Pascal's Wager

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.
You don't have to be certain of the outcome to make a bet. Do you understand how betting works?Why would I have knowledge that I turned down the relationship with God. I'd be dead, remember.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#:~:text=%22Pascal's%20Wager%22%20redirects%20here.,existentialism%2C%20pragmatism%2C%20and%20voluntarism.

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#:~:text=%22Pascal's%20Wager%22%20redirects%20here.,existentialism%2C%20pragmatism%2C%20and%20voluntarism.

This explains the wager in the way that Scrivener says is wrong, but follows.

[jeremyp]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#:~:text=%22Pascal's%20Wager%22%20redirects%20here.,existentialism%2C%20pragmatism%2C%20and%20voluntarism.

Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God.

My questions are:

What lifestyle should I adopt bearing in mid that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc etc etc all claim different lifestyles?

How do I strive to believe in God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My questions are:

What lifestyle should I adopt bearing in mid that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc etc etc all claim different lifestyles?

How do I strive to believe in God?

Regarding lifestyles what came to mind were the words of the NT "Seek the Kingdom of God first and everything will be added to you", that seems the order of things.

I would suggest you take an inventory of what attracts people to their theistic religion and what is holding you back.

[jeremyp]

Regarding lifestyles what came to mind were the words of the NT "Seek the Kingdom of God first and everything will be added to you", that seems the order of things.

But that answer begs the question.

It assumes that I have already adopted the Christian lifestyle and believe everything I read in the New Testament.

I would suggest you take an inventory of what attracts people to their theistic religion and what is holding you back.

I did that and what holds me back is the realisation that the things that attract people to theistic religions are without foundation and often contradictory.

Both of my questions remain unanswered.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that answer begs the question.

It assumes that I have already adopted the Christian lifestyle and believe everything I read in the New Testament. I did that and what holds me back is the realisation that the things that attract people to theistic religions are without foundation and often contradictory.

Both of my questions remain unanswered.

No, I think it assumes non belief with no engagement whatsoever with the faith.

I can certainly testify to not wanting to 'get sucked in' br religion, as if it were some kind of danger in a public information film and later experiencing resistance to Christianity to protect my ego and sense of self righteousness.

[Gordon]

No, I think it assumes non belief with no engagement whatsoever with the faith.

I can certainly testify to not wanting to 'get sucked in' br religion, as if it were some kind of danger in a public information film and later experiencing resistance to Christianity to protect my ego and sense of self righteousness.

I think you are missing one aspect here: for some of us Christianity simply doesn't matter in personal terms: for me, it has always been an irrelevance since there is nothing about it that I consider to be remotely convincing or worth engaging with, so I never have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you are missing one aspect here: for some of us Christianity simply doesn't matter in personal terms: for me, it has always been an irrelevance since there is nothing about it that I consider to be remotely convincing or worth engaging with, so I never have.

With all due respect that doesn't quite wash coming as it does from a long term moderator on a religion and ethics forum.

I seem to recall your concern over school pupils being involved in the practice of school nativities thus betraying the same attitude as I did in my ignorance, considering Christianity as a danger to be avoided.

[Gordon]

With all due respect that doesn't quite wash coming as it does from a long term moderator on a religion and ethics forum.

I've always been interested regarding why people take theism, especially Christianity, seriously even though I'm perplexed that they do. That they seem unable to keep it to themselves makes it fair game for discussion: hence, here we are.

I seem to recall your concern over school pupils being involved in the practice of school nativities thus betraying the same attitude as I did in my ignorance, considering Christianity as a danger to be avoided.

I have always taken the view that acts of religious worship have no place in schools, and especially primary schools, but I have no problem with teaching religious awareness and political/social history relating to religion. In fact, just before the summer break, we had a letter from the school reminding of how we could exclude the kids from religious observances (Easter services etc) if we wish to do so, though in reality these tend not to happen during the school day.

I don't see religion as an intrinsic 'danger', and I fully accept that for many families who have a religious outlook their bringing up their children accordingly is what they see as being in the best interests of their own children. That they do so is none of my business provided that it doesn't extend into what happens in schools.

[jeremyp]

No, I think it assumes non belief with no engagement whatsoever with the faith.

Why should anybody engage in your faith? How can you persuade people that yours is the correct faith, especially given that it is actually self contradictory?

I can certainly testify to not wanting to 'get sucked in' br religion, as if it were some kind of danger in a public information film and later experiencing resistance to Christianity to protect my ego and sense of self righteousness.

Your ego and sense of self righteousness are definitely unharmed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should anybody engage in your faith? How can you persuade people that yours is the correct faith, especially given that it is actually self contradictory?Your ego and sense of self righteousness are definitely unharmed.

As I said to Gordon you engage simply by being a long time messenger on a religion/ ethics message board.

As for your comments on my ego. I think you might be getting a little personal and a bit rattled.

Yes it takes a self to relate but to relate the ego has to make itself giving and vulnerable and prepared to make a leap into the unknown.

[jeremyp]

As I said to Gordon you engage simply by being a long time messenger on a religion/ ethics message board.

But my long time membership on this board has only convinced me that Christians do not really know what they are talking about. If anything, I find your faith somewhat less credible than I did 20 years ago.

As for your comments on my ego. I think you might be getting a little personal and a bit rattled.

You were the one who brought it up.

Yes it takes a self to relate but to relate the ego has to make itself giving and vulnerable and prepared to make a leap into the unknown.

Ha ha. We are talking about the rational choice in a wager and you are now trying to say that a leap into the unknown is the rational choice. You need to think things through more.

[Gordon]

Just to note, on the subject of wagering, that Vlad won the first race at Windsor this evening - I couldn't resist a bet, so I'm nearly 50 quid up.

Well done Vlad.

[Maeght]

As I said to Gordon you engage simply by being a long time messenger on a religion/ ethics message board.

As for your comments on my ego. I think you might be getting a little personal and a bit rattled.

Yes it takes a self to relate but to relate the ego has to make itself giving and vulnerable and prepared to make a leap into the unknown.

Engaging with but not in surely.