New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Dmitri Martila]

No, I think they're legitimate questions. They are applicable to any religion where faith in certain deity(s) or doctrines is central to the ultimate goal.

I have not violated my mind while being Eastern Orthodox Christian. I have no blind faith. So the question remains: "Why I am trusting own mind?" The obvious answer: I am not in a mental hospital, moreover I have achievements in Physics and the Church life. So, I am not crazy for sure.

 

[bhsmte]

I have not violated my mind while being Eastern Orthodox Christian. I have no blind faith. So the question remains: "Why I am trusting own mind?" The obvious answer: I am not in a mental hospital, moreover I have achievements in Physics and the Church life. So, I am not crazy for sure.

You don't think people are crazy who disagree with your religious beliefs, do you?

 

[ananda]

I have not violated my mind while being Eastern Orthodox Christian. I have no blind faith. So the question remains: "Why I am trusting own mind?" The obvious answer: I am not in a mental hospital, moreover I have achievements in Physics and the Church life. So, I am not crazy for sure.

What is the hard evidence for your non-blind faith? That's what I'm asking. I'm not questioning your sanity.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

What is the hard evidence for your non-blind faith? That's what I'm asking. I'm not questioning your sanity.

Too many questions make me stop. Too many questions means the fact: they are rhetoric ones.

 

[bhsmte]

Too many questions make me stop. Too many questions means the fact: they are rhetoric ones.

Evasion is noted.

If you haven't noticed, when you make claims on this part of CF, you will be asked to support them.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

What is the hard evidence for your non-blind faith? That's what I'm asking. I'm not questioning your sanity.

The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.
I have not violated my mind in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Thus, my path is mind-full. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

How one could violate the mind? Consider mental cases. If man believes, what he is Jesus,
then tell him from Bible. Or ask him to talk in Spanish. If man believes, what he is king, then ask him about his blue-blooded relatives.

 

[bhsmte]

The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.
I have not violated my mind in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Thus, my path is mind-full. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

How one could violate the mind? Consider mental cases. If man believes, what he is Jesus,
then tell him from Bible. Or ask him to talk in Spanish. If man believes, what he is king, then ask him about his blue-blooded relatives.

Would this then mean; anyone who disagrees with you, is a mindless fool?

 

[ananda]

The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.
I have not violated my mind in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Thus, my path is mind-full. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

How one could violate the mind? Consider mental cases. If man believes, what he is Jesus,
then tell him from Bible. Or ask him to talk in Spanish. If man believes, what he is king, then ask him about his blue-blooded relatives.

I can say the same about my non-Eastern Orthodox faith.

 

[gord44]

I have not violated my mind while being Eastern Orthodox Christian. I have no blind faith. So the question remains: "Why I am trusting own mind?" The obvious answer: I am not in a mental hospital, moreover I have achievements in Physics and the Church life. So, I am not crazy for sure.

Myths and stories become fact to a man after a lifetime of practice. Doesn't mean anyone's crazy. If you have been EO your entire life then it is no doubt a fact for you, but to others it's just a story.

 

[Received]

Pascal's Wager is pretty misunderstood. He's not making an argument for God. He's saying it's better to believe in God than not believe in him in terms of a payoff. It's also very important to note that Pascal -- and this shows his psychological brilliance hundreds of years ahead of his time -- said in the same passage that you come to believe in God not so much by wading through proofs but (also?) through engaging with the practices of Christianity, and through practice you come to believe it. Contemporary psychotherapists call this "acting as if", and there's real wisdom in this, because it seems like things like muscle memory and somatic memories indicate that our bodies have a sort of intelligence that our mind doesn't. Pascal is brilliant, and (even though he reeks of the old semi-Reformed terrible-sinner-am-I theology) his Pensees is a masterpiece of philosophy and theology -- absolutely one of my very favorite books.

Of course, it's questionable that you don't really lose anything if you believe in God and he doesn't exist and this life is all there is. What if your conception of theism means you don't live your life fully because the commandments of your brand of theism? Living this life at 50% if there is no afterlife means you've lost half of everything, because if there is no afterlife then this finite life is everything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I intentionally referred to Pascal's Wager. As far as the individual man, I have little interest in him. I was simply speaking about his famous little gambit that has been shown to be philosophically irrelevant for quite some time.

Sure, I agree. Pascal's little philosophical exercise in probability can't provide a catalyst for the development of 'faith'---but, it wasn't intended to. Yet, it seems that many people who consider his Wager (usually with disdain) also end up thinking that he somehow thought the Wager itself would support 'faith.'

I end up wondering, "Are we reading the same Wager?" And I surmise the answer is, 'No', because when I read it, I read it in the entire context of the whole series in which it is placed, while others apparently lift it out of context, isolate it, and then proceed to beat it like a dead horse. ...So much for the importance of hermeneutics.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Dave Ellis]

indeed,

the wager was mainly having to do with the fact that,

fire insurance is fire insurance.

you are insuring your future against the damage of fire as in any fire insurance claim of today,

he merely is stating that if an athiest is wrong, they have a real fire to contend to, if we are wrong, we are simply mistaken.

so in the classic case of the idea that Christianity is not fireinsurance,

in it's raw basic gospel element, it is actually fire insurance.

and if I am not mistaken that is really what the gist of what he was saying was all about.

to pull little quotes of one or two words out of main stream thought and use it as proof text for something opposite, is at very best, shoddy research.

but then again we all do that at some point,

I do it with some evolutionists as they question their evolution,

while some may use the above quotes to question pascals wager.

but again the wager was as follows, if we lose, we still win,

if an athiest loses, they have some damages to contend with.

thus the need to be insured against, and hedge against such a volititle time as judgement day.

Christ blood is our hedge.

That's a very binary way of looking at it.

If the Muslims have it right, then Christians have it worse for worshipping a competing god as opposed to the atheists who were just unfamiliar with the "true god's word".

In other words, if various other gods exist, atheists might not have a fire at all, whereas the Christians might have a raging inferno to deal with.

That's another of the basic failings of Pascal's Wager.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Brother, you have not quite global picture: Jesus has used logic. See: Jesus says, what God is not God of dead people, thus, there is no death. It is divine wisdom. See here my new product, because Jesus says, what they will hear not only His, but also our words.

Hawking's idea is debunked: the mystery of Origin remains

Wikipedia: "The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."

Suppose there is law: today at 12.30 on my desk will appear book on itself. This violates the law of energy conservation, thus it is impossible. But it is infinitely more impossible, if prior to 12.30 there is no time at all. Why? 1) It is extra complication: must appear not only book, but the time itself. And for sure, the energy conservation can not be applied in this NATURAL event. Thus, latter is impossible. 2) Any law connects two known states. But state without time is not known.

The laws of the universe apply to things within the universe.

What reason do you have to believe the laws of the universe would matter at all in regards to the creation of the universe itself?

 

[Davian]

Pascal's Wager is pretty misunderstood. He's not making an argument for God. He's saying it's better to believe in God than not believe in him in terms of a payoff. It's also very important to note that Pascal -- and this shows his psychological brilliance hundreds of years ahead of his time -- said in the same passage that you come to believe in God not so much by wading through proofs but (also?) through engaging with the practices of Christianity, and through practice you come to believe it. Contemporary psychotherapists call this "acting as if", and there's real wisdom in this, because it seems like things like muscle memory and somatic memories indicate that our bodies have a sort of intelligence that our mind doesn't. Pascal is brilliant, and (even though he reeks of the old semi-Reformed terrible-sinner-am-I theology) his Pensees is a masterpiece of philosophy and theology -- absolutely one of my very favorite books.

So he is not making an argument for a god, but for belief. And, not an argument for reality.

Of course, it's questionable that you don't really lose anything if you believe in God

I suppose it would depend on which concept of "God". It would seem that it may come at the cost of one's intellectual integrity.

and he doesn't exist and this life is all there is. What if your conception of theism means you don't live your life fully because the commandments of your brand of theism? Living this life at 50% if there is no afterlife means you've lost half of everything, because if there is no afterlife then this finite life is everything.

Can you lose only 50% of your intellectual integrity?

 

[Received]

So he is not making an argument for a god, but for belief. And, not an argument for reality.

Sort of. If you stretch it out and apply it to daily life, he's not really making a special argument at all. Should I ask this girl out? Well, I'll gain everything if I do and she says yes and only lose just a little bit if I ask and she says no, whereas I gain nothing if I don't ask her out. He's just applying this pragmatic reasoning to God. You could apply it to anything.

I suppose it would depend on which concept of "God". It would seem that it may come at the cost of one's intellectual integrity.

Can you lose only 50% of your intellectual integrity?

Yeah, why not? I think there's a lot more at stake than just intellectual integrity, btw, if you get the bottom of the barrel with God conceptions.

 

[Received]

The problem with the wager is Pascal assumes we lose nothing if we believe in God and God doesn't exist. If the conception of God in question causes us to give up any value for this world (which probably wasn't what Pascal had in mind, but a whole lot of religious people do), and this world is it, no afterlife at all, then we do in fact come close to losing "everything" if we believe in God and he doesn't exist.

 

[Black Dog]

The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.

I understand what you are saying, that non-believers are mindless. I would bet nearly every atheist here thinks the opposite. I won't say who is right, but I do know which side has worked long and hard to figure out what to believe and what not to believe. I'll trust that side.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The problem with the wager is Pascal assumes we lose nothing if we believe in God and God doesn't exist. If the conception of God in question causes us to give up any value for this world (which probably wasn't what Pascal had in mind, but a whole lot of religious people do), and this world is it, no afterlife at all, then we do in fact come close to losing "everything" if we believe in God and he doesn't exist.

A more serious problem is that it assumes that quantity trumps quality. An finite life lived with integrity is arguably better than an infinite life lived without integrity. A finite life could perhaps be seen as having "infinite" value if it contains what is most sacred to oneself.

That said, I think that Pascal's Wager makes more sense as a spiritual exercise for people who want to believe (but have difficulties) rather than a knock out punch against people who are content to be atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.

True.

I have not violated my mind in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps, though I wouldn't bet on it. I'm not an expert, but based on what I have read Eastern Orthodox Christianity strikes me as mystically-based. Reason is like a lapdog: when it barks at the right people, you give it a treat. If it barks at the wrong people, you smack it on the nose with a newspaper. It is a non-rational (mystical, revelatory, "just knowing") connection to God that is the main focus.

Thus, my path is mind-full. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

That doesn't follow at all. Some people can be mind-full, and yet honestly mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Brother Dmitri,...

According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI [Many Worlds Interpretation] have two different interpretations: real or unreal;....we Christians have to assume otherwise than Hawking and Mlodinow do (or as many other physicists do).​

Thank you for sharing your logical deductions with me. You have given me something to think about...

Suppose we have Universe. Its time is continuous, because otherwise we have not the universe, but large collection of tiny parallel universes. Each one has zero volume.

Therefore, it is infinite number of time moments, in which pen on my desk will be taken. Therefore, number of Many Worlds is actual infinity. Latter can not be linked to physical objects. Therefore, the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics is not real.

Secondly, the wormhole connects different universes. Thus, the MWI is in conflict with No-Clone theorem.

As you see, many things can be proved with mind application. See: we are 100 pro certain, what Bible is true. Therefore Jesus's Revelation is the 100 pro proof.