Pascal's Wager

[Tanj]

However, by saying that his Wager has something to do with "fake it till you make it" is pretty much the kind of misconstrual of his Wager that I find problematic.

You what now?

Care to explain the meaning of this?

Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You what now?

Care to explain the meaning of this?

Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.

Sure. The first exegetical point to make in applying hermeneutical analysis to this (partial) quote you've pulled out of the Pensées is: we need to know to whom this bit is addressed. Is Pascal addressing just anyone here? Furthermore, in order for us to find out, we need to know from which Pensée this quote is taken and of which it forms a coherent part.

At this point, we need to do additional exegetical work, and if we do our initial study correctly, I think we'll find that this quote comes toward the end of Pensée #233 (depending on which version of his collection you have). Then, with this in mind, we will do well to see what Pascal states from the beginning of #233 in order to capture the meaningful trajectory of the entire pericope from which you've quoted.

We will do even better, hermeneutically speaking, to take into account of the fact that Pascal's various Pensées are interlaced by his allusions and inferences to other of the Pensées in his overall collected writings, something that isn't easy to do since the Pensées were never formerly and finally ordered in a comprehensive fashion before Pascal died at the tender age of 39. So, if we take some his inferences into account, we make want to note that #184-232 also come to bear upon the overall meaning of #233, particularly where #194 and #195 are concerned.

Would you agree with what I propose in handling Pensée #233, Tanj?

 

[Tanj]

Sure. The first exegetical point to make in applying hermeneutical analysis to this (partial) quote you've pulled out of the Pensées is: we need to know to whom this bit is addressed. Is Pascal addressing just anyone here? Furthermore, in order for us to find out, we need to know from which Pensée this quote is taken and of which it forms a coherent part.

At this point, we need to do additional exegetical work, and if we do our initial study correctly, I think we'll find that this quote comes toward the end of Pensée #233 (depending on which version of his collection you have). Then, with this in mind, we will do well to see what Pascal states from the beginning of #233 in order to capture the meaningful trajectory of the entire pericope from which you've quoted.

We will do even better, hermeneutically speaking, to take into account of the fact that Pascal's various Pensées are interlaced by his allusions and inferences to other of the Pensées in his overall collected writings, something that isn't easy to do since the Pensées were never formerly and finally ordered in a comprehensive fashion before Pascal died at the tender age of 39. So, if we take some his inferences into account, we make want to note that #184-232 also come to bear upon the overall meaning of #233, particularly where #194 and #195 are concerned.

Would you agree with what I propose in handling Pensée #233, Tanj?

You didn't answer my question. Honestly though, your silly gordian knot non answer means I am out. I had the clearly misfounded hope you could actually talk sensibly about this topic, my next question would have been if you see any influence of Aquinas' concept of virtue in Pascal's writings, but instead I'll just say bye.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You didn't answer my question. Honestly though, your silly gordian knot non answer means I am out. I had the clearly misfounded hope you could actually talk sensibly about this topic, my next question would have been if you see any influence of Aquinas' concept of virtue in Pascal's writings, but instead I'll just say bye.

..................as I said, it's particularly cogent where Pensées #194 and #195 are concerned. Bye, bye.

 

[Par5]

Sure. The first exegetical point to make in applying hermeneutical analysis to this (partial) quote you've pulled out of the Pensées is: we need to know to whom this bit is addressed. Is Pascal addressing just anyone here? Furthermore, in order for us to find out, we need to know from which Pensée this quote is taken and of which it forms a coherent part.

At this point, we need to do additional exegetical work, and if we do our initial study correctly, I think we'll find that this quote comes toward the end of Pensée #233 (depending on which version of his collection you have). Then, with this in mind, we will do well to see what Pascal states from the beginning of #233 in order to capture the meaningful trajectory of the entire pericope from which you've quoted.

We will do even better, hermeneutically speaking, to take into account of the fact that Pascal's various Pensées are interlaced by his allusions and inferences to other of the Pensées in his overall collected writings, something that isn't easy to do since the Pensées were never formerly and finally ordered in a comprehensive fashion before Pascal died at the tender age of 39. So, if we take some his inferences into account, we make want to note that #184-232 also come to bear upon the overall meaning of #233, particularly where #194 and #195 are concerned.

Would you agree with what I propose in handling Pensée #233, Tanj?

No, I still prefer Coca Cola to Pepsi!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I still prefer Coca Cola to Pepsi!

That's fine if you prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi! However, like Pascal, some of us have, shall I say, more sophisticated taste!

 

[Par5]

That's fine if you prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi! However, like Pascal, some of us have, shall I say, more sophisticated taste!
Well, at least my less sophisticated choice does not carry with it the threat that should I make the wrong choice of drink there is a possibility that I will end up as fuel, for all eternity, in some demonic furnace. That sort of sophistication I will leave to those who enjoy fantasy while I enjoy a coke. It's the real thing!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm an Annihilationist, so I don't think anyone who doesn't believe will ultimately end up as 'fuel' for the fire. Rather, that person will get what they deserve ..... and if you think about it, they really will get what they want in the end (at least, that's what I keep hearing from various Ex-Christians...)

 

[Noxot]

Atheists get asked about this a lot, so I wanted to ask it from a different position.

So Judgement day arrives for you, you see a light and follow it. As your eyes come accustom to the light you see a figure sat on a chair, you can feel is divinity.

So far so good, there is an afterlife and your off to Heaven, but …

...Sat in that chair is a huge figure with the body of a man and the head of an Elephant, Lord Ganesha – Lord of Beginnings and Remover of Obstacles, Lord of the Ganas, Son of Shiva (the Supreme Being).
Who would have know that the oldest of the main religions was actually right.

To make matters worst he is not a happy camper, and his anger is directed towards you,

“How could you have rejected the true Gods?”
“All the signs have been placed before you”
“how could you have worshiped a false God,”
“How could you have not known when 70 million others followed the true path?”

What are you going to say?
Do you think he would be morally correct to punish you (or Shiva if you object to his son dishing out punishments)?

no he would not be morally correct because he treats me like i'm someone lower than himself.

I would probably try to leave and find someplace that is better. I think that there are deceptive spirits in the other world that try to gain control over people (many are already in chains to various evils spirits in our own world), which is why it's very important to have a good idea of what is really good and what is plain evil and to also have a good nature rather than a bad one. I will no doubt go to a place that is like my own nature, be that for the good or for the bad.

if God is not worth it then he's not worth it and if i'm not worth it to God then nothing could ever matter anyways. an unjust God that hates me is the worst possible outcome for reality. I include other people as "me" in some sense and I would equally not love God if he mistreated others beside myself as well. I think that God loves this attribute of mine, so i'm happy that at least this part of me is good.

I have little regard for authoritarians, for people that follow someone only because of threats and overwhelming force and fear. there is a huge difference in hellish authority and in heavenly authority.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm an Annihilationist, so I don't think anyone who doesn't believe will ultimately end up as 'fuel' for the fire. Rather, that person will get what they deserve ..... and if you think about it, they really will get what they want in the end (at least, that's what I keep hearing from various Ex-Christians...)

But annihilation would deprive Christians the pleasure of knowing that non believers will be suffering eternally. At least, that’s what I keep hearing from various Christians...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But annihilation would deprive Christians the pleasure of knowing that non believers will be suffering eternally. At least, that’s what I keep hearing from various Christians...

Yeah, I hear that from some of them, too ... not that I'm impressed by their comments. I keep in mind that their feeling that way has little to do with whether or not they've done their hermeneutical and exegetical homework correctly. Apparently, they've missed that little bit way back in the Old Testament where God seems to imply that He "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekial 18:23), although He may still snicker at their futile attempts to rebel while they're still alive. (Psalm 2)

 

[apogee]

Just spare a thought for God, he's gotta spend eternity with some of those guys.. apparently.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

although He may still snicker at their futile attempts to rebel while they're still alive. (Psalm 2)

Sounds like Emperor Palpatine...

 

[Noxot]

i'm not the pascal/pragmatic save my butt from hell kind of guy.

i'm more the soren kierkegaard/existentialist leap of faith kind of believer.

but I think the pragmatic approach is more common at the start of the faith. the highest heaven is love/goodness. without this divine love/goodness wisdom/truth becomes cut off from what feeds it and it starts to die. the modern world seems to be more concerned about truth and less concerned with goodness.