Pascal's Wager

[Enki]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[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.

[Nearly Sane]

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/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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 shamans 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.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Firstly, are all things that are to our advantage wrong?, since the atheist sees the advantage in his wager I.e. although God might exist it is better to act as if he doesn't

I have to stick at acknowledging God as tbeing he very opposite of protecting the self rule of the ego at all costs.

I'm forced to ask what possible virtue there is in refusing God's offer since  no one benefits if the refusal is on the grounds that it is advantageous to do accept?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Enki and Nearly Sane have critiqued Scrivener?...So what? Nearly Sanes lietmotif which crops up in this debate is the perceptual and philosophical incompetence of humanity in these matters.

Enki seems impressed by Dawkin's "Which God?" argument but in my view, Christianity, by some coincidence seems to embody both maximum human fulfilment, loving union with "The source"
and maximum human jeopardy, namely, the consciousness of falling short of this fulfilment entirely through one's own doing.

Even had Christ not existed, philosophy itself would have eventually worked this out. So no, Pascal has got to the heart of the matter.

Does Scrivener critique Dawkins and Hitchens on their oh so casual and ignorant dismissal of Pascal? About time someone did.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Give it a rest old chap, Dawkins and Hitchens are old news, the world has moved on, their arguments are shallow and uneducated on the whole question of God, all they are are a couple of angry anti theists who rode on the zeitgeist of the time.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Vlad,

Give it a rest old chap, Dawkins and Hitchens are old news, the world has moved on, their arguments are shallow and uneducated on the whole question of God, all they are are a couple of angry anti theists who rode on the zeitgeist of the time.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonnagle

I have dined out for years on these two gentlemen and do not intend to change that

Yours etc, etc.

[Dicky Underpants]

Firstly, are all things that are to our advantage wrong?, since the atheist sees the advantage in his wager I.e. although God might exist it is better to act as if he doesn't

I have to stick at acknowledging God as tbeing he very opposite of protecting the self rule of the ego at all costs.

I'm forced to ask what possible virtue there is in refusing God's offer since  no one benefits if the refusal is on the grounds that it is advantageous to do accept?

God's 'offer'? That's a very loaded word, and I don't see any reference to that in Pascal's Wager. I suppose you're referring to the Vicarious Atonement, which for some reason we're obliged to accept; but that's a long way down the line of theological argument, and many who call themselves Christians still dispute it. It's always a problem for those committed to a certain version of faith that the trite verbiage gets trotted out automatically. I'd say that the phrase 'God's offer' means absolutely nothing to those who are unversed in the niceties of the Christian faith, and indeed absolutely nothing to those like me who are aware of what we're 'supposed' to believe.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gonnagle

I have dined out for years on these two gentlemen and do not intend to change that

Yours etc, etc.

Dear Vlad,

Well at least you are honest

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

God's 'offer'? That's a very loaded word, and I don't see any reference to that in Pascal's Wager. I suppose you're referring to the Vicarious Atonement, which for some reason we're obliged to accept; but that's a long way down the line of theological argument, and many who call themselves Christians still dispute it. It's always a problem for those committed to a certain version of faith that the trite verbiage gets trotted out automatically. I'd say that the phrase 'God's offer' means absolutely nothing to those who are unversed in the niceties of the Christian faith, and indeed absolutely nothing to those like me who are aware of what we're 'supposed' to believe.

Dear Dicky,

Believe in yourself, be the best Dicky Underpants that you can be, don't fuss yourself with eternal bliss, be the best you can be now, leave eternal bliss to God, I was rather hoping for eternal buxom young ladies and eternal quaffing but I fear I am in for a huge disappointment, but hey! I live in hope

Gonnagle.

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Dicky,

Believe in yourself, be the best Dicky Underpants that you can be, don't fuss yourself with eternal bliss, be the best you can be now, leave eternal bliss to God, I was rather hoping for eternal buxom young ladies and eternal quaffing but I fear I am in for a huge disappointment, but hey! I live in hope

Gonnagle.

Pretty much how I try to live. I think I'd like my epitaph to be that of Paul Eddington (Yes Minister) - "At least he didn't do any harm".

[Enki]

Firstly, are all things that are to our advantage wrong?, since the atheist sees the advantage in his wager I.e. although God might exist it is better to act as if he doesn't

I have not suggested that it's wrong, just that it is based on a purely selfish desire.

I have to stick at acknowledging God as tbeing he very opposite of protecting the self rule of the ego at all costs.

Good for you. As a non believer, I don't have any problem in not acknowledging God at all. I find my wife and grown up children are pretty good at puncturing my ego if it becomes too overbearing.

I'm forced to ask what possible virtue there is in refusing God's offer since  no one benefits if the refusal is on the grounds that it is advantageous to do accept?

The idea of accepting some sort of offer from a God that I have no belief in seems rather meaningless to me.

[Enki]

Enki and Nearly Sane have critiqued Scrivener?...So what? Nearly Sanes lietmotif which crops up in this debate is the perceptual and philosophical incompetence of humanity in these matters.

Enki seems impressed by Dawkin's "Which God?" argument but in my view, Christianity, by some coincidence seems to embody both maximum human fulfilment, loving union with "The source"
and maximum human jeopardy, namely, the consciousness of falling short of this fulfilment entirely through one's own doing.

I'm sure it seems so to you, but these are just platitudes to me. The reason that I talked about other gods(and, indeed, other versions of Christianity) is that Mr Scrivener, in his evangelistic fervour, seems to forget about this problem entirely.

Even had Christ not existed, philosophy itself would have eventually worked this out. So no, Pascal has got to the heart of the matter.

You don't need a philosophical outlook to see that many people, throughout history, have gone along with a particular regime simply to protect and even further their own interests.

Does Scrivener critique Dawkins and Hitchens on their oh so casual and ignorant dismissal of Pascal? About time someone did.

No, he simply passes on to his evangelistic message. It seems he leaves it to someone like you to deal with the problems that it entails.

[jeremyp]

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 Christian fails to take into account the third possibility which is that both he and the atheist are wrong. i.e. there is a god but it is not the Christian god. In that scenario, I'd rather be the atheist who followed the evidence than the Christian who would have to explain why he chose the obviously wrong* god to back.

* Because the Christian concept of god is an incoherent mess that can't possibly be true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Christian fails to take into account the third possibility which is that both he and the atheist are wrong. i.e. there is a god but it is not the Christian god. In that scenario, I'd rather be the atheist who followed the evidence than the Christian who would have to explain why he chose the obviously wrong* god to back.

* Because the Christian concept of god is an incoherent mess that can't possibly be true.

Two points here. You seem to be giving atheism more Bites of the Cherry.

Secondly, plumping for both atheism and the Christian being wrong is another"wager".

The Christian, I would have thought is plumping for a God for whom our choice matters and a God they can relate to.

The choice between a Christian unitarianism, Christianity or a Judaism is of course another 'wager' as far as Pascal is concerned.

[jeremyp]

Two points here. You seem to be giving atheism more Bites of the Cherry.

How? I explicitly stated that the atheist follows the evidence. The evidence suggests that there is no god, or at least none of the ones currently worshipped by humans exists.

Secondly, plumping for both atheism and the Christian being wrong is another"wager".

No it isn't. If I only have two things to bet on: Christian god or no god, I choose no god because the Christian's argument for their god fails due to the faulty assumption that those two choices are the only possible outcomes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How? I explicitly stated that the atheist follows the evidence. The evidence suggests that there is no god, or at least none of the ones currently worshipped by humans exists.
No it isn't. If I only have two things to bet on: Christian god or no god, I choose no god because the Christian's argument for their god fails due to the faulty assumption that those two choices are the only possible outcomes.

Pascal would say that , far from following the evidence the atheist makes his decisions not based on logic but the rationality of the passions and then tries to justify by "dispassionate"reason. Not knowing whether God exists but acting like he doesn't is, according to Pascal dispassionately unreasonable.
As I said that is what the atheist is betting on and believes, rather than knows that God does not exist.

The Christian wager encompasses both the highest gain and the worse loss. A God who she can relate to and the knowledge that one turned that down respectively.

[jeremyp]

Pascal would say that , far from following the evidence the atheist makes his decisions not based on logic but the rationality of the passions and then tries to justify by "dispassionate"reason.

This is the same Pascal who failed to recognise the fatal flaws in his own Wager? Yeah, I don't think his argument deserves any special status.

Not knowing whether God exists but acting like he doesn't is, according to Pascal dispassionately unreasonable.
As I said that is what the atheist is betting on and believes, rather than knows that God does not exist.

You don't have to be certain of the outcome to make a bet. Do you understand how betting works?

The Christian wager encompasses both the highest gain and the worse loss. A God who she can relate to and the knowledge that one turned that down respectively.

Why would I have knowledge that I turned down the relationship with God. I'd be dead, remember.