How to Know if You’re a Fool

[Sanguine]

I’m not sure there’s a more important author for teenagers right now than Blaise Pascal, but not for the thing he’s most famous for.

I remember in high school and college reading his most famous argument, “the wager,” in which he proposes that it is most reasonable to follow God, even if we can’t know if he exists.  It’s an interesting argument, and one that’s always worth discussing, but mostly because of what it leads to in the end.

Speaking of the existence of God and its potential uncertainty he says,

“Thus our chief interest and chief duty is to seek enlightenment on this subject, on which all our conduct depends. And that is why, amongst those who are not convinced, I make an absolute distinction between those who strive with all their might to learn, and those who live without troubling themselves or thinking about it.”...

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/11/fool-caitlin-gilbert.html?utm_source=The+Imaginative+Conservative+%28Daily%29&utm_campaign=3e5575fbec-Today%27s+Essays&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b25fb6fc69-3e5575fbec-132486273&mc_cid=3e5575fbec&mc_eid=c6776db871

Interesting argument.

[240B]

Pascal's wager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

[Oceander]

Yes, but which god to believe in?   With the infinities left in, its impossible to risk-weight the various alternatives. 

[Sanguine]

Yes, but which god to believe in?   With the infinities left in, its impossible to risk-weight the various alternatives.

Per the article: "“There are only two classes of persons who can be called reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him."

[Oceander]

Per the article: "“There are only two classes of persons who can be called reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him."

Fair enough, but Pascal’s wager is all about risk-weighting the odds; to wit: even if there is only a tiny probability that God exists, the rational wager is to believe in God,  because when those minuscule odds are risk-weighted by the pain of spending an infinite amount of time in Hell for not believing, those risk-weighted odds are greater than the similarly risk-weighted odds that God does not exist, because in that alternative, the pain is merely the small pain that accompanied the realization that you believed a falsehood for a limited number of years (100 or so at the most if you are long-lived).

But that leads inexorably to the next issue:  we have been presented with any number of claimants to the title of God, from the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Christians, etc, etc, etc.   if I risk-weight the probability that any one of those is correct, I end up with an infinite risk if I don’t believe in any of them (except perhaps for the Buddhists), which means, if I apply Pascal’s logic consistently, I have to believe in all of them, despite the fact that this is incoherent and impossible. 

In short, Pascal’s wager only makes sense in a world where there is only one God on offer, so that belief is a binary choice. 

[Sanguine]

Fair enough, but Pascal’s wager is all about risk-weighting the odds; to wit: even if there is only a tiny probability that God exists, the rational wager is to believe in God,  because when those minuscule odds are risk-weighted by the pain of spending an infinite amount of time in Hell for not believing, those risk-weighted odds are greater than the similarly risk-weighted odds that God does not exist, because in that alternative, the pain is merely the small pain that accompanied the realization that you believed a falsehood for a limited number of years (100 or so at the most if you are long-lived).

But that leads inexorably to the next issue:  we have been presented with any number of claimants to the title of God, from the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Christians, etc, etc, etc.   if I risk-weight the probability that any one of those is correct, I end up with an infinite risk if I don’t believe in any of them (except perhaps for the Buddhists), which means, if I apply Pascal’s logic consistently, I have to believe in all of them, despite the fact that this is incoherent and impossible. 

In short, Pascal’s wager only makes sense in a world where there is only one God on offer, so that belief is a binary choice.

You're over-complicating it with irrelevancies.  What Pascal said makes perfect sense, no matter how many red herrings you toss at it. 

[240B]

Fair enough, but Pascal’s wager is all about risk-weighting the odds; to wit: even if there is only a tiny probability that God exists, the rational wager is to believe in God,  because when those minuscule odds are risk-weighted by the pain of spending an infinite amount of time in Hell for not believing, those risk-weighted odds are greater than the similarly risk-weighted odds that God does not exist, because in that alternative, the pain is merely the small pain that accompanied the realization that you believed a falsehood for a limited number of years (100 or so at the most if you are long-lived).

But that leads inexorably to the next issue:  we have been presented with any number of claimants to the title of God, from the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Christians, etc, etc, etc.   if I risk-weight the probability that any one of those is correct, I end up with an infinite risk if I don’t believe in any of them (except perhaps for the Buddhists), which means, if I apply Pascal’s logic consistently, I have to believe in all of them, despite the fact that this is incoherent and impossible. 

In short, Pascal’s wager only makes sense in a world where there is only one God on offer, so that belief is a binary choice.

Buddhism is not the best choice for your example. Buddhism makes your point in a way, but complicates it since Hell in Buddhism is temporary and not permanent. Buddhism Hell is reformatory and not punitive.

[Sanguine]

Buddhism is not the best choice for your example. Buddhism makes your point in a way, but complicates it since Hell in Buddhism is temporary and not permanent. Buddhism Hell is reformatory and not punitive.

Pascal didn't say what we would find, he said we should seek. 

[Oceander]

You're over-complicating it with irrelevancies.  What Pascal said makes perfect sense, no matter how many red herrings you toss at it. 

I’m not over-complicating it, I am unpacking it more fully. 

If I accept Pascal’s wager, shall I practice Roman Catholicism, one of the orthodoxies, or Islam?  Pascal does not provide the means to tell the difference, and certainly as respects, say, Catholicism and Islam, which one is chosen makes a big difference since both cannot be chosen together.

But I cannot apply the same risk-weighting suggested by Pascal to choose which one to believe, because each one has eternal damnation as the price of non-belief, and therefore yields an infinite risk-weighted probability.  The most that can be said is that they are identical in this respect, but surely they are not the same thing. 

[Oceander]

Buddhism is not the best choice for your example. Buddhism makes your point in a way, but complicates it since Hell in Buddhism is temporary and not permanent. Buddhism Hell is reformatory and not punitive.

Agreed.  Buddhism is out under the risk-weighting analysis because it cannot yield the infinities that the others yield. 

[the_doc]

Per the article: "“There are only two classes of persons who can be called reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him."

The second class will become the first class--guaranteed (Jeremiah 29:13). 

Everyone else is a fool, according to Psalm 14:1.

(That includes most people, it seems, because most people do harbor deadly notions that there is no God--which notions block the necessary wholeheartedness that yields the only kind of seeking that counts as seeking  [Compare Jeremiah 29:13 with Romans 3:11].)           

[RoosGirl]

I’m not over-complicating it, I am unpacking it more fully. 

If I accept Pascal’s wager, shall I practice Roman Catholicism, one of the orthodoxies, or Islam?  Pascal does not provide the means to tell the difference, and certainly as respects, say, Catholicism and Islam, which one is chosen makes a big difference since both cannot be chosen together.

But I cannot apply the same risk-weighting suggested by Pascal to choose which one to believe, because each one has eternal damnation as the price of non-belief, and therefore yields an infinite risk-weighted probability.  The most that can be said is that they are identical in this respect, but surely they are not the same thing.

You're expecting someone to hand you the answer instead of "striving with all their might" to learn.

[dfwgator]

[Oceander]

You're expecting someone to hand you the answer instead of "striving with all their might" to learn.

No, I’m not.  I am applying Pascal’s wager to the facts as they exist.  If I seek God through one avenue, I cannot simultaneously seek god through the other, can I?  Ergo, I must choose one of the other.  Which one to choose?  Since I don’t know beforehand, I apply Pascal’s logic to the question.  But this time, it fails to provide an answer, or rather, it tells me that I must pursue both at the same time, because both have an infinite risk-weighted probability of going to hell for nonbelief.

[RoosGirl]

No, I’m not.  I am applying Pascal’s wager to the facts as they exist.  If I seek God through one avenue, I cannot simultaneously seek god through the other, can I?  Ergo, I must choose one of the other.  Which one to choose?  Since I don’t know beforehand, I apply Pascal’s logic to the question.  But this time, it fails to provide an answer, or rather, it tells me that I must pursue both at the same time, because both have an infinite risk-weighted probability of going to hell for nonbelief.

So what?  You can't learn two things at once?

[240B]

If you are going through Hell, for the sake of God whatever you do don't ever stop. Keep Going!
If you stop, you'll be stuck there forever.

[Sanguine]

No, I’m not.  I am applying Pascal’s wager to the facts as they exist.  If I seek God through one avenue, I cannot simultaneously seek god through the other, can I?  Ergo, I must choose one of the other.  Which one to choose?  Since I don’t know beforehand, I apply Pascal’s logic to the question.  But this time, it fails to provide an answer, or rather, it tells me that I must pursue both at the same time, because both have an infinite risk-weighted probability of going to hell for nonbelief.

You're illustrating Pascal's point.  Pascal didn't tell you who or where to look, but you are putting conditions on that search so that you can show Pascal to be wrong.  He didn't say what you are trying to make him say.  You are changing the argument so that you can make it appear that he was wrong.

[Oceander]

You're illustrating Pascal's point.  Pascal didn't tell you who or where to look, but you are putting conditions on that search so that you can show Pascal to be wrong.  He didn't say what you are trying to make him say.  You are changing the argument so that you can make it appear that he was wrong.

I am applying Pascal’s own logic to show that it leads to false conclusions, and therefore must contain a false premise. 

[Oceander]

So what?  You can't learn two things at once?

Really?  I can follow Islam and I can follow Roman Catholicism at the same time?  How’s that work?

[RoosGirl]

Really?  I can follow Islam and I can follow Roman Catholicism at the same time?  How’s that work?

@Sanguine is right, you are reading words that aren't there.  It clearly says to "seek enlightenment" and "strive with all their might to learn".  It doesn't say to just pick one and that's that.

[Sanguine]

I am applying Pascal’s own logic to show that it leads to false conclusions, and therefore must contain a false premise.

No, you added a false premise.  Pascal didn't.  But, as I say, you prove Pascal's point by doing so.

[240B]

You're illustrating Pascal's point.  Pascal didn't tell you who or where to look, but you are putting conditions on that search so that you can show Pascal to be wrong.  He didn't say what you are trying to make him say.  You are changing the argument so that you can make it appear that he was wrong.

Pascal makes a very good point and he is exactly correct, for his world view. It seems to me that Pascal was a Christian in the 1600s and did not have a global view. His ideology was in fact binary, as is his wager. He never considered any other theology but what he knew, because all those others are just heresy fairy tales and not exactly real. If you put yourself in Pascal's shoes and in his time, his philosophy makes sense, in a way. But in the 21st century, with all we know today, it is trite at best. It is fun to consider and debate. But in my opinion it is not a serious idea today, for me, although it was for him in his time. I understand and respect his point of view.

[Sanguine]

Pascal's point is not predicated on a particular religion.

[the_doc]

You're illustrating Pascal's point.  Pascal didn't tell you who or where to look, but you are putting conditions on that search so that you can show Pascal to be wrong.  He didn't say what you are trying to make him say.  You are changing the argument so that you can make it appear that he was wrong.

As an important aside, it should be noted that Pascal was a Jansenist.  Cornelius Jansen was an important Roman Catholic theologian who agreed with so many points raised by the Calvinistic Protestants that he was widely regarded as a heretic (though not ultimately convicted, since he remained outwardly loyal to the RC Church).

Jansen actually got the seeds of his interpretive views of the Bible from Augustine--as did Martin Luther.  Jansen was a pretty thoroughgoing adherent to the theology of Augustine, who, in turn, was arguably what we could call a proto-Calvinist.  Jansen irritated (embarrassed?) the RCC in much the same way the Protestant Reformers did, by repeatedly citing Augustine's commentaries and using them against the RCC establishment in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

The whole thing is a pretty dicey history. 

[Oceander]

Pascal's point is not predicated on a particular religion.

No, it’s predicated on there being only one religion, whatever that religion might be.