Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 04, 2025, 08:41:47 AM
-
Pascal Revisited.
A post "four horseman" take on the wager.
https://youtu.be/JMjz_V-DmJE?si=eTZ94zyUXPEk1YbO
-
It's not really post 4 horsemen. And as is pointed out in the quite nice little video, the argument is misrepresented by Christians in putting it forward. Pascal and Hume, of course, agree here, though the video implies wants as being something chosen which makes no sense.
I've often said on here that the rational attempts to state why someone believes in god, or does not, are post rationalisation.
-
It's not really post 4 horsemen. And as is pointed out in the quite nice little video, the argument is misrepresented by Christians in putting it forward. Pascal and Hume, of course, agree here, though the video implies wants as being something chosen which makes no sense.
I've often said on here that the rational attempts to state why someone believes in god, or does not, are post rationalisation.
I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.
Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.
-
I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.
Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.
The title of the video you linked to - 'Atheists Misunderstand PASCAL'S WAGER (and so do Christians)'
Since the argument is made by Christians initially, they must logically misrepresent it.
-
I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.
Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.
I'm aware of this argument, but I haven't looked at it in great detail.
However, I am fond of a wager, so I take issue with your assumption here: the first rule of 'wagering' is don't bet unless you think you have at least a chance of of winning. Therefore, betting in favour of there being a 'God' would be a foolish bet to make - in any event, how would the odds be calculated and by whom?
-
I'm aware of this argument, but I haven't looked at it in great detail.
However, I am fond of a wager, so I take issue with your assumption here: the first rule of 'wagering' is don't bet unless you think you have at least a chance of of winning. Therefore, betting in favour of there being a 'God' would be a foolish bet to make - in any event, how would the odds be calculated and by whom?
If winning and what you win is important then conversely so is what you have to lose.
If the Christian is right, he gains eternity. If he is wrong? What has he lost? Since he wins exactly what the atheist wins.
The point of the video is rather, how we operate...in other words we are gambling all the time and are ruled by our passions rather than by reason.
-
If winning and what you win is important then conversely so is what you have to lose.
If the Christian is right, he gains eternity. If he is wrong? What has he lost? Since he wins exactly what the atheist wins.
The point of the video is rather, how we operate...in other words we are gambling all the time and are ruled by our passions rather than by reason.
And since we can't choose our passions treating it as a rational wager makes no sense and that's leaving aside tgat probability is a methodological naturalistic concept. All the video actually illustrates is that the idea of choice as it is presented in mainstream Christianity, is meaningless.
-
And since we can't choose our passions treating it as a rational wager makes no sense and that's leaving aside tgat probability is a methodological naturalistic concept. All the video actually illustrates is that the idea of choice as it is presented in mainstream Christianity, is meaningless.
I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.
IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.
The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.
-
I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.
IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.
The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.
You can't choose your wants ans since the video says it is driven by passion not reason, it directly implies there isn't choice. It happens because the point about us not being rational is a specific point, and isn't followed through as a general one. It's the old free will argument. You can make a choice but that is the only choice that can be made if reason doesn't drive it.
-
You can't choose your wants ans since the video says it is driven by passion not reason, it directly implies there isn't choice. It happens because the point about us not being rational is a specific point, and isn't followed through as a general one. It's the old free will argument. You can make a choice but that is the only choice that can be made if reason doesn't drive it.
No I think the video makes it clear that Pascal's line is that the heart has reason's and makes decisions which incorporate the passions and ego rather than eliminating them deliberately as understood in contemporary understanding of the exercise of reason. The heart therefore is not, according to Pascal's "unreasonable" or I would imagine totally unconscious.
-
No I think the video makes it clear that Pascal's line is that the heart has reason's and makes decisions which incorporate the passions and ego rather than eliminating them deliberately as understood in contemporary understanding of the exercise of reason. The heart therefore is not, according to Pascal's "unreasonable" or I would imagine totally unconscious.
No, Pascal is an arationalist as made clear by the video. He's saying that the decision is not a rational one. When he says 'reason dies not knowing ow' he is precisely stating that the why of the decision is not a conscious one it would appear that you make the same mistake the video says 'atheists' make, even after listening to it.
To try and help you out, listen to the bit describing the wager which is saying that IF YOU WERE rational this is what you would choose, but since as has arrest been put forward we are not rational, then it's irrelevant, other than in showing that we are not rational. That's all the argument does. Ot doesn't give any backing to the choice, since it from the start argues that isn't possible.
-
I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.
IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.
The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.
Perhaps the idea of a 'wager' in this context doesn't make much sense.
When I have a bet I implicitly accept that if it loses I will have lost my stake. However, and unless I just take a wholly uniformed guess, it is possible for me to at least estimate the likelihoods of my bet winning or losing based on information I can freely access. So I might judge that a particular horse has a better chance than its odds suggest, and I bet on it, or I might judge that the favourite in a race is under-priced (isn't quite a good as the odds suggest) and decide to bet against it winning. In either case I will have a defined stake (that I am risking) and that I have at least a basis to estimate the chance of my chosen bet returning a profit or not. I have experience of both winning and losing!
For the life of me I can't imagine what I'd actually stake on 'God' existing, or on what basis I can estimate a basis to bet for or against 'God': there is no form you see. Pascal's Wager is a bet with only one runner - so not a serious basis for a gamble, unlike the 3.15 at Worcester this afternoon where I think the likely favourite (which has won its last three races) is no certainty, so it might pay to oppose it with the top-weight, but I could be wrong - now that is what I call a proper wager.
In my experience wagering on the basis of passion alone - 'I like grey horses', 'I like it's name' or 'I have a feeling God exists' - doesn't take into account any 'form' on which an assessment can be made, and is a guess rather than a gamble.
-
No, Pascal is an arationalist as made clear by the video. He's saying that the decision is not a rational one. When he says 'reason dies not knowing ow' he is precisely stating that the why of the decision is not a conscious one it would appear that you make the same mistake the video says 'atheists' make, even after listening to it.
To try and help you out, listen to the bit describing the wager which is saying that IF YOU WERE rational this is what you would choose, but since as has arrest been put forward we are not rational, then it's irrelevant, other than in showing that we are not rational. That's all the argument does. Ot doesn't give any backing to the choice, since it from the start argues that isn't possible.
No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.
It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.
The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.
-
No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.
It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.
The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.
If you wager 'from the heart' I'll guarantee that bookies everywhere will roll out the red carpet for you! Plus, if you can still lose when betting on a one-horse-race, then I'd say that isn't a bet worth having.
-
No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.
It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.
The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.
No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that since reason can't know them according to Pascal they cannot be chosen.
No choice is made for purely rational reasons.
-
Perhaps the idea of a 'wager' in this context doesn't make much sense.
When I have a bet I implicitly accept that if it loses I will have lost my stake. However, and unless I just take a wholly uniformed guess, it is possible for me to at least estimate the likelihoods of my bet winning or losing based on information I can freely access. So I might judge that a particular horse has a better chance than its odds suggest, and I bet on it, or I might judge that the favourite in a race is under-priced (isn't quite a good as the odds suggest) and decide to bet against it winning. In either case I will have a defined stake (that I am risking) and that I have at least a basis to estimate the chance of my chosen bet returning a profit or not. I have experience of both winning and losing!
For the life of me I can't imagine what I'd actually stake on 'God' existing, or on what basis I can estimate a basis to bet for or against 'God': there is no form you see. Pascal's Wager is a bet with only one runner - so not a serious basis for a gamble, unlike the 3.15 at Worcester this afternoon where I think the likely favourite (which has won its last three races) is no certainty, so it might pay to oppose it with the top-weight, but I could be wrong - now that is what I call a proper wager.
In my experience wagering on the basis of passion alone - 'I like grey horses', 'I like it's name' or 'I have a feeling God exists' - doesn't take into account any 'form' on which an assessment can be made, and is a guess rather than a gamble.
I think what Pascal had in mind is that the Wager involves the highest of stakes, the self, the whole of a person and nothing but the self with the highest imaginable 'win' with the worst imaginable loss.
In terms of choosing ones stake.It is therefore "All".
That then, is the sense in which it is, as you say, a wager with one runner.
-
I think what Pascal had in mind is that the Wager involves the highest of stakes, the self, the whole of a person and nothing but the self with the highest imaginable 'win' with the worst imaginable loss.
In terms of choosing ones stake.It is therefore "All".
That then, is the sense in which it is, as you say, a wager with one runner.
That doesn't work: I'm not staking anything on 'God' existing, or not existing, since not only do I have nothing to stake, there is no 'form' to go in order to make an assessment of a basis for winning or losing the bet, and no stewards to confirm the official result. It doesn't even work as a form of hedging a bet since there is, theoretically, only one runner and even then there is no certainty that the one runner actually exists in the first place and will come under 'starter's orders'.
Even as a thought experiment, I don't think that Pascal's Wager is of any use (aside from its entertainment value.)
-
Just a few thoughts:
1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.
2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.
3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?
4) The last part of the video seems to me to be simply a rehash of the usual Christian proselytising, with the added exhortation to act as if his particular version of the Christian God was real even though one might have no feelings at all in that particular direction.
5) I notice that the speaker encourages you to involve yourself in the evangelistic 3 2 1 course which seems on the face of it to be a little like the Alpha Courses. Having attended two Alpha Courses and been less than impressed, I think I'll give the whole thing a miss thank you.
-
Just a few thoughts:
1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.
2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.
3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?
4) The last part of the video seems to me to be simply a rehash of the usual Christian proselytising, with the added exhortation to act as if his particular version of the Christian God was real even though one might have no feelings at all in that particular direction.
5) I notice that the speaker encourages you to involve yourself in the evangelistic 3 2 1 course which seems on the face of it to be a little like the Alpha Courses. Having attended two Alpha Courses and been less than impressed, I think I'll give the whole thing a miss thank you.
I'm now picturing the 3-2-1 course bring like the TV programme with Ted Rogers with Jesus in place of Dusty Bin. Certainly the logic in the aporiach in the video is a strangulated as the lues on that show. I think it makes a big point about Pascal being an arationalist in this, and then just ignores what that means
-
:D
-
Just a few thoughts:
1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.
But Pascal would argue that the heart,or our passions HAVE their reasons but reasoning there is not dispassionate
2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.
Perhaps the weakest argument since we know fully well what mankind's most selfish desires are and that they amount to satisfaction of the ego, rather than here where the surrender of the ego is required.
It's up to you then to demonstrate how this satisfies the criteria of most selfish desire3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?
Pascal suggests as does the video, that wagering is our modus vivendi. The person who doesn't know for instance whether God exists but acts as though he doesn't is, in fact, wagering and is backing one of the 'runners'. The deist has made the wager that God, having created the universe is now absent. The true agnostic agnostic acts as though they cannot know God.
Pascal, it could be argued is asking us to consider a wager of the highest stakes. One where the potential losses are definitely not zero or minimal.
-
But Pascal would argue that the heart,or our passions HAVE their reasons but reasoning there is not dispassionate ...
You have become confused. Pascal uses a metaphor about the heart's reasons, indeed the heart itself is a metaphor in hospital phrase. He is not arguing that the heart does thinking - that's why he is an arationalist not a heartrationalisat.
ETA - just to note that your approach follows that of the atheists and Christians who are said to be wrong in the video with an epicycle of heartreasoning.
-
You have become confused. Pascal uses a metaphor about the heart's reasons, indeed the heart itself is a metaphor in hospital phrase. He is not arguing that the heart does thinking - that's why he is an arationalist not a heartrationalisat.
ETA - just to note that your approach follows that of the atheists and Christians who are said to be wrong in the video with an epicycle of heartreasoning.
I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a decent understanding of what Pascal means by'The heart'. He isn't talking of a muscular pump. Of course you have brought Hume into the picture which would tend to distort things.
-
The person who doesn't know for instance whether God exists but acts as though he doesn't is, in fact, wagering and is backing one of the 'runners'.
Just no: such a person, and I am one, would simply conclude that as regards 'God', there is no meaningful bet to be had. A one-horse race without a horse is meaningless for betting purposes.
-
I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a decent understanding of what Pascal means by'The heart'. He isn't talking of a muscular pump. Of course you have brought Hume into the picture which would tend to distort things.
I know he's not talking about the bodily organ, that's why I said it was metaphor. That he is using tgat, and reason in this phrase 'heart has its reasons' is the problem you have
-
But Pascal would argue that the heart,or our passions HAVE their reasons but reasoning there is not dispassionate
Pascal also says "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." So, if reason knows nothing about what the heart reasons, then what is the point of producing a reasoned argument. Mr Scrivener suggests quite clearly that 'what the heart loves, the will chooses, the mind then justifies'. Surely then, with this interpretation it becomes rather an exercise in fruitlessness in producing a mathematically based argument to convince you otherwise.
Perhaps the weakest argument since we know fully well what mankind's most selfish desires are and that they amount to satisfaction of the ego, rather than here where the surrender of the ego is required.
It's up to you then to demonstrate how this satisfies the criteria of most selfish desire
I don't find it a weak argument at all.The whole wager is based upon the idea of a personal reward. it is all to do with what is best for oneself as the primary reason for believing in a Christian god. Underlying it is a fear of eternal punishment and a choice tending towards self preservation.
Pascal suggests as does the video, that wagering is our modus vivendi. The person who doesn't know for instance whether God exists but acts as though he doesn't is, in fact, wagering and is backing one of the 'runners'. The deist has made the wager that God, having created the universe is now absent. The true agnostic agnostic acts as though they cannot know God.
Pascal, it could be argued is asking us to consider a wager of the highest stakes. One where the potential losses are definitely not zero or minimal.
This was of course your response to my statement and question:
The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?
Which you have singularly failed to answer. Incidentally, I don't see my life particularly in terms of wagering. I simply get on with my life without much thought to any god, as I don't consider any of them as having any personal significance.
-
Which you have singularly failed to answer. Incidentally, I don't see my life particularly in terms of wagering. I simply get on with my life without much thought to any god, as I don't consider any of them as having any personal significance.
I guess you are asking why I do not seem to be particularly impressed by Dr Dawkins brilliant knock down question, "Which God"?I have already addressed this by saying we wager on gods as soon as we here of them and each new one who crosses our path. The monotheist has wagered that there is but one. The monotheistic presumably has considered one God and a pantheon of gods and is not impressed when say Doctor Dawkins gives them equal weight although when he does this he is trying a horses laugh type argument.
That anyone seriously puts weight on Dawkins question usually tells me that they don't know muck comparative religion to realise the demands made by different religions.
Finally there are atheists prepared to own up to actually not wanting a God. I'm thinking of Thomas Nagel and Lawrence Krauss and would distinguish between that impulse and dispassionate rationality.
Are you a wagerer? I'm not in the sense that Gordon's bookies are unlikely to see me and I guess you can count yourself as not a betting man but I would bet that you hold at least one belief that couldn't be classed as knowledge.
-
I don't find it a weak argument at all.The whole wager is based upon the idea of a personal reward. it is all to do with what is best for oneself as the primary reason for believing in a Christian god. Underlying it is a fear of eternal punishment and a choice tending towards self preservation.
I'm reminded by this of the new testament episode where a rich man comes to Jesus wishing to become a disciple.
When Jesus tells him to sell all he has to give to the poor. The rich man turns and leaves.
Where in that story is the self interest. Is it in becoming a disciple?Improving the lot of others or is it in the saving of one's control over what one has?
Who then is disadvantaged by anyone's decision for God since we are all offered it. By sacrificing ones place with God advantages no one here it seems.
-
Dear Sane and Vlad,
I would like to talk about the heart, does the heart actually think? does the heart have thoughts? do you know?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane and Vlad,
I would like to talk about the heart, does the heart actually think? does the heart have thoughts? do you know?
Gonnagle.
There are some hypotheses around the link between heart and brain. Note none of that impacts what Pascal means, or what the video is saying.
https://neurolaunch.com/does-the-heart-have-a-brain/
-
Dear Sane and Vlad,
I would like to talk about the heart, does the heart actually think? does the heart have thoughts? do you know?
Gonnagle.
I think people involve the notion of a heart as the essential 'You' and 'me' as the decider for action or attitude but
When people feel they are required to be rational they go all stiff and drop thoughts of and the importance of the heart in pretty much everything.
-
I guess you are asking why I do not seem to be particularly impressed by Dr Dawkins brilliant knock down question, "Which God"?I have already addressed this by saying we wager on gods as soon as we here of them and each new one who crosses our path. The monotheist has wagered that there is but one. The monotheistic presumably has considered one God and a pantheon of gods and is not impressed when say Doctor Dawkins gives them equal weight although when he does this he is trying a horses laugh type argument.
I'm simply asking why limit it to the Christian God? Even if you limit it to monotheistic religions, there are a number of candidates. E.g. the Jewish God, the God of Islam, the God of Sikhism.
That anyone seriously puts weight on Dawkins question usually tells me that they don't know muck comparative religion to realise the demands made by different religions.
What matters, according to the wager, is whether its to your advantage to believe in whatever god you are talking about. And this is where, according to the wager, Christianity scores heavily as the God you don't want to cross, because it is built on fear.
Finally there are atheists prepared to own up to actually not wanting a God. I'm thinking of Thomas Nagel and Lawrence Krauss and would distinguish between that impulse and dispassionate rationality.
So?
Are you a wagerer? I'm not in the sense that Gordon's bookies are unlikely to see me and I guess you can count yourself as not a betting man but I would bet that you hold at least one belief that couldn't be classed as knowledge.
Surprisingly I used to belong to a card school and used to bet regularly for money, especially in games like chemin de fer and pontoon. The idea of Pascal's wager, for me, has no significance whatever. I'd much rather live a fulfilled life here than live a lie on the decidedly dodgy basis of there being a godlike entity, and especially the idea that the Christian one is the one I should place my bets on.
-
I'm reminded by this of the new testament episode where a rich man comes to Jesus wishing to become a disciple.
When Jesus tells him to sell all he has to give to the poor. The rich man turns and leaves.
Where in that story is the self interest. Is it in becoming a disciple?Improving the lot of others or is it in the saving of one's control over what one has?
Who then is disadvantaged by anyone's decision for God since we are all offered it. By sacrificing ones place with God advantages no one here it seems.
I'm reminded of a whole range of so called Christian churches who like to swear allegiance to their God whilst clinging on and increasing their riches.
The self interest comes from the basis of the wager, of course. It's a personal wager which suggests that you do what's in your best interest first and foremost, and you are encouraged to take up Christianity, whether you agree with its tenets or not, because it's to your advantage. As Mr Scrivener puts it, 'an infinite win'. 'Improving the lot of others' is not simply the prerogative of Christians and has nothing to do with the wager, which is purely about one's personal survival.
-
I guess you are asking why I do not seem to be particularly impressed by Dr Dawkins brilliant knock down question, "Which God"?I have already addressed this by saying we wager on gods as soon as we here of them and each new one who crosses our path. The monotheist has wagered that there is but one. The monotheistic presumably has considered one God and a pantheon of gods and is not impressed when say Doctor Dawkins gives them equal weight although when he does this he is trying a horses laugh type argument.
That anyone seriously puts weight on Dawkins question usually tells me that they don't know muck comparative religion to realise the demands made by different religions.
Finally there are atheists prepared to own up to actually not wanting a God. I'm thinking of Thomas Nagel and Lawrence Krauss and would distinguish between that impulse and dispassionate rationality.
Are you a wagerer? I'm not in the sense that Gordon's bookies are unlikely to see me and I guess you can count yourself as not a betting man but I would bet that you hold at least one belief that couldn't be classed as knowledge.
On the question of the monotheism, I immediately call to mind the Epistle of James 2:19, which I give in my own copyrighted translation:
"So you believe in one God, do you? Well bully for you! The demons also believe, and are shitting themselves."
(The text here invites us to believe in demons as well, as do many parts of the Bible, and such a belief is put into the mouth of Jesus himself. But that's another story.)
The text does however highlight the essential inanity of Pascal's argument, though, which as he has worded it seems to indicate this is almost the only thing required for 'eternal salvation'. I'm sure most Christians would admit this is only the first essential, and a bit more than that is required, though Luther of course made 'Salvation by Faith' the whole foundation of his reforms (And the Epistle of John tells us that "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"). Mr Scrivener in his video made much of what an intellectual genius Pascal was, and that because of that we should take his dictum seriously. Well, Newton was also a titanic intellectual genius, but spent half his labours on trying to prove the validity of astrology. One can be a genius and still be pretty stupid.
To the video itself. This requires something of a preamble from me on the matter of "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point" I do not know whether Pascal formulated this dictum and his Wager before or after his notorious mystic experience: it would make sense to think they followed it, given the emotional nature of that profound shock to his system. (For those unaware of this, it seems that Pascal kept this experience a purely private matter right up to his death, when the details were found on a sheet of paper sewn into his coat. During a period of illness he experienced for several hours what he called "Fire - Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel - not the God of the philosophers". It is significant that he didn't mention this to be God the Son, Jesus, the second person of the Trinity) Now that was an emotional experience par excellence, but no matter how profoundly it moved him, it still remains resolutely subjective. Bertrand Russell was brusquely dismissive of such experiences, precisely on this basis. I used to think this was incredibly short-sighted, but when you consider the volcanic experiences of the Lakota indians, for example, you realise that monotheistic belief systems have no monopoly on matters of this kind.
NearlySane and Enki have both analysed the main failings of Scrivener's thesis: the attempt to make an intellectual argument from standpoint which denies that humans are capable of making such a detached position, since emotions govern everything (Le coeur a ses raisons...) He goes on to say that everyone of us every day are continually making a wager on our status in the universe and presumably our fate (not sure I understood this). I can only say that ultimately my own disbelief was indeed finalised by emotional circumstances, and rationalised afterwards. It would certainly take some earthquake of emotional upheaval to reverse this, and make a rational explanation thereafter.
-
I'm simply asking why limit it to the Christian God? Even if you limit it to monotheistic religions, there are a number of candidates. E.g. the Jewish God, the God of Islam, the God of Sikhism.
What matters, according to the wager, is whether its to your advantage to believe in whatever god you are talking about. And this is where, according to the wager, Christianity scores heavily as the God you don't want to cross, because it is built on fear.
So?
Surprisingly I used to belong to a card school and used to bet regularly for money, especially in games like chemin de fer and pontoon. The idea of Pascal's wager, for me, has no significance whatever. I'd much rather live a fulfilled life here than live a lie on the decidedly dodgy basis of there being a godlike entity, and especially the idea that the Christian one is the one I should place my bets on.
Dear Enki,
One God, that's it, say no more, just one God.
Anyway I am more interested in old Sane saying we can't choose our passions, or all the talk in the video about from the heart, much more interesting than some old Pascals wager.
Gonnagle.