Pascal's Wager

[2ndRateMind]

So, it seems that the mathematician Blaise Pascal thought it is more rational to believe in God, than not believe. But the reason he gave is, to say the least, a little controversial. Basically, he weighed up this mortal life with the promised (or threatened) immortal hereafter.

He thought it better to believe now, and suffer short-term privations to be rewarded with eternal bliss, than disbelieve now, for short-term abundance of sensual satiation, to be rewarded with either eternal torment or oblivion.

If you choose the former, and are right, and God exists in some form Christians might recognise, you lose a little satisfaction now, but stand to gain a lot later. If you are wrong, and God does not exist, you lose nothing more.

If you are right about the latter, and God does not exist, you may gain a little satisfaction now. But if you are wrong, you've messed up big time, and mortal satisfactions are soon forgotten, and will not compensate you in Hell.

So, either you stake a little, and stand to gain everything, or you stake nothing, and stand to lose everything. The rational choice, according to Pascal, is to stake a little, and believe, and act out that belief.

I have to say, this is not a line of argument I find entirely persuasive. I can find several criticisms, but for me, the central issue lies in choosing to believe what is expedient irrespective as to whether it is true. One can believe a true proposition for bad reasons, and a false proposition for good reasons. And which is closer to virtue is a debatable point. Pascal was no fool, and must have understood this, which makes me think his wager was meant humorous, rather than serious.

But I'm wondering if you all have opinions on this hoary old chestnut, and whether you would like to share them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

Can't help thinking that there is a significant difference between committing adultery in your heart, and committing adultery in reality.

But I do not think the adultery is necessarily as great a sin as the lust. Seems to me that lust is an entirely selfish drive, whereas adultery need not be entirely selfish. I do not recommend wholesale adultery, but it can be an expression of love, and where love is, I think God is.

Best wishes, 2RM.

That's all fine and dandy 2RM, but then what "God" are we talking about here?

If we toss out the dogma of Christianity, including the teachings of Jesus about the equivalence of thinking versus doing, and proclaim that the ultimate "Law" is "Love", then we have just created our own imaginary God that has nothing to do with Biblical dogma or the teachings of Jesus.

In other words, your suggestion hardly constitutes an apology or defense for Christian dogma. To the contrary, all you are basically suggesting is that we basically ignore the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and just imagine our own ideal "God of Pure Love", where love is all that matters and there's no need to even think about accepting a "Sacrifical Lamb" having been slaughtered on our behalf to "pay for our sins".

In short, I don't see where your response helps Christianity one iota. And let's face it, Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God who will condemn you if you don't do as the Bible claims God requires.

So running off to proclaim "All that really matters is love", hardly satisfies Pascal's Wager. Even an atheist can proclaim that all that matters is love. There's no need to even imagine a God for that. So Pascal's Wager would once again be meaningless.

[The Tanager]

You'll need to argue with Jesus on that one. He's the one who said that to think it is the same as having done it, not me. I just pointed out what Jesus said.

I'm not disputing he said what is recorded in Matthew 5:27-28. But you are taking this to mean something different. You have been saying that Jesus means that only what we think reflects our true character and not our actions. Matthew 5:27-28 does not say that. And in other places Jesus says stuff like "you will know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:20)

According to Jesus both our thoughts and actions reflect our true character. For even if our deceitful actions can fool others (as people often try to do), this action of deceit is reflecting our true thoughts (trying to deceive others) and true character. But this seems totally beside the point of the thread anyway.

[Divine Insight]

You have been saying that Jesus means that only what we think reflects our true character and not our actions.

Could you please point out where I ever said that "only" what we think reflects our true character, and not our actions?

I have never said that nor remotely implied it. I simply pointed out that according to Jesus if we merely think of doing something in our mind that is equivalent to having done it in action.

By the way, if you want to use symbolic logic to talk about logical arguments then you had better realize that nothing in anything I said implied that "only" what we think reflects our character. I can't imagine how you came to that illogical conclusion from what I said.

Matthew 5:27-28 does not say that. And in other places Jesus says stuff like "you will know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:20)

According to Jesus both our thoughts and actions reflect our true character. For even if our deceitful actions can fool others (as people often try to do), this action of deceit is reflecting our true thoughts (trying to deceive others) and true character. But this seems totally beside the point of the thread anyway.

I don't think this is beside the point of the thread at all. It addresses the absurdities and contradictions of Christianity which would also be paramount to Pascal's Wager.

You have just demonstrated a contradiction made by Jesus himself. In one place he tells us that merely thinking of committing adultery in our mind is the same as having committed it. Yet in another place he tells us that we should be able to recognize righteous people by their fruits. This actually contradicts Jesus' own teachings.

If an unrighteous person is only unrighteous in their thoughts, but not in their deeds, then we would have no way of being able to see this. Therefore we cannot possibly know them by their works or fruits.

So Jesus contradicts his own teachings.

How does this relate to Pascal's Wager? Well what exactly are we supposed to be betting on? That we can trust the teachings of Jesus? Isn't that who we are supposed to be believing in according to Pascal? I doubt that Pascal was suggesting that we should be betting on Islam, or the Gods of any other religions.

[2ndRateMind]

...In other words, your suggestion hardly constitutes an apology or defense for Christian dogma.

Indeed not. But then, that is not my mission.

To the contrary, all you are basically suggesting is that we basically ignore the Bible and the teachings of Jesus and just imagine our own ideal "God of Pure Love", where love is all that matters and there's no need to even think about accepting a "Sacrifical Lamb" having been slaughtered on our behalf to "pay for our sins".

And why do you think Jesus gave His life, if it was not for love of God and love of humanity, selfless, pure, and total?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

And why do you think Jesus gave His life, if it was not for love of God and love of humanity, selfless, pure, and total?

Best wishes, 2RM.

What I might think about Jesus supposedly having "given his life" is totally irrelevant. Even the Christians can't seem to agree on their total speculations on that question.

Trying to guess why Jesus might have "given his life" is only of interest to hard-core faith-based believers of the religion to begin with.

As someone who doesn't even believe in the religion it doesn't appear to me that Jesus "gave his life" at all. To the contrary he was brutally crucified beyond his control or consent. That hardly equates to having "given his life" for anything.

In fact, there are countless questions and contradictions associated with the idea that any God (whether it be Jesus himself or Yahweh) would have purposely designed such a scenario as the centerpiece of salvation. It's not even compatible with the rest of the religion. This religion was originally supposed to be about humans taking responsibility for their own actions. But now, with Christianity, it has become free amnesty to anyone who's willing to accept Jesus as their sacrificial scapegoat.

And I think this all is important when it comes to Pascal's Wager. Because after all Pascal's Wager is basically asking us to place our bets on the idea that this entire religious paradigm actually makes some sort of sense or might be true.

If we TRULY BELIEVED that we wouldn't need to bet on it. And if we don't believe it then "betting that it might be true" would be to live a lie. So this makes Pascal's Wager utterly absurd.

Pascal is basically suggesting that if we merely "bet on Jesus" without actually believing in him, that should be sufficient for salvation and to make it into eternal life.

In other words, Pascal is basically suggesting that non-believers should be able to easily fool Jesus by simply placing a bet that they don't even truly believe in.

Pascal's Wager is nothing other than an exhibition that Pascal himself never even remotely understood what Christianity was even about.

You either believe in the religion or you don't. Pretending that it might be true on a bet isn't going to cut it. Apparently Pascal wasn't bright enough to understand this simple fact. All Christians should renounce Pascal's Wager and Pascal himself as someone who clearly didn't even understand Chrsitianity.

In fact, Pascal is basically suggesting that works alone (even works performed as a bet) is enough to obtain salvation and eternal life.

No need to believe in Jesus, for if a person believed in Jesus they wouldn't need to make Pascal's Wager.

[The Tanager]

Could you please point out where I ever said that "only" what we think reflects our true character, and not our actions?

I have never said that nor remotely implied it. I simply pointed out that according to Jesus if we merely think of doing something in our mind that is equivalent to having done it in action.

By the way, if you want to use symbolic logic to talk about logical arguments then you had better realize that nothing in anything I said implied that "only" what we think reflects our character. I can't imagine how you came to that illogical conclusion from what I said.

This is from my post 24:

Are you suggesting that Christianity is all about what we actually do and not at all about our true character?

No, I'm not suggesting that. Christianity says what we do reflects our true character.

You responded in post 27 with this:

Again I disagree with you. According to Jesus if a person so much as thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. Therefore according to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character. What we think and desire in our mind is what represents our true character.

You clearly say there that Jesus thought what we do does not reflect our true character. That, in fact, what we think and desire is what represents our true character. We've been talking about two things: thought and action. Here you rule out action as reflecting our true character, according to Jesus, which logically leaves only thought.

I don't think this is beside the point of the thread at all. It addresses the absurdities and contradictions of Christianity which would also be paramount to Pascal's Wager.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Please correct my misunderstandings.

1. That Pascal's wager is saying that you can:

(a) choose to perform Christian morals (even though you have a different character)

(b) reject Christian morals and take part in other things you find joy in

2. And that Pascal says choosing (a) is best, but this is a contradiction because Jesus says it's not only about performing the morals, but having the right thoughts, having the right character?

You have just demonstrated a contradiction made by Jesus himself. In one place he tells us that merely thinking of committing adultery in our mind is the same as having committed it. Yet in another place he tells us that we should be able to recognize righteous people by their fruits. This actually contradicts Jesus' own teachings.

If an unrighteous person is only unrighteous in their thoughts, but not in their deeds, then we would have no way of being able to see this. Therefore we cannot possibly know them by their works or fruits.

So Jesus contradicts his own teachings.

Eventually what people truly think and are will show in their actions. You can't hide it forever. So, I don't see this as a contradiction.

How does this relate to Pascal's Wager? Well what exactly are we supposed to be betting on? That we can trust the teachings of Jesus? Isn't that who we are supposed to be believing in according to Pascal? I doubt that Pascal was suggesting that we should be betting on Islam, or the Gods of any other religions.

You seem to be thinking it's about the moral teachings of Jesus and maybe Pascal did, too. But, for many, Christianity is not about trusting in/doing the moral teachings of Jesus. The wager, if they wanted to present one, would be:

(a) choose to accept that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins (even though the evidence has you setting on the fence)

(b) choose to reject the above

If you choose (a) and God exists, you will get God and infinite bliss. If you choose (a) and God doesn't exist you will miss out on some things that could have been fun, but the Christian life is also a happy life.

If you choose (b) and God exists, then you get hell. If God doesn't exist you've gained some things that you would have missed out on that aren't immoral.

This seems to me to be a different thing than what you are saying goes on with the wager and why it fails. We don't get the trying to fool God in this understanding, which is what led to the contradiction in your laying out of the wager.

[Divine Insight]

You responded in post 27 with this:

Again I disagree with you. According to Jesus if a person so much as thinks of committing a sin in their mind they have done it in their heart. Therefore according to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character. What we think and desire in our mind is what represents our true character.

You clearly say there that Jesus thought what we do does not reflect our true character. That, in fact, what we think and desire is what represents our true character. We've been talking about two things: thought and action. Here you rule out action as reflecting our true character, according to Jesus, which logically leaves only thought.

This is totally false thinking on your part. You can hardly do anything without first thinking about it. Therefore thought is paramount.

So for you to suggest that I was "ruling out" what we actually do is utter nonsense. You are the one who made that incorrect and illogical assumption.

I can't be held responsible for your illogical conclusions.

I don't think this is beside the point of the thread at all. It addresses the absurdities and contradictions of Christianity which would also be paramount to Pascal's Wager.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Please correct my misunderstandings.

1. That Pascal's wager is saying that you can:

(a) choose to perform Christian morals (even though you have a different character)

(b) reject Christian morals and take part in other things you find joy in

So far I agree that this is what Pascal's Wager is saying. I'm not necessarily in agreement that this actually makes any sense. I'm not sure that people could change their character on a bet. But that would be an entirely different argument.

I agree that this is what Pascal is suggesting. Whether it actually makes any practical sense or not is a totally different question.

2. And that Pascal says choosing (a) is best, but this is a contradiction because Jesus says it's not only about performing the morals, but having the right thoughts, having the right character?

Yes, again I agree. In fact, this is my point. Even if a person chooses to behavior externally in action according to Christian morals (whatever that might even mean), this doesn't necessarily mean that they have changed their character or their thoughts about what they would actually rather do.

So I pointed out that according to Jesus a person would need to do far more than just choose to live their life by Christian morals, they would actually need to think this way and be the way in character.

Do you think people can change who they are on a "bet"?

And even if they did, would that be a sufficient reason in Christianity? If so then clearly there is no need to believe in Jesus. All a person would need to do is gamble on Jesus. That's quite a bit different from believing on him. After all, if they actually believed on Jesus they wouldn't need to be making gambling bets in the first place.

So Pascal is suggesting that we can attain eternal life on a bet without actually believing in Jesus. As a Christian do you agree with that philosophy?

You have just demonstrated a contradiction made by Jesus himself. In one place he tells us that merely thinking of committing adultery in our mind is the same as having committed it. Yet in another place he tells us that we should be able to recognize righteous people by their fruits. This actually contradicts Jesus' own teachings.

If an unrighteous person is only unrighteous in their thoughts, but not in their deeds, then we would have no way of being able to see this. Therefore we cannot possibly know them by their works or fruits.

So Jesus contradicts his own teachings.

Eventually what people truly think and are will show in their actions. You can't hide it forever. So, I don't see this as a contradiction.

So here all you are saying is that Pascal's Wager could never work anyway. In short you are suggesting that a person could not restrain themselves from committing sins even on a bet.

And getting back to Jesus, my point was that according to Jesus, even if you did manage to restrain yourself from acting on your thoughts it wouldn't matter, Jesus would still consider that you have committed the sins you thought about anyway.

So according to Jesus even people who never act on their thoughts could be immoral sinners in their minds. And you could never know this from their actions.

How does this relate to Pascal's Wager? Well what exactly are we supposed to be betting on? That we can trust the teachings of Jesus? Isn't that who we are supposed to be believing in according to Pascal? I doubt that Pascal was suggesting that we should be betting on Islam, or the Gods of any other religions.

You seem to be thinking it's about the moral teachings of Jesus and maybe Pascal did, too. But, for many, Christianity is not about trusting in/doing the moral teachings of Jesus. The wager, if they wanted to present one, would be:

(a) choose to accept that Jesus died for the forgiveness of your sins (even though the evidence has you setting on the fence)

(b) choose to reject the above

If you choose (a) and God exists, you will get God and infinite bliss. If you choose (a) and God doesn't exist you will miss out on some things that could have been fun, but the Christian life is also a happy life.

If you choose (b) and God exists, then you get hell. If God doesn't exist you've gained some things that you would have missed out on that aren't immoral.

This seems to me to be a different thing than what you are saying goes on with the wager and why it fails. We don't get the trying to fool God in this understanding, which is what led to the contradiction in your laying out of the wager.

If you chose (a) on a bet, it can only be because you don't actually believe it. Otherwise why would you need to be making the bet in the first place?

So are you saying that it's not necessary to believe in Jesus?

We can fake it and obtain eternal life in paradise anyway?

In other words, you seem to be suggesting we can successful fool Jesus by betting that he might actually be the Son of Yahweh, a God that we don't even believe actually exists. And obtain eternal life, even though we were nothing more than betting atheists the whole time.

I personally don't see where this would be remotely compatible with most Christian theologies.

At best, all this could achieve is to convince some non-believers to think they if they simply cower down to the demands of religious authority they can be saved, even though they don't believe in Yahweh, or that Jesus was his son.

For if they believed any of that they wouldn't need to be making any silly bets in the first place.

So Pascal's Wager is nothing more than a cheap attempt to try to convince non-believers that if they are willing to fool Jesus they can obtain eternal life anyway.

I seriously doubt that Pascal's Wager has actually worked to convert very many people into becoming make-pretend Christians anyway. Even most atheists can probably see that it would be a dishonest attempt at trying to fool Jesus even if Jesus actually existed.

It's basically nothing more than an evangelical trick to try to get non-believers to "pretend" to believe.

But if you stop and think about it you can see that it would be an extremely dishonest approach to the religion in any case. So Pascal is encouraging people to become dishonest "Christians" who don't truly believe but have only become Christians "on a bet". And for nothing more than a lust to obtain eternal life and avoid a possible damnation of eternal suffering. The carrot and punishments used by this religion to try to obtain supporting members. They don't even care why you're there evidently. They'll accept dishonest gamblers. They just want more people supporting their religion. Why you are a member apparently doesn't matter at all.

[The Tanager]

This is totally false thinking on your part. You can hardly do anything without first thinking about it. Therefore thought is paramount.

So for you to suggest that I was "ruling out" what we actually do is utter nonsense. You are the one who made that incorrect and illogical assumption.

I can't be held responsible for your illogical conclusions.

So, you are saying both of these things:

(1) According to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character.
(2) According to Jesus what we actually do is not ruled out as reflecting our true character.

How do these two statements not contradict each other?

So Pascal is suggesting that we can attain eternal life on a bet without actually believing in Jesus. As a Christian do you agree with that philosophy?

As I've said earlier, I don't. But I went back and read the wager in Pascal's words and he didn't believe that either. I forgot he was a Fideist. Pascal is arguing that if you want to use reason, then reason will tell you to gamble on God existing. But Pascal thinks God is perceived by the heart, not by reason. He's trying to show the emptiness of reason in regards to knowledge about God.

[Divine Insight]

This is totally false thinking on your part. You can hardly do anything without first thinking about it. Therefore thought is paramount.

So for you to suggest that I was "ruling out" what we actually do is utter nonsense. You are the one who made that incorrect and illogical assumption.

I can't be held responsible for your illogical conclusions.

So, you are saying both of these things:

(1) According to Jesus what we actually do does not reflect our true character.
(2) According to Jesus what we actually do is not ruled out as reflecting our true character.

How do these two statements not contradict each other?

That's not what I'm saying. My #1 would properly read:

(1) According to Jesus what we actually do may not reflect our true character.

This is because Jesus allows that thoughts alone without action can be the same as having committed a sin.

So you can't tell anything about someone's character by just observing their actions as their actions may not expose their true character (according to Jesus).

This is because Jesus allows for "thoughts to be just as sinful as actions".

So there are no logical problems with my position. You are trying to create a contradiction where there is none.

So Pascal is suggesting that we can attain eternal life on a bet without actually believing in Jesus. As a Christian do you agree with that philosophy?

As I've said earlier, I don't. But I went back and read the wager in Pascal's words and he didn't believe that either. I forgot he was a Fideist. Pascal is arguing that if you want to use reason, then reason will tell you to gamble on God existing. But Pascal thinks God is perceived by the heart, not by reason. He's trying to show the emptiness of reason in regards to knowledge about God.

If he wanted to show that then he should have recognized that his proposed wager would indeed be empty.

Besides, how would betting that a God you don't believe in might exist equate to placing faith in God?

Clearly Pascal was as irrational as many Christian apologists. Christian apologists often can't see the folly of their own arguments.

[2ndRateMind]

As someone who doesn't even believe in the religion it doesn't appear to me that Jesus "gave his life" at all. To the contrary he was brutally crucified beyond his control or consent. That hardly equates to having "given his life" for anything.

Jesus was on a trajectory. And He knew full well where that trajectory ended. And He neither ran nor hid from that ending, just did what He felt He had to do. He provides an example of innocent virtue caught up in the brutality of the theology and politics of His time. The challenge for us is; can we replicate that virtue, can we emulate Christ, even in our more tolerant age?

Best wishes, 2RM.