Pascal's Wager

[dreadnought]

Are you a universalist?

You would have to define "universalist" for me.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

You would have to define "universalist" for me.

"Christian Universalism is a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation- the view that all human beings will ultimately be restored to a right relationship with God."

Christian Universalism - Wikipedia

But that's aside the point. I'm assuming you aren't since your profile says "United Methodist".

I only asked because you seemed to indicate that you don't believe any particular group will go to hell. OP's original point was about a hypothetical in which you get to the afterlife and find out that whatever god is there condemns you for not believing in them specifically. It's a purely imaginary situation just to point out how silly Pascal's Wager really is - because when put in the hypothetical situation that the religion of the reader is wrong, whatever religion that may be, most people would suddenly find it unethical. So it's trying to get people to see that if the god that they believe in does so (in their belief), and they said it would be unethical, then they believe that their own god is unethical.

So I'm just confused as to what exactly your point is. At first you said that we don't "pick" which god to believe in, then you seemed to get really stuck on not responding to OP's question about the morality of hell because you don't believe his/her hypothetical situation to be real (even though it's just a hypothetical...).

If you don't believe that God will allow someone to go to hell just because they don't believe in Him, then great, you're not in the demographic OP was addressing with this thread. If you do believe that God will do that, then just imagine go along with this thought expiriment as just that... a thought expiriment.

 

[dreadnought]

"Christian Universalism is a school of Christian theology focused around the doctrine of universal reconciliation- the view that all human beings will ultimately be restored to a right relationship with God."

Christian Universalism - Wikipedia

But that's aside the point. I'm assuming you aren't since your profile says "United Methodist".

I only asked because you seemed to indicate that you don't believe any particular group will go to hell. OP's original point was about a hypothetical in which you get to the afterlife and find out that whatever god is there condemns you for not believing in them specifically. It's a purely imaginary situation just to point out how silly Pascal's Wager really is - because when put in the hypothetical situation that the religion of the reader is wrong, whatever religion that may be, most people would suddenly find it unethical. So it's trying to get people to see that if the god that they believe in does so (in their belief), and they said it would be unethical, then they believe that their own god is unethical.

So I'm just confused as to what exactly your point is. At first you said that we don't "pick" which god to believe in, then you seemed to get really stuck on not responding to OP's question about the morality of hell because you don't believe his/her hypothetical situation to be real (even though it's just a hypothetical...).

If you don't believe that God will allow someone to go to hell just because they don't believe in Him, then great, you're not in the demographic OP was addressing with this thread. If you do believe that God will do that, then just imagine go along with this thought expiriment as just that... a thought expiriment.

If throughout all eternity I refuse to repent, then throughout all eternity I will suffer. Who is dumb enough to do that, though?

 

[looking_for_answers_]

If throughout all eternity I refuse to repent, then throughout all eternity I will suffer. Who is dumb enough to do that, though?

OP's question was "Do you think <Shiva> would be morally correct to punish you <for not specifically believing in Shiva while you were alive>?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your answer is a simple "yes". Whether or not this is the case is aside from OP's point; again, OP was just asking a hypothetical question, not trying to start a discussion about which god is the real one, or whether we're all just worshipping the same god with different names, or whether god is likely to give us a chance to repent after death...

In his hypothetical question, you do not get the chance to repent after death. If you personally do believe that God will give people the chance to repent after seeing him face-to-face, then great. But you're not the demographic that this question was meant for.

 

[dreadnought]

OP's question was "Do you think <Shiva> would be morally correct to punish you <for not specifically believing in Shiva while you were alive>?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems your answer is a simple "yes". Whether or not this is the case is aside from OP's point; again, OP was just asking a hypothetical question, not trying to start a discussion about which god is the real one, or whether we're all just worshipping the same god with different names, or whether god is likely to give us a chance to repent after death...

In his hypothetical question, you do not get the chance to repent after death. If you personally do believe that God will give people the chance to repent after seeing him face-to-face, then great. But you're not the demographic that this question was meant for.

No, my answer is no. There is only one real God, and we're all smart enough to figure that out, and know who that God is. It isn't a secret.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

No, my answer is no. There is only one real God, and we're all smart enough to figure that out, and know who that God is. It isn't a secret.

So you don't believe in a God who would judge non-believers. Perhaps I am reading OP's original post wrong, but he seems to very clearly be targeting his question to people who do believe in a god that would do this, since that's exactly what the god in his story does:
Pascal's Wager

 

[dreadnought]

So you don't believe in a God who would judge non-believers. Perhaps I am reading OP's original post wrong, but he seems to very clearly be targeting his question to people who do believe in a god that would do this, since that's exactly what the god in his story does:
Pascal's Wager

But he seems to be saying that all beings claiming to be God are similar in character, and we have to be very lucky to guess which one is the real one. In truth, the real God is motivated by love, a trait unique to him among the gods.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

But he seems to be saying that all beings claiming to be God are similar in character, and we have to be very lucky to guess which one is the real one. In truth, the real God is motivated by love, a trait unique to him among the gods.

He is making a hypothetical, not a statement of belief. His profile says "atheist" so he clearly is not saying that. What he's saying is "if there is a god, and he/she/it were to judge you based on a lucky guess, would that be ethical?" You are saying "that's not what God is like". He is just pointing out the contradiction in believing that God is both loving and also condemnds non-believers to hell. Nowhere does OP actually make any statements about God. His tag is "atheist"...

 

[dreadnought]

He is making a hypothetical, not a statement of belief. His profile says "atheist" so he clearly is not saying that. What he's saying is "if there is a god, and he/she/it were to judge you based on a lucky guess, would that be ethical?" You are saying "that's not what God is like". He is just pointing out the contradiction in believing that God is both loving and also condemnds non-believers to hell. Nowhere does OP actually make any statements about God. His tag is "atheist"...

I think that IS he is saying.

 

[looking_for_answers_]

I think that IS he is saying.

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

He's taking the idea that, as most Christians believe, Yahweh would judge someone for not believing in Him, and exposing the inconsistency with also saying Yahweh is loving by creating a hypothetical in which Shiva turns out to be real. Nowhere does he argue that this is actually the case.

He's an atheist. He doesn't believe in God. Atheists don't believe God exists. Therefore he is not actually trying to argue anything about God's nature. He is not a Christian. He does not believe that God is real. Since he does not believe God is real, then he clearly cannot be trying to argue anything about the nature of God

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are Christians so quick to lay the blame for this at the feet of atheists?

Christians throwing this at us atheists are inevitably using the "distorted" version of Pascal's Wager as an argument for belief. It's not us Atheists that bring it up. Having said that I find Pascal's dismissal of other religions entirely vacuous, and as such the "which God" rebuttal still holds water.

Ok. So then, IF you atheists KNOW that some Christians are actually distorting Pascal's Wager in a way in which Pascal wouldn't have approved, then perhaps THAT is what you all need to bring up first instead of saying things like, "Pascal's Wager is such a farce ...!," or some other, similar line.

Personally, I may not agree completely with everything Pascal says in dismissing the other World Religions, but I think he still got the essential point across. And I say this, and I think that John Loftus' position is not withstanding.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok. So then, IF you atheists KNOW that some Christians are actually distorting Pascal's Wager in a way in which Pascal wouldn't have approved, then perhaps THAT is what you all need to bring up first instead of saying things like, "Pascal's Wager is such a farce ...!," or some other, similar line.

Personally, I may not agree completely with everything Pascal says in dismissing the other World Religions, but I think he still got the essential point across. And I say this, and I think that John Loftus' position is not withstanding.

It would be neat if we could stop fighting about the Wager for once and actually address the underlying issues: is game theory an appropriate method of religious decision making? What are the merits of an argument for belief that is entirely existential rather than evidentiary?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It would be neat if we could stop fighting about the Wager for once and actually address the underlying issues: is game theory an appropriate method of religious decision making? What are the merits of an argument for belief that is entirely existential rather than evidentiary?

"Certainly we were talking too lightly and easily about these things a fortnight ago. We were playing with counters. One used to be told as a child: 'Think what you are saying'. Apparently we also need to be told: 'Think what you are thinking'. The stakes have to be raised before we take the game quite seriously. I know this is the opposite of what is often said about the necessity of keeping all emotion out of our intellectual processes - 'You can't think straight unless you are cool'. But then neither can you think deep if you are. I suppose one must try every problem in both states. You remember that the ancient Persians debated everything twice: once when they were drunk and once when they were sober." - CS Lewis, Letters to Malcolm.

I think game theory has its place, as does cool intellectualising. It is however not the only part of the problem. Faith does not arise from this, of which Pascal was well aware. You can batter at the doors of Paradise with Virgil at your side, but Beatrice needs to let you in.

This is a big part of the substantial failure of understanding in this thread. There is a lot of cross purposes here.

 

[Tanj]

Ok. So then, IF you atheists KNOW that some Christians are actually distorting Pascal's Wager in a way in which Pascal wouldn't have approved

Is the issue Pascal's disapproval, or yours?

then perhaps THAT is what you all need to bring up first instead of saying things like, "Pascal's Wager is such a farce ...!," or some other, similar line.

I didn't say that. I responded to your self righteous misplacement of the blame onto atheists.

Personally, I may not agree completely with everything Pascal says in dismissing the other World Religions, but I think he still got the essential point across. And I say this, and I think that John Loftus' position is not withstanding.

Well I agree with his position that you cannot reason yourself (or anyone else) into belief, but his axiomatic assumptions about the nature of God together with a hand wave dismissal of alternatives makes the rest of his point invalid. I think his "fake it till you make it" really only applies to Catholicism. Protestants don't have enough ritual.

His contribution to math, on the other hand, was awesome.

 

[Strathos]

If throughout all eternity I refuse to repent, then throughout all eternity I will suffer. Who is dumb enough to do that, though?

Satan.

 

[dreadnought]

Satan.

That opens up an entirely new subject.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It would be neat if we could stop fighting about the Wager for once and actually address the underlying issues: is game theory an appropriate method of religious decision making? What are the merits of an argument for belief that is entirely existential rather than evidentiary?

Yes, that! And perhaps that if people are actually going to handle the Wager as something that conceptually belongs to Pascal, then they could treat in in the full context as if it actually does belong to Pascal.

Otherwise, I think we can just call it, 'The Wager of Belief,' apart from Pascal, and in which case, being that it really would be a cheap impetus for belief unto faith, I'd also side with the atheists if all we are going to do is play with a game theory.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, that! And perhaps that if people are actually going to handle the Wager as something that conceptually belongs to Pascal, then they could treat in in the full context as if it actually does belong to Pascal.

Otherwise, I think we can just call it, 'The Wager of Belief,' apart from Pascal, and in which case, being that it really would be a cheap impetus for belief unto faith, I'd also side with the atheists if all we are going to do is play with a game theory.

Depends on how you view game theory. In this context, I would just see it as a formalization of an internal, usually unconscious decision making process. I have control issues when it comes to theism--I want a perfectly argued grounds for belief that is epistemologically stronger than the cogito, and obviously that's not possible. I find Pascal's Wager interesting because it's an approach that challenges all of our Enlightenment value judgments. There are two possibilities: either the universe has ultimate meaning or it does not. What is to be gained by assuming that it does not simply because we cannot prove empirically that it does? Why should this be the default position? And that goes back to game theory.

Pascal is great for people who have emotional rather than intellectual barriers to faith. I'm not sure why people try to spring him on atheists, though--I don't think he's the type of philosopher you can really understand if you're not already sympathetic towards theism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends on how you view game theory. In this context, I would just see it as a formalization of an internal, usually unconscious decision making process. I have control issues when it comes to theism--I want a perfectly argued grounds for belief that is epistemologically stronger than the cogito, and obviously that's not possible. I find Pascal's Wager interesting because it's an approach that challenges all of our Enlightenment value judgments. There are two possibilities: either the universe has ultimate meaning or it does not. What is to be gained by assuming that it does not simply because we cannot prove empirically that it does? Why should this be the default position? And that goes back to game theory.

Pascal is great for people who have emotional rather than intellectual barriers to faith. I'm not sure why people try to spring him on atheists, though--I don't think he's the type of philosopher you can really understand if you're not already sympathetic towards theism.

I actually don't spring Pascal's Wager on anyone in any kind of challenging way. Not really. Besides, both you and I know (and Pascal really knew, too) that there isn't a real need for the Wager.

Rather, as you were saying, it is meant to be a kind of emotional facilitator for those who feel that they would like to believe but have a difficult time doing so. It was never meant to be applied to hardened Skeptics as some kind of placebo for faith, which is something some Christians, and even some atheists, seem to intend to make it out to be when they use (or misuse) it.

I don't think Pascal puts as much weight on the Wager as it is often represented that he does, which is one reason I think the Wager makes up such a small amount of the Pensees. As we know, Pascal has many other arguments to make, too. But whether we agree with him in all that he states is, of course, another matter.

I just get tired of seeing people cite "Pascal's Wager" and then throw darts at it simply because they misunderstand it, and then assume everything else that Pascal said must be malarkey. To me, the way in which Pascal gets handled when he is misinterpreted is kind of like how the things Paul said to Timothy about women's status before men are mishandled and misinterpreted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is the issue Pascal's disapproval, or yours?

...I think it's pretty clear in the Pensees as to why and how Pascal thinks skeptics and unbelievers disagree with him.

I didn't say that. I responded to your self righteous misplacement of the blame onto atheists.

I didn't intend to come across as self-righteous---rather, I was actually going for "adamant." Regardless, this thread was started by an atheist, and I noticed within the OP the usual mishandling of Pascal's Wager. It seems that everyone treats the Wager as something one can come to and consider just out of the blue all by itself without first considering all the other stuff Pascal stated in the Pensees. I think to do so is a mistake, one which rips it from its overall contexts. However, I do realize that Christians are often at fault for misusing it in similar ways.

Well I agree with his position that you cannot reason yourself (or anyone else) into belief, but his axiomatic assumptions about the nature of God together with a hand wave dismissal of alternatives makes the rest of his point invalid. I think his "fake it till you make it" really only applies to Catholicism. Protestants don't have enough ritual.

It's fine with me if you don't find Pascal's Wager useful. Besides, it was not really meant to be applied to someone like yourself. 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. So, you're kind of making some of the same erroneous insinuation here that I'm pointing to ...

His contribution to math, on the other hand, was awesome.

...yes, you're right about that.