holistic, all of the above...?

I will just let you respond for now...

Going to church, reading the Bible and having a pleasant feeling associated with those activities is not a sound reason to believe the universe has a personal creator. But those activities produce that belief in a lot of people.

Okay.

P.S. To your point there is a very interesting phrase, "...and deaden your acuteness." The original French would be worth looking at.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,733
✟247,488.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All else being equal, is it better to assume that the stakes are high when they might be low, or that they're low when they might be high?
Ordinarily yes. If you know there is a consequence but you don't know what that consequence is. For example if you wondered what it would be like to stick a fork in power socket. You consider that you might have your hair stand straight up (which would be funny), or maybe you get a shock (which would be painful), or maybe you die (which would be a bummer). Then you would hopefully decide that the worst scenario might happen, so you don't risk sticking the fork in the socket.

But when it comes to things that are completely unverified and unverifiable such as the claim that vampires exist and that garlic wards them off.
Well, are you going to wear garlic just in case?

I'm an ignostic atheist. I don't claim to know that the Christian god doesn't exist. But I don't claim that it is possible for the Christian god to exist either. I'm not worried at all about an afterlife and a judgement of a god saying "Oh you didn't believe in me". I can't make sense of that narrative. It doesn't make any logical sense to me.

But maybe someone who doesn't believe in gods (but is more on the fence), maybe they think the idea of "not believing in something without evidence", that this can be considered a crime of sorts or a way of sorting out desirables from undesirables? Maybe if that makes sense to them, and if they are extremely risk adverse then maybe Pascal has something of value for them?????
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Brainwashing pretty much by definition involves systematic, intentional thought control.
Isn't that exactly what I described? Intentionally causing your beliefs to change through the systematic immersion in a religion?
This can be true in certain cases, but I think your mistaking extreme situations for the norm. I used to live in a pretty intense progressive echo chamber, but didn't suffer a psychotic break when exploring Catholic social teachings for the first time. Similarly, I haven't come to mistrust non-Christians, though I no longer identify with them in the way I once did.
I'm not sure what you mean. I was saying that the thing you're immersed in will insulate you from something like a "psychotic break" so I wouldn't expect you to have one.

I suspect that you don't trust atheists though. Not in the sense that we're lying to you, but in the sense that we must be deluded because you've come to the conclusion that there must be a god, ya?
The problem is that we're back to Pascal's problem: there is no default position here that can automatically be associated with truth. I somehow managed to indoctrinate myself into some sort of anti-Christian, anti-theistic worldview as a child. I think it was because I was really into science and was picking up on the Zeitgeist, but there was really no rational reason behind that sort of hostility.

I've torn apart the naturalistic assumptions behind that worldview, and there are no longer any compelling reasons to believe that Christianity could not be true. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but you're not going to really find a perfect argument in either direction. So how do you choose? Because Pascal's right that you can't really just sit on the fence and not make a choice on a question like this.
We already went round and round on this one. I still say go with what feels good because there's absolutely no telling what's true out in that realm. I'm not interested in picking up that aspect of the discussion again. My brainwashing angle seems fun though. A lot of atheists don't like it either :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps you would be justified in believing that she loves you, but exclusive dating still seems to be immersion/brainwashing on your definition.
Immersion, sure. But brainwashing... You'll have to tell me the belief I gain that doesn't have any justification for me to see that. Dating is testing the very thing you're trying to believe. It creates the empirical evidence for the very things you believe as a result of doing it. If going to church and reading the Bible makes you happy, and all you believe as a result is that going to church and reading the Bible makes you happy, then you aren't brainwashing.
Right... The Pensees are available online, and I revisited them for this conversation. The Wager begins around section 233, or Pg. 66.

At first blush I don't think Pascal is saying that immersion is an intellectual endeavor. Yet you are saying that the beliefs which flow from that immersion entail intellectual assent, and this assent is unjustified if the immersion is non-intellectual.

Pascal seems to be saying that the passions impede belief, and that once they are abated belief naturally ensues. Pascal would probably say that it is the heart rather than the reason which believes, and therefore immersive engagement of the heart with God and religion is the key to belief.

The crux of your objection seems to be the nature of act of belief in God. Is that belief intellectual, heart-based, holistic, all of the above...?

I will just let you respond for now...
I guess this is where a lot of the disagreement between atheists and theists comes from. Believing based on what your heart tells you is a bad reason to believe something. If I can take the exact same techniques and apply them to any religious dogma and it causes people to feel that dogma is true, then those techniques aren't good ways to form beliefs... if your goal is to have true beliefs, anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Immersion need not be excessive. It need not put one out of touch with extra-religious reality, though it can.

The justification for the "immersion" part of Pascal's wager comes from the general proposition by Pascal that what you are doing with a christian lifestyle is definitely both a good lifestyle and good for you, both personally and morally.

As I stated earlier, I value my autonomy and agency more than promises lacking evidence, but I could add to this that I also think that making moral decisions, not because you think they are objectively the right thing to do, but instead do so because you have been convinced to do so by people you think are speaking for God, actually cheapens WHY you act in a way you consider right (if you can indeed accomplish as much in your own eyes).
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Falsifiability is only a valid criterion in scientific research, and even there it does face challenges. I think when it comes to fullblown worldviews, it's coherency and internal consistency that matter, as well as the ability to survive whatever potential defeaters can be brought to bear when historical claims are part of the puzzle.

Historical claims still have some element of falcifiability, as history leaves evidence.

When working outside the idea of falcifiability in terms of metaphysical claims, we're talking about things where we could not tell in any way, and via any evidence that something is true and not it's antithesis.

Gods can't be falsified because lacking positive evidence for their existence, there is nothing that can demonstrate that they don't exist. The world looks exactly the same either way when they chose to be silent and invisible, and instead decide to speak through the conduit of the writings of people who have been dead for eons...

This point alone should give us pause when trying to assert complex metaphysical relationships with thoroughly invisible beings.

Christianity is a doctrine that doesn't just present us with two different reasonable sides of this debate, but rather demands that we take it's side in the debate without ever needing to offer the smallest real evidence, threatening us if we do not, promising great reward if we do.

It's not quite like the claim that Alexander the Great conquered Persia from 336 - 323 BC, a better evidenced claim with less real world consequence.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Historical claims still have some element of falcifiability, as history leaves evidence.

Yes, which is why I specified that if you are making historical claims, you need to be able to survive whatever defeaters can be brought to bear against them. I wouldn't call that "falsifiability," since history isn't controllable and repeatable, but yeah, historical claims can clearly be challenged.

When working outside the idea of falcifiability in terms of metaphysical claims, we're talking about things where we could not tell in any way, and via any evidence that something is true and not it's antithesis.

Gods can't be falsified because lacking positive evidence for their existence, there is nothing that can demonstrate that they don't exist. The world looks exactly the same either way when they chose to be silent and invisible, and instead decide to speak through the conduit of the writings of people who have been dead for eons...

This point alone should give us pause when trying to assert complex metaphysical relationships with thoroughly invisible beings.

Sure, if you want to reduce theism to being a question of whether invisible beings are running around alongside us. I would say that the more interesting metaphysical question involves whether naturalism is sufficient to make sense of reality, and if not, what the alternatives would look like and which is the strongest contender.

Of course, falsification in the empirical sense is still not possible, but that's the nature of the beast when dealing with metaphysics in general, naturalistic and non-naturalistic alike.

Christianity is a doctrine that doesn't just present us with two different reasonable sides of this debate, but rather demands that we take it's side in the debate without ever needing to offer the smallest real evidence, threatening us if we do not, promising great reward if we do.

It's not quite like the claim that Alexander the Great conquered Persia from 336 - 323 BC, a better evidenced claim with less real world consequence.

I agree. Christianity is definitely not just presenting a balanced intellectual debate between two possible worldviews. I would say that this is actually what Pascal is pointing out to anyone who wants to treat it like one.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, which is why I specified that if you are making historical claims, you need to be able to survive whatever defeaters can be brought to bear against them. I wouldn't call that "falsifiability," since history isn't controllable and repeatable, but yeah, historical claims can clearly be challenged.

Records are how we work with history.

Sure, if you want to reduce theism to being a question of whether invisible beings are running around alongside us. I would say that the more interesting metaphysical question involves whether naturalism is sufficient to make sense of reality, and if not, what the alternatives would look like and which is the strongest contender.

It depends on what you're trying to "make sense of" I guess.

Theism in this sense is one reaction to the difference between what we want to "make sense of" and our actual ability to investigate.

Of course, falsification in the empirical sense is still not possible, but that's the nature of the beast when dealing with metaphysics in general, naturalistic and non-naturalistic alike.

The difficulty in knowing the answers to metaphysical questions is well known to everyone who tries to understand the concept.

The problem is that some people bypass all this difficulty in "knowing" and just make stuff up.

I agree. Christianity is definitely not just presenting a balanced intellectual debate between two possible worldviews. I would say that this is actually what Pascal is pointing out to anyone who wants to treat it like one.

Well to me, the concept doesn't help the idea of Christianity at all.

I would rather my autonomy than to be absorbed into a metaphysical framework with little justification, but with a big heaping dose of existential angst over what the Gods might think (and do about it).

My life is simply better without such a terrible concept attached to it. I don't think any real Gods that I could possibly imagine would be mad at me for discarding the idea that they are insufferable moralizing tyrants, seeking to micromanage my moral life and metaphysical imagination with a system of rewards and punishments.

I prefer seeking out my own answers to why and how I should be living well rather than simply adopting them from some authority without again, proper justification for each belief.

The difference between how I would like to act, and who I would like to be and how I actually act and what I actually accomplish is already enough of an issue without adding in fanciful ideas about the desires of invisible beings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zephcom
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Records are how we work with history.

Of course. That doesn't make scientific concepts like falsifiability apply accurately to the way historians actually work with records.

It depends on what you're trying to "make sense of" I guess.

Theism in this sense is one reaction to the difference between what we want to "make sense of" and our actual ability to investigate.

In that it's in the realm of questions beyond the reach of empirical investigation, I would agree.

The difficulty in knowing the answers to metaphysical questions is well known to everyone who tries to understand the concept.

The problem is that some people bypass all this difficulty in "knowing" and just make stuff up.

I assume you're referring specifically to religion, in which case the complication of revelation comes in. I would say that's less a matter of people making up answers to metaphysical questions, and more a pre-rational commitment underlying everything else. I don't really see it as a problem, though.

Well to me, the concept doesn't help the idea of Christianity at all.

Why does it not help the idea of Christianity at all?

From what you've written, you seem to take a very subjectivist approach to these questions, which is obviously a very different take on autonomy and morality than what Christianity teaches. With Pascal's Wager, we're dealing with potential consequences of being wrong, and it seems to me that if Christianity is correct, then that whole method of valoration becomes questionable.

The thing with Pascal's Wager is that you've made your bet. That's fine, but the possibility of being wrong is attached to it.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Of course. That doesn't make scientific concepts like falsifiability apply accurately to the way historians actually work with records.

They have similar ideas that help rate our historical ideas as more or less likely to hold up. We take down the standard from things we can see and experiment with ourselves because we still see a lot of value in learning from records.

In that it's in the realm of questions beyond the reach of empirical investigation, I would agree.

Sometimes. If there were say, a literal God, there isn't really any need for this divide. Metaphysics was coined by Aristotle at least in part because it came after a good study of the physics to broader questions.

I assume you're referring specifically to religion, in which case the complication of revelation comes in. I would say that's less a matter of people making up answers to metaphysical questions, and more a pre-rational commitment underlying everything else. I don't really see it as a problem, though.

It's a problem because people absolutely do make up answers to metaphysical and moral questions and start religions.

Unless we are going to take the position that every religion was true...

Why does it not help the idea of Christianity at all?

From what you've written, you seem to take a very subjectivist approach to these questions, which is obviously a very different take on autonomy and morality than what Christianity teaches. With Pascal's Wager, we're dealing with potential consequences of being wrong, and it seems to me that if Christianity is correct, then that whole method of valoration becomes questionable.

The thing with Pascal's Wager is that you've made your bet. That's fine, but the possibility of being wrong is attached to it.

If say Christianity as correct then I will be punished by a God for not coming to the correct metaphysical and moral conclusions as written in his eons old best selling book.

I consider the proposition absurd, the wager only makes sense if you take Christianity seriously.

It looks bad for the Christian who thinks it is obviously right that I be punished for differing. It is up to them to justify their beliefs here and the wager doesn't do much good for them, makes them look a bit ghoulish in my opinion.

So, the person "on the fence" as you put it has to not only accept the "wager", but have a lot of credulity in the general judgment of the unbeliever regardless of why they are incorrect.

The heart of the wager is that we should all fear the unknown deity that governs this world (or spend as much time sucking up to it for the chances it will favor us) to the extent that we give up our moral autonomy and submit to the writings of those who were chosen to tell us what to do. OR ELSE!

It's a hideous set of beliefs there, I don't think I could believe that about God or people in general if I tried my hardest. So, not really a wager, more of a well rooted distaste for the liars that have hustled believers into this psychological noose.

I can't get there from here. There is no switch to pull, no amount of "immersion" with Christians or even brainwashing would do. The idea of the wager, and any attempt to take it seriously should have us recoiling in disgust from it's framing of the divine as a thinly veiled psychological attempt at emotional manipulation, aimed at control over others.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
They have similar ideas that help rate our historical ideas as more or less likely to hold up. We take down the standard from things we can see and experiment with ourselves because we still see a lot of value in learning from records.

I am not sure what you mean. Figures like Alexander the Great and Napoleon are understood to be historical even if they fit into the "stranger than fiction" category. I am not sure how I could see and experiment with taking over the world.

Sometimes. If there were say, a literal God, there isn't really any need for this divide. Metaphysics was coined by Aristotle at least in part because it came after a good study of the physics to broader questions.

Well, the divide is more because of methodological naturalism, which obviously didn't exist before the modern era. I'm also not sure what you mean by a literal God, nor why its existence would eliminate methodological naturalism.

It's a problem because people absolutely do make up answers to metaphysical and moral questions and start religions.

Why is that a problem?

If say Christianity as correct then I will be punished by a God for not coming to the correct metaphysical and moral conclusions as written in his eons old best selling book.

I consider the proposition absurd, the wager only makes sense if you take Christianity seriously.

It looks bad for the Christian who thinks it is obviously right that I be punished for differing. It is up to them to justify their beliefs here and the wager doesn't do much good for them.

Eh, the wager is really a kind of tongue and cheek addendum to Pascal's actual thought, and I'm not sure it makes much sense in isolation even if you do take Christianity seriously. I think it would require a much more in depth study of Christian theology, particularly soteriology, to get it off the ground than usually takes place, which in the end probably makes it one of the harder rather than easier arguments to get to work. So I suppose I would agree that as far as apologetics go, it's not overly useful.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am not sure what you mean. Figures like Alexander the Great and Napoleon are understood to be historical even if they fit into the "stranger than fiction" category. I am not sure how I could see and experiment with taking over the world.

The facts about Alexander can often be checked though, and we can look on with some skepticism about some of the legends that reach us.

You should use the example of the Buddha to get an idea. His real life is shrouded in a lot of fantastical and even supernatural events that most historians don't take seriously.

Well, the divide is more because of methodological naturalism, which obviously didn't exist before the modern era. I'm also not sure what you mean by a literal God, nor why its existence would eliminate methodological naturalism.

A God that exists is free to exist in a way that can be seen and experienced objectively. The only obvious difference between now and the past is our ability to record events has gotten way better.

We embrace methodologies that take such obvious ideas into account. Which is why you get so few people claiming things like were claimed to have happened in the old testament.

You can blame the absence of God from the modern record on some change in how God interacts with humans, or you can reach the conclusion that better recording equipment put a damper on the amount of lies being told. Maybe you have a different idea, but there is clearly a difference.

I personally like the theory on rye storage methodology getting better so that people weren't so usually poisoned with ergot.

Why is that a problem?

We have a lot of experience in people answering their metaphysical questions by simply making up stories. We don't have many people who take metaphysical positions that are demonstrated true.

You do the math. What does experience and history teach us about how humanity approaches metaphysics via religion?

Eh, the wager is really a kind of tongue and cheek addendum to Pascal's actual thought, and I'm not sure it makes much sense in isolation even if you do take Christianity seriously. I think it would require a much more in depth study of Christian theology, particularly soteriology, to get it off the ground than usually takes place, which in the end probably makes it one of the harder rather than easier arguments to get to work. So I suppose I would agree that as far as apologetics go, it's not overly useful.

I'm merely saying that taking the wager seriously and interpreting Christianity as stated in the light of it, shines a very bad light on Christianity in general. We would have to believe some seriously messed up stuff about God to take both of those ideas seriously enough to act upon them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You should use the example of the Buddha to get an idea. His real life is shrouded in a lot of fantastical and even supernatural events that most historians don't take seriously.

How does that relate to the term "falsifiable"? Nothing about the lifetime of Siddharta Gautama can be subjected to controlled experimentation and shown to be incorrect.

You can blame the absence of God from the modern record on some change in how God interacts with humans, or you can reach the conclusion that better recording equipment put a damper on the amount of lies being told. Maybe you have a different idea, but there is clearly a difference.

I wouldn't say that divine miracle claims are at all absent from the modern record. The Catholic Church certainly still makes such assertions, so whether you want to believe that these things are happening or not, they haven't actually disappeared from the record.

I also wouldn't immediately assume that people who claim to witness miracles are telling lies. Between confirmation bias, the way we can rewrite memories to fit expectations, and other psychological factors, there are better naturalistic approaches to miracles out there than the assumption that people are just making things up.

We have a lot of experience in people answering their metaphysical questions by simply making up stories. We don't have many people who take metaphysical positions that are demonstrated true.

You do the math. What does experience and history teach us about how humanity approaches metaphysics via religion?

I am not really sure what you're trying to say. What metaphysical position has been demonstrated to be true? What is problematic about humanity approaching metaphysics via religion?

I'm merely saying that taking the wager seriously and interpreting Christianity as stated in the light of it, shines a very bad light on Christianity in general. We would have to believe some seriously messed up stuff about God to take both of those ideas seriously enough to act upon them.

How so? The wager is really just a stand in for a benefit-risk assessment; it doesn't actually require any specific interpretation of Christianity. How precisely you would formulate the wager depends on your theology, not the reverse.
 
Upvote 0