The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager

[Kaon]

Do you realize that in this you're simply making "just so" statements, but without actually demonstrating epistemologically that Pascal is wrong OR that you're definitively correct?

I can understand wanting to dispense with Pascal. That's fine. You can do so. But doing so in and of itself doesn't indicate to your interlocutor that you've actually fully engaged or even understood Pascal. Have you by chance read his short writing, number #229?

Anyway, I don't rely on Pascal even though I like much of what he says; it's just that he could be seen as an earlier, even sophomoric attempt at describing things in a way that comports with today's Philosophical Hermeneuticists.

Ok.

 

[Kylie]

Sure, but for the moment I'm going to hold off from pasting anything so that you and I can discuss the nature of Pascal's argument and the importance of the overall context of its connection to other things Pascal writes in his Pensees.

Why? We're discussing your claim that the wager is primarily intended for people who want to believe and yet don't have the evidence they require. Why finish that discussion? Please, feel free to point out what parts of the wager support that claim.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why? We're discussing your claim that the wager is primarily intended for people who want to believe and yet don't have the evidence they require. Why finish that discussion? Please, feel free to point out what parts of the wager support that claim.

Why? Because that discussion is fully contextualized by Pascal's overall meaning, and we don't properly interpret sentences by extricating them from the surrounding contexts, some of which may include prior inferences, conjoined concepts, certain semantics or syntactical considerations in the structure of the statements involved. What you need to admit, first, is that hermeneutics applies to any human communication and isn't a concept reserved for "reading the Bible."

And as I said previously, Pascal's Wager is also situated in larger contexts in how it relates to other of the Pensees in the collection; it isn't a stand-alone argument.

So, if you will allow all of that to be established first, then we can proceed. Easy. See?

 

[Kylie]

Why? Because that discussion is fully contextualized by Pascal's overall meaning, and we don't properly interpret sentences by extricating them from the surrounding contexts, some of which may include prior inferences, conjoined concepts, certain semantics or syntactical considerations in the structure of the statements involved. What you need to admit, first, is that hermeneutics applies to any human communication and isn't a concept reserved for "reading the Bible."

And as I said previously, Pascal's Wager is also situated in larger contexts in how it relates to other of the Pensees in the collection; it isn't a stand-alone argument.

So, if you will allow all of that to be established first, then we can proceed. Easy. See?

Are you saying that Pascal's Wager isn't about betting that God exists because you lose nothing but gain everything?

Because if it is basically saying that, we can get to your added claim that it is intended only for those who want to believe but don't have sufficient evidence. For someone who made the claim so strongly, I don't see why you should address this issue. I think most everyone here is familiar with the basic idea of Pascal's Wager.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you saying that Pascal's Wager isn't about betting that God exists because you lose nothing but gain everything?

No, it is about betting that God exists, but Pascal is not saying that after a person makes the bet, they are doing so as a form of belief.

Because if it is basically saying that, we can get to your added claim that it is intended only for those who want to believe but don't have sufficient evidence. For someone who made the claim so strongly, I don't see why you should address this issue. I think most everyone here is familiar with the basic idea of Pascal's Wager.

Obviously, many don't or they wouldn't be repeating the same interpretive mistake that so many before have already made. But, let's look at what Pascal says in the dialetical dialogue he has with a fictitious interlocutor toward the end of his Wager, and I'll hi-lite in red those parts that semantically indicate that all that Pascal's Wager leads a person to do is simply allow himself or herself to be placed in such a position that it will be more conducive to the later formation of belief (and afterward, that, faith):

‘Quite; but my hand are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to wager, and am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot believe. What then do you wish me to do?​

That is true. But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions. You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies. Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally cause you to believe and bunt your cleverness. ‘But that is what I fear.’ Why? What have you to lose? But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles.​

Here we see that the method involves "acting as if" one already believes, but without actually yet believing. Pascal indicates that the method can enable a person to later form belief, and thereby too, faith. Although I can understand how folks who read Pascal too quickly and not carefully enough could think that he 'means' to brainwash oneself from the beginning, that is definitely not what he means. He's simply saying that it would be more wise and prudent to bet that God does exist, even though we don't yet believe that He does, and thereby allow ourselves to go through various Christian interactions within and around the Christian Church and that can then enable a person to find belief (which, he says elsewhere, is actually the gift of God---usual Christian doctrine).

Therefore, the Wager itself DOES NOT equal a form of belief in and of itself. The Wager simply allows one to see the reasonable probability of even entertaining the idea that the Biblical God exist and that it can be prudent to "study" toward allaying the passions that cause disbelief.

So, comments? Questions?

 

[Kaon]

No, it is about betting that God exists, but Pascal is not saying that after a person makes the bet, they are doing so as a form of belief.

Obviously, many don't or they wouldn't be repeating the same interpretive mistake that so many before have already made. But, let's look at what Pascal says in the dialetical dialogue he has with a fictitious interlocutor toward the end of his Wager, and I'll hi-lite in red those parts that semantically indicate that all that Pascal's Wager leads a person to do is simply allow himself or herself to be placed in such a position that it will be more conducive to the later formation of belief (and afterward, that, faith):

‘Quite; but my hand are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to wager, and am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot believe. What then do you wish me to do?​

That is true. But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions. You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies. Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally cause you to believe and bunt your cleverness. ‘But that is what I fear.’ Why? What have you to lose? But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles.​

Here we see that the method involves "acting as if" one already believes, but without actually yet believing. Pascal indicates that the method can enable a person to later form belief, and thereby too, faith. Although I can understand how folks who read Pascal too quickly and not carefully enough could think that he 'means' to brainwash oneself from the beginning, that is definitely not what he means. He's simply saying that it would be more wise and prudent to bet that God does exist, even though we don't yet believe that He does, and thereby allow ourselves to go through various Christian interactions within and around the Christian Church and that can then enable a person to find belief (which, he says elsewhere, is actually the gift of God---usual Christian doctrine).

Therefore, the Wager itself DOES NOT equal a form of belief in and of itself. The Wager simply allows one to see the reasonable probability of even entertaining the idea that the Biblical God exist and that it can be prudent to "study" toward allaying the passions that cause disbelief.

So, comments? Questions?

I truly believe people understand it is not a equation for belief.

What bothers people is the presentation and implication. The options are a reflection of Pascal's own view of life - not any one believer or non-believer. And, this is what causes the problem.

There is no way to quantize the options one has in choosing what to believe, and who to follow. This is the folly of Pascal's academic background: that one would believe you can institutionalize a relationship. So, despite its attempt, it is set up to fail to answering the actual juxtaposition of existentialism and [the Most High] God.

Pascal is coming from a point of view of a Catholic and academic - so even if he has had experience with being an atheist, he is presenting an argument on existentialism and the nature of God as if it is a math problem. This would be fine if, as said, his options weren't centered in duality.

The commentary of the "wager" is typically ignored, because the quality of the wager is nonsensical. This philosophy of Pascal is sophomoric and myopic - perhaps for a purpose - because of its failure to actually tackle the crux of the existential problem (thinking, in general) and repackaging it into religious academia is what diminishes the philosophy.


As someone who has been an atheist, and then agnostic, it is pretentious of someone to even imply what the philosophy intimates. It is good for what it is, but used as an argument for or against God is an exercise in dialectic degeneracy. And, as someone who is as learned as he is, he should know better.

What of the spiritual influence of confusion and ignorance?
What about predestination, and prophecy of destiny?
What of the heavens, and the operation thereof when it comes to determining spiritual trajectory?
What of the Redeemer Himself - and how He has already said that many of us may come to Him, and He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."


Instead of academic approaches to what is supposed to be a relationship, there should have been a truthful approach to something so serious. The truth is that some people cannot believe, because they are already prepared for damnation. Little things like this diverge the point(s) of Pascal's wager; why does anyone care if the Most High God exists if they are hellbound? How can you care if He exists if you are incapable of believing in Him due to spiritual prophecy and "fate", as it were?

Again, Pascal's wager is good for what it is (academia/philosophy), but spiritual relationships aren't academic and really aren't philosophical. So, if someone wants a real, soul-saving answer, Pascal's wager won't do it. If you want to have some fun debating and discussing truth, and the idea of truth according to your own philosophy (dialectic), then Pascal's wager is excellent for what it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I truly believe people understand it is not a equation for belief.

What bothers people is the presentation and implication. The options are a reflection of Pascal's own view of life - not any one believer or non-believer. And, this is what causes the problem.

There is no way to quantize the options one has in choosing what to believe, and who to follow. This is the folly of Pascal's academic background: that one would believe you can institutionalize a relationship. So, despite its attempt, it is set up to fail to answering the actual juxtaposition of existentialism and [the Most High] God.

Pascal is coming from a point of view of a Catholic and academic - so even if he has had experience with being an atheist, he is presenting an argument on existentialism and the nature of God as if it is a math problem. This would be fine if, as said, his options weren't centered in duality.

The commentary of the "wager" is typically ignored, because the quality of the wager is nonsensical. This philosophy of Pascal is sophomoric and myopic - perhaps for a purpose - because of its failure to actually tackle the crux of the existential problem (thinking, in general) and repackaging it into religious academia is what diminishes the philosophy.


As someone who has been an atheist, and then agnostic, it is pretentious of someone to even imply what the philosophy intimates. It is good for what it is, but used as an argument for or against God is an exercise in dialectic degeneracy. And, as someone who is as learned as he is, he should know better.

What of the spiritual influence of confusion and ignorance?
What about predestination, and prophecy of destiny?
What of the heavens, and the operation thereof when it comes to determining spiritual trajectory?
What of the Redeemer Himself - and how He has already said that many of us may come to Him, and He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."


Instead of academic approaches to what is supposed to be a relationship, there should have been a truthful approach to something so serious. The truth is that some people cannot believe, because they are already prepared for damnation. Little things like this diverge the point(s) of Pascal's wager; why does anyone care if the Most High God exists if they are hellbound? How can you care if He exists if you are incapable of believing in Him due to spiritual prophecy and "fate", as it were?

Again, Pascal's wager is good for what it is (academia/philosophy), but spiritual relationships aren't academic and really aren't philosophical. So, if someone wants a real, soul-saving answer, Pascal's wager won't do it. If you want to have some fun debating and discussing truth, and the idea of truth according to your own philosophy (dialectic), then Pascal's wager is excellent for what it is.

And you've made all of these evaluations and conclusions after having read the entirety of Pascal's Pensees in wholistic, intercontextual, hermenuetic, even systematic fashion? You write very articulately, and with depth and apparent insight, so I would assume you have read it all, correct?

 

[Kaon]

And you've made all of these evaluations and conclusions after having read the entirety of Pascal's Pensees in wholistic, intercontextual, hermenuetic, even systematic fashion? You write very articulately, and with depth and apparent insight, so I would assume you have read it all, correct?

Not nearly all of it, no.

But, we are not talking about the quality of his body of work, or even the quality of his commentary about the nature of [The Most High] God. We are talking about the linguistic and philosophical problem with the structure of the wager in the first place - at least I am.

Consider this quote:

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists
​

But, this immediately gives the impression that all one has to do is believe to "gain all". In fact, the demons believe, and tremble. Faith, sanctification, repentance, and confession to the Most High God all contribute to your "gain" in spirit, and the action of the Redeemer (Resurrection) justifies our redemption. The idea that belief will "gain all" is what has led to the immense confusion about those who do evil in the name of the Most High God, and prosper even (while others who have faith suffer). This is what has people genuinely believing someone like Hitler was a Christian, or that there is No True Scotsman Christian - despite the fact that the definition of Christianity (and the Hebrew Prophecies) is that there IS a Human who is the Archetype Son of God.

Then, we have short-sighted assertion that says if you lose [the wager], you lose nothing. Another major point of Christianity (and the Hebrew prophecies) is if you "lose", you don't just die, you get abandoned to another dimension/plane of existence where you eventually degenerate to Death. Some believe this will be a literal fire that will consume you for eternity. These are just Christian consequences. If you die, and the Egyptian gods were the right gods, you go to Duat if you are denied Aaru (heaven) with Osiris. There are not flames there, but there are ghouls and demon like entities that will torment you for your remainder - on a moderate leash of the gods. That is arguably worse that living on this plane of existence, and that is assuming no Christian afterlife. There are a myriad of afterlives that could be worse that not believing in god, gods or the Most High God. The wrath of the flying spaghetti moster may befall all of us soon for our lack of belief.

The wager misses the true point of agnosticism (including atheism) or gnosticism: that in order to know any person, you have to have a relationship with that entity. Lack of belief and trust in an entity comes from a toxic or non-existent relationship. You cant create a relationship with someone through dialectics or institutionalization. It works well as philosophy, but fails beyond the academic application.

Another thing I vehemently disagree with as a mathematician (I know Pascal pretty well from that historical perspective):

If we submit everything to reason our religion will be left with nothing mysterious or supernatural. If we offend the principles of reason our religion will be absurd and ridiculous . . . There are two equally dangerous extremes: to exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.
​

The Most High God did not create entities that should abandon reason as a principle of working thought. Indeed, He wouldn't give us rules and consequences if He didn't give us ability to reason, and be responsible. Moreover, mystery and "super"nature are paradigms of humanity; He has told us several times He has told us all things. He gave us a Holy spirit to guide us when we still haven't resurrected, He gave us His Son, and He is giving us His grace to get it right while we still can. He has give us prophets (who we always kill), He has given us The Word of God Himself, He has given us insight on what is to come - He gives us everything and tells us everything. The only "mysteries" are due to human inability to understand simplicity. For example, there is no such thing as supernatural events; there are events that modern academics cant explain (and therefore become socially unacceptable), but really that is also a testament to human limitations. When you can explain/do what used to be supernatural, it is no longer supernatural - it just becomes natural. He has told us about the demons, principalities, magic, how abominations were made using animals, angel and human... but we always take the simple truth and turn it into what we think it means, and miss the point.

He has already removed the mystery and "super" so that we don't get distracted by it and we can focus solely on Him.

Of course Pascal is alluding to a mix between religion and reason. But in order to be in a healthy relationship you need to be reasonable - so it should go without saying that a relationship with the Most High God should be focused on reason. He doesn't want people following Him for reward, or because they don't know better. Relationships work best when all parties choose each other.


I could write a paper on Pascal and his short-sighted academic applications to existentialism and the nature of the Most High God, but I like him as a mathematician, and I think I have said enough anyway. To me, he was a casualty of his status, education and academic success. It handicapped his ability to, at least, speak about the nature of the Most High God from a perspective of simplistic depth (rather than academic philosophy).

 

[Kylie]

No, it is about betting that God exists, but Pascal is not saying that after a person makes the bet, they are doing so as a form of belief.

Obviously, many don't or they wouldn't be repeating the same interpretive mistake that so many before have already made. But, let's look at what Pascal says in the dialetical dialogue he has with a fictitious interlocutor toward the end of his Wager, and I'll hi-lite in red those parts that semantically indicate that all that Pascal's Wager leads a person to do is simply allow himself or herself to be placed in such a position that it will be more conducive to the later formation of belief (and afterward, that, faith):

‘Quite; but my hand are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to wager, and am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot believe. What then do you wish me to do?​

That is true. But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions. You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies. Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally cause you to believe and bunt your cleverness. ‘But that is what I fear.’ Why? What have you to lose? But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles.​

Here we see that the method involves "acting as if" one already believes, but without actually yet believing. Pascal indicates that the method can enable a person to later form belief, and thereby too, faith. Although I can understand how folks who read Pascal too quickly and not carefully enough could think that he 'means' to brainwash oneself from the beginning, that is definitely not what he means. He's simply saying that it would be more wise and prudent to bet that God does exist, even though we don't yet believe that He does, and thereby allow ourselves to go through various Christian interactions within and around the Christian Church and that can then enable a person to find belief (which, he says elsewhere, is actually the gift of God---usual Christian doctrine).

Therefore, the Wager itself DOES NOT equal a form of belief in and of itself. The Wager simply allows one to see the reasonable probability of even entertaining the idea that the Biblical God exist and that it can be prudent to "study" toward allaying the passions that cause disbelief.

So, comments? Questions?

Yeah.

I don't see what about the parts in red indicate that Pascal is talking about a person who wants to believe but doesn't have sufficient evidence to do so.

Can you show me some source that shares your interpretation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah.

I don't see what about the parts in red indicate that Pascal is talking about a person who wants to believe but doesn't have sufficient evidence to do so.

So, you don't think that when Pascal says, "acting as if," he means "acting as if"? Personally, I'm not sure how anyone could interpret "acting as if one believes" to amount a state of actually believing.

Can you show me some source that shares your interpretation?

Yes, one is Charles Taliaferro, in his book, The Evolution of Modern Philosophy - Evidence and Faith: Philosophy and Religion since the Seventeenth Century (2005). [p. 104]

Plus, there's Pascal himself, as he describes the nature of belief in the rest of the Pensees (which is why I keep stressing that in order understand the Wager, a person has to read the rest of the Pensees); but I'm sure other sources could also be found and cited. I'll see if I can find any others in my library ...

Anyway, Kylie. If you personally don't get much from the Wager, or even nothing, that's fine. It's just that like to see people interpreting human communication as best they can--and hopefully correctly, Pascal's Wager notwithstanding.

 

[Kylie]

So, you don't think that when Pascal says, "acting as if," he means "acting as if"? Personally, I'm not sure how anyone could interpret "acting as if one believes" to amount a state of actually believing.

Let's look at the line in context.

Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc.
​

So Pascal is talking to someone about the people who act as if they already believe. That is not the same thing as talking to the people who act as if they believe themselves.

Yes, one is Charles Taliaferro, in his book, The Evolution of Modern Philosophy - Evidence and Faith: Philosophy and Religion since the Seventeenth Century (2005). [p. 104]

Which doesn't mean much to me, since I don't have that book.

Plus, there's Pascal himself, as he describes the nature of belief in the rest of the Pensees (which is why I keep stressing that in order understand the Wager, a person has to read the rest of the Pensees); but I'm sure other sources could also be found and cited. I'll see if I can find any others in my library ...

Something online would be good, so I can see it for myself.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's look at the line in context.

Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you, and who now stake all they possess. They are men who know the road you desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire to be cured. Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc.
​

So Pascal is talking to someone about the people who act as if they already believe. That is not the same thing as talking to the people who act as if they believe themselves.

No....I'm sorry, but you're not interpreting the conceptual structure here correctly. Pascal is describing the initial state of disbelief of others who have "conquered" their disbelief by giving Christianity the benefit of the doubt. Even though they started out not yet fully believing, they are described by Pascal as having been willing to "act as if they already believed" and then going through what would be, at that moment, otherwise meaningless Church related rituals.

Which doesn't mean much to me, since I don't have that book.

Ok. Here's a brief quote from Taliaferro that reflects his understanding of Pascal,

Let us consider the merits of the wager against a few questions and objections:​

Objection: Can one actually choose to believe or to disbelieve in God? Aren't beliefs involuntary?

Reply: Our beliefs may not be subject to our own immediate voluntary control, but perhaps one may cultivate some beliefs through sustained attention and action. Pascal commends participating in religious practices to develop religious beliefs. (p. 104)​

And then here is a quote from A. J. Krailsheimer (1966, 1995) in the Introduction of his translation of the Pensees, published by Penguin Classics which reflects what Taliaferro says above about the same thing:

...Here Pascal uses the word 'machine,' meaning automatic, unthinking habit, or conditioned reflex. In this sense the bodily order has a vital part to play by supplying a second nature, by translating purely intellectual decision into action, and by humbling pride. Thus the unbeliever who 'takes holy water and has masses said' will become more reconciled to apparently meaningless practices as he finds that they help to overcome the passions, especially pride, which have been his greatest obstacle to belief. These mechanical actions have no value in themselves, and to think that they have is to overemphasize the letter of the law, like Pharisees, but they do bring into play the only form of behavior in which other people can join as a community of worshippers... (p. xxvi)
​

So, when I read the Wager, AND I see an actual translator of Pascal's Pensees reflect what I'm saying, I think it's a shame that too many people misinterpret what Pascal meant to say. It's obvious (to me) that Pascal is referring to people who decide to go ahead and attempt--while not yet fully believing--to participate in the Christian religion, and this comes as an activity AFTER they have made the Wager.

Granted, simply understanding the Wager in and of itself won't likely help anyone these days to believe who doesn't want to believe or is too confused to believe, but it does count toward a reading of the Wager that constitutes a better, more integral hermeneutic.

Something online would be good, so I can see it for myself.

I'll see what I can find...