Pascal's Wager Revisited

Originally posted by googlefudge

If you reject the foundational truths of that which must
be accepted on faith nothing anyone can say to you will sink into you due
to you are blind to them.

First, there is nothing that should or must be accepted on 'faith'.

Second, what you are talking about are 'premises', the things you base an
argument or position on. And t ...[text shortened]... premises they must be defended and
demonstrated to be true. And not merely asserted to be so.

Your life is faith, so I think your statement here that nothing must be
accepted by faith is BS. You BELIEVE the science you understand is true,
you believe when you step on the ground as you walk it will support you.
Neither of those things are full proof as people while applying science get
things wrong and the ground does give way and people fall into holes.

Faith is how you live, it isn't just about God, it is about all you put your
trust in as you order your life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your life is faith, so I think your statement here that nothing must be
accepted by faith is BS. You BELIEVE the science you understand is true,
you believe when you step on the ground as you walk it will support you.
Neither of those things are full proof as people while applying science get
things wrong and the ground does give way and people fall int ...[text shortened]... ou live, it isn't just about God, it is about all you put your
trust in as you order your life.

Wrong. And you are committing the equivocation fallacy.

In this context I am using the word faith to mean:
"A belief in the truth of a proposition without evidence sufficient to justify
such a belief or despite evidence against the truth of that proposition."

This is what sometimes gets called "blind faith".

It is entirely not at all in any way analogous to trust or confidence.

I have generally have confidence that the ground is not going to give way under
me due to the huge amount of evidence that it wont, and my understanding of
why it wont. That confidence is not absolute, and will change depending on the
circumstances, so I will have much less confidence if I am near a crumbly cliff edge.

Evidence based beliefs are by definition NOT faith based beliefs.


So my life is absolutely not lived by faith.

This

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

David Hume

Is a quote that encapsulates this quite nicely.

Belief is or need not be absolute and when a proposition is believed it should be believed
proportionately with the strength of the evidence for it.
Or disbelieved proportionately to the evidence against it.

At no point should I, or do I, accord any belief based on faith.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then why don't you read what Pascal actually said, and see the original wager
in full and in context?

This link takes you to the full text, with an introduction and short biography.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm

And this link takes you to the chapter with the wager in it, which starts in
Pensée 233

http://www.gu ...[text shortened]... ou have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.[/quote]

This paragraph stands out for me.

"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.—"But this is what I am afraid of."—And why? What have you to lose?"

It seems to specify two steps:

1. Drop your passions -- the feelings that keep you away from the possibility of faith. Note that it does not say "drop your disbelief."

2. Mimic the behavior of the faithful. "Even this will make naturally you believe."

Are these the ways Pascal says we should express our choice of side on which to to wager? #1 makes some sense but # 2 is ludicrous to anyone who for years mimicked the behavior of the faithful. But perhaps some nonbelievers have dutifully participated in the religious services of their spouse and eventually came to have faith.

Originally posted by JS357
This paragraph stands out for me.

"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. ...[text shortened]... ifully participated in the religious services of their spouse and eventually came to have faith.

Well spotted, I toyed with highlighting that passage, but opted not to.

It's what commonly gets phrased today as "Fake it till you make it".

You should pretend to believe long and hard enough that you eventually
actually start to believe.

Even Pascal himself was aware that this argument even if assumed to be
correct is not sufficient to make a rational person believe in god, and he
recognised that simply pretending to believe was not sufficient either.
A nuance that most modern versions miss out. Not that it in any way saves
the argument, but it demonstrates that most people making the argument
today have never bothered to read or understand the original.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your life is faith, so I think your statement here that nothing must be
accepted by faith is BS. You BELIEVE the science you understand is true,
you believe when you step on the ground as you walk it will support you.
Neither of those things are full proof as people while applying science get
things wrong and the ground does give way and people fall int ...[text shortened]... ou live, it isn't just about God, it is about all you put your
trust in as you order your life.

And when you jump from ten stories high you believe that you will be injured. Just a matter of faith, right?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Then why don't you read what Pascal actually said, and see the original wager
in full and in context?

This link takes you to the full text, with an introduction and short biography.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm

And this link takes you to the chapter with the wager in it, which starts in
Pensée 233

http://www.gu ...[text shortened]... ou have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.[/quote]

He's explaining the wager. I'm not sure why he says choosing to not wager isn't an option, but it's probably because choosing to not wager is the same as choosing by default. Other than that what's not to understand? If someone doesn't understand the wager then it's useful to look at the explanation, but what more can be said to someone who does read it and still doesn't understand?

Near the end of it he asks "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side?" So after explaining the wager he's now trying to persuade you into taking the wager. Nothing unusual about that. Now all you need to do is to figure out which god he's talking about...

"Blaise Pascal (/pæˈskæl, pɑːˈskɑːl/;[1] French: [blɛz paskal]; 19 June 1623 – 19 August 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father, a tax collector in Rouen. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli. Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method."

Originally posted by googlefudge
And how do you know that?

If what I am saying is true then it's about a real space ship and is thus non-fiction.

Because it is located in the fiction section of the library, numbnuts.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Because it is located in the fiction section of the library, numbnuts.

Well that's a really stupid argument.

I would also point out that the bible is located in the religious and not the
factual [history] section of the library.

I mean seriously, can you guys not manage to muster up any kind of decent argument
for why the Star Trek Technical Manual is not good evidence or proof for my claim
that the Star Trek Enterprise is real?

It's really not hard, and you are failing dismally.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well that's a really stupid argument.

I would also point out that the bible is located in the religious and not the
factual [history] section of the library.

I mean seriously, can you guys not manage to muster up any kind of decent argument
for why the Star Trek Technical Manual is not good evidence or proof for my claim
that the Star Trek Enterprise is real?

It's really not hard, and you are failing dismally.

The Holy Bible does contain known factual history and it is filed in the nonfiction section under the sub-division of Religion. 😏

Originally posted by OdBod
For me, the words written down in the bible were the work of man nothing more. That being the case they have no special " divine " value. Your intellect is the net result of that information source, many other sources and your own personal experiences. This means, from my perspective I value your thoughts and opinions far more highly than a old book. If you th ...[text shortened]... ths" into discussion always creates barriers and prevents a meeting of minds, which is a shame.

"Spirituality: Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after." -Russ

You're contributing to an online spirituality forum: what, in fact, do you believe?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 8)
---> This, Agerg, is the OP:

[quote]Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Pascal's Wager Revisited

Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2. A Game is being played... where heads or ...[text shortened]... number of "26 presses of my down arrow key before I can see the next post worthy of reading".

Christological argument (Page 12)

"The Christological argument for the existence of God is based on certain claims about Jesus. The argument, which exists in several forms, holds that if these claims are valid, one should accept God exists. There are three main threads; the Argument from the wisdom of Jesus, the Argument from the claims of Jesus as son of God and the Argument from the resurrection.

Argument from the wisdom of Jesus

The essential structure of this argument is as follows:[verification needed]
1.The character and wisdom of Jesus is such that his views about reality are (or are likely to be) correct.

2.One of Jesus' views about reality was that God exists.

3.Therefore the view that God exists is (or is likely to be) correct.

Some forms of evangelism take this approach. Potential converts are introduced to Jesus as a historical character and the merits of Jesus' teachings are discussed. In such a context, the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is a crucial factor in assessing the argument.

The principal objections to (1) are the suggestions that:

1.The reports of Jesus' character in the Bible are not reliable.

2.Jesus' views about reality are not (or not likely to be) necessarily correct.[1] Bertrand Russell, in his essay "Why I Am Not a Christian", criticized Jesus' personal character and philosophical positions on various grounds.

3.Even supposing that Jesus was correct, wise, and knowledgeable about a great many things does not imply that he was knowledgeable about everything. A deep knowledge of moral philosophy and the iniquities of the human condition, for example, do not necessarily imply any valid expertise on astrophysics, Phoenician literature, or the literal existence of God.

Argument from the claims of Jesus to divinity See also: Lewis's trilemma

A related line of evangelical argument addresses the notion that Jesus Christ was a great philosopher and ethicist, but not God. It draws on the Trilemma as postulated by C. S. Lewis and others, which argues that Jesus claimed to be God, and either this claim was true and Jesus was in fact divine, or else he was a charlatan or a madman. Assuming the trilemma to be accurate, the argument proceeds in stating that neither a charlatan or a madman could be considered a great moral teacher and that therefore the possibility of Jesus being merely a great moral teacher is excluded.

The argument conditionally argues for the existence of God; it relies on the premise that Jesus was a great moral teacher. The structure of the argument is as follows:

1.Jesus claimed to be God

2.Jesus was a wise moral teacher

3.By the trilemma, Jesus was dishonest, deluded or God

4.No wise moral teacher is dishonest

5.No wise moral teacher is deluded

6.By 2 and 4, Jesus was not dishonest

7.By 2 and 5, Jesus was not deluded

8.By 3, 6 and 7, Jesus was God

9.By 8, God exists

Those who dispute these premises suggest that:

1.Disputing premise 1: Jesus was indeed a wise moral teacher, but his reported teachings have been distorted or misrepresented. For instance, he may not have actually claimed to be divine; this claim may have been added by later writers. Many modern New Testament scholars argue that Jesus did not, in fact, claim to be God.[2]

2.Disputing premise 2: C.S. Lewis expressed the opinion that any mere man who claimed to be God could not, by definition, be a wise moral teacher (and that, conversely, any wise moral teacher would not claim to be God).[3] Christopher Hitchens argued that Jesus was not a wise moral teacher by arguing against several of his teachings. For example, of Jesus' teaching "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", Hitchens wrote: "if only the non-sinners have the right to punish, then how could an imperfect society ever determine how to prosecute offenders?"[4]

3.Disputing premise 4: A person can be a wise moral teacher despite lying. Jesus could have believed (as some later philosophers have held) that religion is false but beneficial to society, and that by establishing a new religion (or a reform of Judaism) he was doing a good deed nonetheless.

4.Disputing premise 5: A person can be a wise moral teacher despite being delusional. Granting credence to some, or even most, of someone's claims does not require that we give credence to all of them. Someone can believe Socrates' philosophical claims about justice without also believing Socrates' theological speculations about the Greek gods, or accept Aristotle's views on poetry without also accepting his claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

Another form of attack (similar to the Argument from inconsistent revelations) does not directly dispute the premises, but instead underlines the applicability of this argument to other historical religious figures, such as the Buddha and Muhammed, each of whom is revered in their faith as a wise and moral teacher, and each of whom made specific claims regarding their interaction with the divine.

Furthermore, the argument could be interpreted as a fallacious argument from authority and therefore logically flawed.

Argument from the resurrection

See also: Arguments for the existence of God and Christology" (Christological argument for the existence of God to be continued) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christological_argument

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong. And you are committing the equivocation fallacy.

In this context I am using the word faith to mean:
"A belief in the truth of a proposition without evidence sufficient to justify
such a belief or despite evidence against the truth of that proposition."

This is what sometimes gets called "blind faith".

It is entirely not at all in any w ...[text shortened]... to the evidence against it.

At no point should I, or do I, accord any belief based on faith.

I understand what you are using it for, it isn't what I use if for. For you it
is blind without sufficient evidence to justify (which will always be true if
you don't like what needs to be accepted), for me it is almost never blind
it typically always has evidence (the "sufficient evidence" is in the eye of
the beholder). So if something cannot be proven yet believed to be true will
cause us to act accordingly, we will act on faith. Just as we may take the
word of an honest man if he makes a promise to do something, we rely on
what we think we know to accept what cannot be shown true until we see
it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
And when you jump from ten stories high you believe that you will be injured. Just a matter of faith, right?

Why in the world would I jump from ten stories high? Now people have
like I pointed out walked and fallen in sink holes, gone to bed and have
their house drop into sink holes, go dancing on the 2nd floor of a building
and have the floor drop out from under them, those things do happen
where they were acting on faith and fell. Just because you trust something
and act on it does not mean it is always trustworthy!

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well spotted, I toyed with highlighting that passage, but opted not to.

It's what commonly gets phrased today as "Fake it till you make it".

You should pretend to believe long and hard enough that you eventually
actually start to believe.

Even Pascal himself was aware that this argument even if assumed to be
correct is not sufficient to make ...[text shortened]... most people making the argument
today have never bothered to read or understand the original.

I agree fake it till you make is like saying lie until its true.
Personally, I think you are better off going to God admitting upfront to God
you do not believe, help you with your unbelief, and let Him deal with you!
That is actually in the Bible!

If God is Truth, I believe He is, then in my opinion that really is the only
way He should be talked to, with all the truth we can muster! Even if we
don't think He'd like it, just be respectful (in case you find He is real) 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why in the world would I jump from ten stories high?

Physics paper: If you can jump 5ft on Earth imagine you
take a trip to the moon - how high can you jump there?

KellyJay: Why would I go to the moon?