The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: Sanguine on November 25, 2018, 07:50:50 pm
-
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.â€...
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.
-
Pascal's wager.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
-
Yes, but which god to believe in? With the infinities left in, its impossible to risk-weight the various alternatives.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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].)
-
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.
-
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/538/858/d7d.gif)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Pascal's point is not predicated on a particular religion.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No, you added a false premise. Pascal didn't. But, as I say, you prove Pascal's point by doing so.
No, I didn’t. The false premise in Pascal’s argument is that there is only one religion.
-
Pascal's point is not predicated on a particular religion.
I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.
It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.
-
No, it’s predicated on there being only one religion, whatever that religion might be.
Where does it say that?
-
I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.
It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.
This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God. And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.
-
This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God. And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.
Yeah, I'm baffled by that argument. Just not getting it, @240B.
-
Where does it say that?
It is inherent in the logic. One is presented with a binary choice: to believe in God or to not believe in God, and the relative risks of each position are then explored, and risk-weighted for the worst-case scenario. The upshot of which is, that it only makes sense to believe in God - even if that belief turns out to be false because God does not exist - because the risks of being wrong are so much greater if you choose to not believe in God.
That’s great, so far as it goes, but it breaks down when confronted with two separate theologies, each of which is comprehensive, each of which requires complete dedication, and each of which necessarily forecloses adherence to the other. It breaks down because it cannot give any further guidance on which theology to follow; it can only recommend that you follow both, but that is simply not possible.
-
This article in no way mentions Christianity, it mentions God. And I would argue that if a Muslim didn't know who Pascal was they could still apply his "bet" to their own religious life.
If true, that requires belief in the proposition that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity, and that following either religion is as good as following the other. In other words, it requires acceptance of the proposition that Islam and Christianity are the same thing.
-
It is inherent in the logic. One is presented with a binary choice: to believe in God or to not believe in God, and the relative risks of each position are then explored, and risk-weighted for the worst-case scenario. The upshot of which is, that it only makes sense to believe in God - even if that belief turns out to be false because God does not exist - because the risks of being wrong are so much greater if you choose to not believe in God.
That’s great, so far as it goes, but it breaks down when confronted with two separate theologies, each of which is comprehensive, each of which requires complete dedication, and each of which necessarily forecloses adherence to the other. It breaks down because it cannot give any further guidance on which theology to follow; it can only recommend that you follow both, but that is simply not possible.
Where does it say to follow both?
-
If true, that requires belief in the proposition that the god of Islam is the same as the god of Christianity, and that following either religion is as good as following the other. In other words, it requires acceptance of the proposition that Islam and Christianity are the same thing.
You are confusing "following" with "learning/seeking".
-
Where does it say to follow both?
Because it cannot distinguish between either one. It says to seek god. Well, which god? The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam. Or are the two one and the same?
-
Because it cannot distinguish between either one. It says to seek god. Well, which god? The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam. Or are the two one and the same?
It says to seek enlightenment. That's the part where *you* decide which God based on your learning and understanding of what you've learned. And as you learn more you opinion on which is correct may change.
-
You are confusing "following" with "learning/seeking".
No, I’m not. If i seek for God within the Catholic Church, does that not require that I adhere to all the tenets of its faith, and that I practice what it preaches? It can I seek God on a part-time basis? On the other hand, if I seek God in the mosque, does that not require that I adhere to all of the tenets of Islam, that I practice what is preached?
How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example? If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex.
-
No, I’m not. If i seek for God within the Catholic Church, does that not require that I adhere to all the tenets of its faith, and that I practice what it preaches? It can I seek God on a part-time basis? On the other hand, if I seek God in the mosque, does that not require that I adhere to all of the tenets of Islam, that I practice what is preached?
How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example? If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex.
You understand that there is a difference between seeking and finding, right?
-
It says to seek enlightenment. That's the part where *you* decide which God based on your learning and understanding of what you've learned. And as you learn more you opinion on which is correct may change.
Which presupposes the existence of precisely the thing that the wager was supposed to supplement: knowledge of God.
-
You understand that there is a difference between seeking and finding, right?
Duh. You do realize that seeking involves more than merely gazing at your navel.
-
Duh. You do realize that seeking involves more than merely gazing at your navel.
Depends what you're seeking, now doesn't it?
-
Depends what you're seeking, now doesn't it?
I suppose so; but if God is Christian, or Muslim, you won’t find him in your belly-button.
-
Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.
-
I respectfully disagree. Pascal was a Christian with a wholly Christian point of view. I doubt very much that he had Jews or Muslims in mind when he was contemplating religion. In fact, I'm not sure he was thinking about Christianity in a real, fundamental way. He was just hedging his bet. He was just play the cards of the world around him as he knew them.
It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I would rather be a religious Christian and be wrong, than I would be an atheist and be wrong. Good bet. It's not really a very religious point of view but it makes perfect sense to a pragmatist.
The weakness of Pascal's generally impressive argument is that although it piques intellectual curiosity in a potentially useful way in evangelism, the person who is made only mildly curious or only mildly unsettled by Pascal's discussion is still doomed if he overlooks Pascal's pivotal warning: you'd better seek the God Whom you do not know until you find Him, until you actually know Him.
-
Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.
That is the stupidest most ridiculous thing you have ever said. You're a fool. Your Daddy was a fool...fool!
-
Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.
888high58888
-
Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.
---------------------------------------------
Ghost, on the mark.
Not only a fool but an incorrigible windbag!!!
Pascal argued his wager in these ten brief words:
"Belief is a wise wager, so wager that He exists."
Being a clairvoyant, Pascal also had wisdom for Trump!
"If you wish people to think well of you; do not speak well of yourself."
-
If I seek God through one avenue, I cannot simultaneously seek god through the other, can I?
Yes, you can... I did.
Ergo, I must choose one of the other. Which one to choose?
Eventually true, but not off the get-go... with a proper criteria, many pretenders fall away pretty quickly.
Fairly soon, one will arrive at a choice between one true god, or a pantheon which has been repeated all over the world... Because that is in fact the truth of it. THEN comes the decision, which to serve.
-
Because it cannot distinguish between either one. It says to seek god. Well, which god? The God of Christianity, or the God of Islam. Or are the two one and the same?
You have relatively few choices in that. Begin with the premise that the two books are diametrically opposed (which they are, but since you are unfamiliar, you must take my word, for the sake of the argument).
Given that you have examined the books sufficiently to give them the benefit of the doubt that they might indeed represent god(s), logic would have it, if you have winnowed the field down till there are no others, considering the two books are diametrically opposed, that:
1. They do not represent the same god at all, and there are two gods to choose from.
2. they represent the same god, but then one or the other book is not true, and you have two books to choose from.
3 neither represents god, and you must keep seeking.
-
How do I simultaneously seek God in the Roman Catholic Church and the Sunni Mosque, for example? If i throw in a Jewish temple, things become even more complex.
That is not even beginning to begin... there are many contenders. MANY.
But the main point is that no, you do not need to be a devotee of any - throw them all on the fire.
Kick the tires. Examine the criteria. there is no demand for commitment.
-
That is the stupidest most ridiculous thing you have ever said. You're a fool. Your Daddy was a fool...fool!
rrthree
-
Really? I can follow Islam and I can follow Roman Catholicism at the same time? How’s that work?
That's a false choice presented by your fellow humans, not God. Indeed, Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same Abrahamic God. The differences all pertain to earthly concerns such as dogma, details of worship and how fiercely one is obliged to convert or subjugate followers of other dogmas.
God would be a lot easier to know if it weren't for religion.
-
rrthree
@The Ghost
Glad to see you got the joke. I was trying to goad you into an argument, but it did not work.
This is for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
-
That's a false choice presented by your fellow humans, not God. Indeed, Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same Abrahamic God. The differences all pertain to earthly concerns such as dogma, details of worship and how fiercely one is obliged to convert or subjugate followers of other dogmas.
God would be a lot easier to know if it weren't for religion.
So, those who don't have any religion (they're "spiritual") know God well?
-
So, those who don't have any religion (they're "spiritual") know God well?
Oh, I don't know about that. I had a Christian upbringing, and never lost my faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity is certainly the context in which I approach God. But I don't buy into the demand that one is doomed unless one believes in Christ, and, while religion is a useful context for approaching God, I don't accept that membership in a religious community is necessary or essential. Adherence to the golden rule is, I understand, a tenet of most if not all of the world's religions, but it is also a conclusion one can reach by means of logic.
Some folks feel the need to be religious in order to ensure they're "saved" - I guess that the logic behind Pascal's wager. But the hope of salvation in the "next" world isn't what's important, IMO - it is the attainment of inner peace and enlightenment in THIS world that is the tangible good that one can strive for, and achieve.
-
Some people will argue about anything just to show people they are a fool.
I used to think I should risk looking like a fool by not speaking than removing all doubt by saying stuff.
But then...I discovered the interwebz. 333cleo
-
I used to think I should risk looking like a fool by not speaking than removing all doubt by saying stuff.
But then...I discovered the interwebz. 333cleo
The web may not have created fools but it certainly turned a huge number of borderline idiots into full on fools.
-
Really? I can follow Islam and I can follow Roman Catholicism at the same time? How’s that work?
You go to hell for cutting your own head off.
-
You go to hell for cutting your own head off.
Nice. :laugh:
-
You go to hell for cutting your own head off.
That would certainly be in line with Catholic Doctrine.... 888mouth
-
That would certainly be in line with Catholic Doctrine.... 888mouth
Well, the Hell part would be. The Muslim would have to kill the apostate infidel... :shrug: