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]

It seems to me that he is saying that you (his general unbelieving audience) say you don't believe because of some reason(s), but it's really because of your passions, of what you want to do. He's telling them to quit deceiving themselves and own up to the emotional aspect of their unbelief.

If that was his point then why present it as a "wager"?

Also, if this is his position then all he has done is insult non-believers by suggesting that their heart must necessarily be in the wrong place if they aren't believing in a God.

Making groundless accusations toward people hardly amounts to showing them how to think rationally.

[The Tanager]

If that was his point then why present it as a "wager"?

I think he's saying that reason can't prove or disprove anything about God. So, if you want to say your beliefs are reason based, then you are left with a 50/50 wager (i.e., it's not that impressive). He's saying your reasoned position has put you on par with guessing the flip of a coin correctly.

Also, if this is his position then all he has done is insult non-believers by suggesting that their heart must necessarily be in the wrong place if they aren't believing in a God.

Making groundless accusations toward people hardly amounts to showing them how to think rationally.

Pascal would probably say telling non-believers the truth is a more loving act than trying to save their feelings.

He would think his claims are grounded. You would disagree with the grounds he offers for those accusations, of course.

And he would, seemingly, happily agree that he isn't trying to show them how to think rationally.

[Divine Insight]

If that was his point then why present it as a "wager"?

I think he's saying that reason can't prove or disprove anything about God. So, if you want to say your beliefs are reason based, then you are left with a 50/50 wager (i.e., it's not that impressive). He's saying your reasoned position has put you on par with guessing the flip of a coin correctly.

All he's doing there is openly confessing that even he can't come up with good reasons to believe in God. If he could he would simply explain what they are.

That's a pretty bad argument for trying to convince people they should place a wager that God exists.

Also, if this is his position then all he has done is insult non-believers by suggesting that their heart must necessarily be in the wrong place if they aren't believing in a God.

Making groundless accusations toward people hardly amounts to showing them how to think rationally.

Pascal would probably say telling non-believers the truth is a more loving act than trying to save their feelings.

He would think his claims are grounded. You would disagree with the grounds he offers for those accusations, of course.

And he would, seemingly, happily agree that he isn't trying to show them how to think rationally.

In that case, he has no rational position at all, and certainly no rational argument, nor is his "wager" rational either.

So what's the point?

Sounds like a guy who just wants to claim to have a point when in fact he has none at all.

[The Tanager]

All he's doing there is openly confessing that even he can't come up with good reasons to believe in God. If he could he would simply explain what they are.

But he also claims that people can't come up with good reasons to disbelieve God exists.

All he's doing there is openly confessing that even he can't come up with good reasons to believe in God. If he could he would simply explain what they are.

He's not trying to convince people to make the wager.

In that case, he has no rational position at all, and certainly no rational argument, nor is his "wager" rational either.

So what's the point? Think

Sounds like a guy who just wants to claim to have a point when in fact he has none at all.

We both disagree with it, but he has a point. His point is that reason can't get you truth. He agrees that he isn't giving a rational argument, but he's also saying you can't give a rational argument against God either.

[Divine Insight]

But he also claims that people can't come up with good reasons to disbelieve God exists.

So? That's nothing more than a mere personal opinion on his part. Many other people feel that there are very good reasons to believe the the idea that a God exists has no merit at all. It was clearly started because ancient ignorant people thought that gods were controlling the weather, natural disasters, disease, and so on.

There is no rational reason to believe that any God actually exists. So all Pascal is doing here is voicing a personal opinion that has no merit beyond that. In fact, "The Problem of Evil" is a huge problem for anyone who wants to claim that a purely benevolent God exists. Why should there be any evil in a world that was created by a benevolent God. The Abrahamic religions blame the problem of evil on humans which is utterly absurd. Especially today when we now know that all manner of death, disease, and natural disasters had been occurring on earth long before humans ever showed up.

So the Abrahamic religions are necessarily false in their claim that humans are responsible for the problem of evil.

No doubt Pascal wasn't aware of what we actually know today. So in his day he was basing his guesses on ignorance.

So it's no longer true that people can't come up with good reasons to believe that no gods exist.

All he's doing there is openly confessing that even he can't come up with good reasons to believe in God. If he could he would simply explain what they are.

He's not trying to convince people to make the wager.

Your position is that he was trying to show people how to think rationally, but there is nothing rational about his thinking, so if that was his goal he failed miserably.

In that case, he has no rational position at all, and certainly no rational argument, nor is his "wager" rational either.

So what's the point? Think

Sounds like a guy who just wants to claim to have a point when in fact he has none at all.

We both disagree with it, but he has a point. His point is that reason can't get you truth. He agrees that he isn't giving a rational argument, but he's also saying you can't give a rational argument against God either.

That's hogwash.

Reason has gotten us to truth. To attempt to deny this is utterly absurd. We know how what causes the weather, natural disasters, and far more importantly disease. Not only do we know the truth of what causes many diseases but we can even prevent and/or cure many of them.

We have even learned the truth of evolution, not only that it has occurred, but we even understand how it works.

So reason has led us to truth. Keep in mind that Pascal was living in an age where this fact hadn't been fully established yet.

But we know that religious myths that claim that God is the one who creates floods, and plagues, and that evil demons possess humans and need to be cast out of us is absolute hogwash. Those were never anything other than ignorant superstitions.

So reason has led us to TRUTH. To say that it hasn't is a falsehood itself.

Could there be some type of abstract God that is quite different from the God that is described in the Bible? Sure there could, but I don't think Pascal was arguing for that. He was a Catholic. He believe in the Bible and Christianity. The very myths that we can now see were based entirely on superstitious ignorance.

Can we say for certain that no possible type of God can possibly exist? No of course not. For all we know the God of Buddhism might exist. There are reasons why the God of Buddhism does not conflict with the truths we have learned from reason.

None the less, the concept of a God like in Buddhism is very much like the proposed philosophy of solipsism. We can't disprove solipsism either. So Solipsism and God are on equal footing. Either one may or may not be true.

But just because we can't say for absolutely certain that some particular concept cannot be ruled out is not a good reason to live your entire life as though it might factually true.

And as I keep pointing out, Pascal's arguments support a belief in Islam every bit as much as they support a belief in Christianity. So even Pascal himself could say absolutely nothing against someone taking his argument and running off to become an Islamic Extremist, killing heathens to appease Allah and obtain a guaranteed place in heaven with ten virgins to boot.

If you place your bet on Christianity you could still lose! After all, Jesus might not recognize your gambling as satisfying his requirements for the gift of salvation. But if you kill heathens for Allah, your place in Seventh Heaven will be guaranteed. As least some Muslims belief this, and this is what Pascal is asking them to place their wager on, a mere rumor of a possible belief that cannot be rationally disproved.

That's Pascal's idea of "Rational Thinking".

I think Pascal actually did nothing more than expose the fact that even human mathematicians can make grave errors in what they believe to be rational thinking.

[The Tanager]

So? That's nothing more than a mere personal opinion on his part. Many other people feel that there are very good reasons to believe the the idea that a God exists has no merit at all.

And Pascal would say that is a mere personal opinion on their parts.

No doubt Pascal wasn't aware of what we actually know today. So in his day he was basing his guesses on ignorance.

So it's no longer true that people can't come up with good reasons to believe that no gods exist.

The reasons most people talk about today where around even long before Pascal lived, including the problem of evil. And I think he was aware of them. Even those who feel the problem of evil gives us good reason to doubt God's existence do not (usually) believe it proves (100%) that God does not exist. If it's not a proven fact, then it is an opinion.

Pascal was seemingly talking about 100% certainty. That is one spot where I think he is wrong. I don't think the standard should be 100% certainty. I think we should believe the best explanation of the evidence and I don't think we can harldly (if ever) get 100% certainty in just about anything in life. Science isn't even 100% provable because we could be brains in a vat.

Your position is that he was trying to show people how to think rationally, but there is nothing rational about his thinking, so if that was his goal he failed miserably.

No, my position is that he was trying to show people that thinking rationally cannot settle the issue one way or the other. He is saying rationality fails on questions like the existence or non-existence of God.

Reason has gotten us to truth. To attempt to deny this is utterly absurd. We know how what causes the weather, natural disasters, and far more importantly disease. Not only do we know the truth of what causes many diseases but we can even prevent and/or cure many of them.

Sorry, I mean that for Pascal, reason can't get us to truth in the matters of God. Pascal was a mathematician and physicist. He defended the scientific method. He was one of the first two inventors of calculators. He thinks reason can get us truth in things like science and math. But he doesn't think reason can answer questions about if God exists or not and what God is like.

And as I keep pointing out, Pascal's arguments support a belief in Islam every bit as much as they support a belief in Christianity. So even Pascal himself could say absolutely nothing against someone taking his argument and running off to become an Islamic Extremist, killing heathens to appease Allah and obtain a guaranteed place in heaven with ten virgins to boot.

If by his argument you mean something like: that belief in God is a matter of the heart and not a question that can be decided either way through the use of reason, then I completely agree with you. Fideism seems to me to support every belief equally.

But his argument isn't the wager, if you mean that. The wager was a part of his argument to show the bankruptcy of using reason to decide on belief or disbelief in God.

[Divine Insight]

And Pascal would say that is a mere personal opinion on their parts.

In that case I would suggest that Pascal isn't paying attention. I already gave totally justified reasons for not believing in the Biblical God. We already have information that proves that the claims made in the Bible are false. No personal opinions required.

There simply is no evidence for any boogieman demons that possess people and are the cause of disease. To refuse to recognize the truth of this is nothing short of ignorance.

So there is no excuse for someone like Pascal to claim that the people who can see through these God myths are merely voicing a personal opinion. They have scientific proof to back up their reasons.

This is often a problem with theists. They continually deny truth.

No doubt Pascal wasn't aware of what we actually know today. So in his day he was basing his guesses on ignorance.

So it's no longer true that people can't come up with good reasons to believe that no gods exist.

The reasons most people talk about today where around even long before Pascal lived, including the problem of evil. And I think he was aware of them. Even those who feel the problem of evil gives us good reason to doubt God's existence do not (usually) believe it proves (100%) that God does not exist. If it's not a proven fact, then it is an opinion.

It is a proven fact today that all the things we consider to be "evil" had occurred long before humans showed up on the planet. And I don't believe that Pascal had access to this knowledge in the 1600's when he lived.

Certainly people living today in 2017 should know better.

Pascal was seemingly talking about 100% certainty. That is one spot where I think he is wrong. I don't think the standard should be 100% certainty. I think we should believe the best explanation of the evidence and I don't think we can harldly (if ever) get 100% certainty in just about anything in life. Science isn't even 100% provable because we could be brains in a vat.

We don't even need science to be able to see that the Bible is necessarily false. We can know that with 100% certainty simply because of the blatant self-contradictions contained within the Biblical stories that don't even require any scientific evidence to recognize.

So we don't even really needs scientific knowledge to know that the Bible is false. Pascal should have been able to see the fallacy of the story of the Canaanites for example. No science required to see the obvious fallacy of that story.

Your position is that he was trying to show people how to think rationally, but there is nothing rational about his thinking, so if that was his goal he failed miserably.

No, my position is that he was trying to show people that thinking rationally cannot settle the issue one way or the other. He is saying rationality fails on questions like the existence or non-existence of God.

In that case his "reasoning" to place a wager is misguided because that reasoning itself can only be defended by claiming that it's rational. In other words, his entire argument is both circular and hypocritical in that case.

Reason has gotten us to truth. To attempt to deny this is utterly absurd. We know how what causes the weather, natural disasters, and far more importantly disease. Not only do we know the truth of what causes many diseases but we can even prevent and/or cure many of them.

Sorry, I mean that for Pascal, reason can't get us to truth in the matters of God. Pascal was a mathematician and physicist. He defended the scientific method. He was one of the first two inventors of calculators. He thinks reason can get us truth in things like science and math. But he doesn't think reason can answer questions about if God exists or not and what God is like.

Clearly he wasn't thinking clearly because if he bothered to take any time to apply reason to the Bible he would have quickly seen that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.

The problem is that Pascal was thinking like a typical blind theist. He didn't want to see the problems in his favorite religious mythology. So he blinded himself to those problems by ignoring them. That's how it works in Christianity. They used extremely feeble and absurd excuses like "God works in mysterious ways", "We are mere humans and can't expect to fully understand why God does things that seem utterly absurd to us". Or "After we die God will reveal to us why the Bible apperaed to be so utterly absurd when in fact it actually wasn't."

In other words, Christians (and especially Pascal) refuse to apply rational logical thinking to the Bible and instead claim that this God can only be known through the heart, because he clearly makes absolutely no rational sense at all.

You could apply thinking that to Zeus actually.

And as I keep pointing out, Pascal's arguments support a belief in Islam every bit as much as they support a belief in Christianity. So even Pascal himself could say absolutely nothing against someone taking his argument and running off to become an Islamic Extremist, killing heathens to appease Allah and obtain a guaranteed place in heaven with ten virgins to boot.

If by his argument you mean something like: that belief in God is a matter of the heart and not a question that can be decided either way through the use of reason, then I completely agree with you. Fideism seems to me to support every belief equally.

But his argument isn't the wager, if you mean that. The wager was a part of his argument to show the bankruptcy of using reason to decide on belief or disbelief in God.

There is no bankruptcy in using reason to decide on whether or not to believe in the Biblical God. To the contrary, applying reason to the Bible shows clearly that this fictitious God cannot possibly exist. No science is even required.

The only way Pascal's argument could have any hope of holding any water is if we apply it to a totally undefined abstract idea of an imaginary God that is not described by any ridged dogma. But that would then eliminate the Biblical God instantly which Pascal clearly did not do since he remained a devout Catholic.

So his arguments fail in every possible way.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, Pascal's entire reasoning is based on the assumption that people would choose to live their lives differently based on whether or not they believe in a God.

That itself is flawed thinking. Although it evidently must have been true for Pascal himself, otherwise why would he think it would be true for anyone?

Apparently Pascal would rather live is life in ways that differ from what he believes a God might expect him to behave.

This is already problematic. For many atheists, and agnostics it wouldn't matter whether a God exists or not. It certainly wouldn't make any difference in my life at all. I would have no reason to change anything if a God exists.

Pascal's entire line of thinking is that people are living in a way that he assumes would be objectionable to a God.

Also, if Pascal thinks this requires giving up enjoyable things in life, then he must also believe in a God who frowns upon people enjoying life.

There are just a lot of problems with "Pascal's Wager" (or philosophy).

He's necessarily assuming that he would rather do things that the God he assumes might exist would disapprove of. Otherwise why would he feel that he needs to change his behavior if a God exists?

So Pascal's thinking is extremely flawed and speaks volumes about what he would rather being doing and how he feels about the restrictions the God he believes in places on his behavior. Apparently he isn't thrilled with those restrictions since he would rather be doing those thing if there were no God. Otherwise his proposed wager makes no sense.

[The Tanager]

In that case I would suggest that Pascal isn't paying attention. I already gave totally justified reasons for not believing in the Biblical God. We already have information that proves that the claims made in the Bible are false. No personal opinions required.

There simply is no evidence for any boogieman demons that possess people and are the cause of disease. To refuse to recognize the truth of this is nothing short of ignorance.

So there is no excuse for someone like Pascal to claim that the people who can see through these God myths are merely voicing a personal opinion. They have scientific proof to back up their reasons.

This is often a problem with theists. They continually deny truth.

Here I will side with Pascal. There is no scientific proof of atheism. You offered conclusions that, if based on sound reasoning, would then lead to atheism, but it is still an open philosophical question as to if those arguments are sound in their reasoning. Your stating of the arguments for disbelief in God's existence do not do them justice. Nor does your post do justice to the still robust philosophical debate concerning them and why they may ultimately fail. If you think otherwise, provide the detailed scientific proof. Go all the way, don't just gesture towards some conclusions and act like the debate has been obviously settled. If it is that obvious you would have no problem providing the undeniable proof.

In that case his "reasoning" to place a wager is misguided because that reasoning itself can only be defended by claiming that it's rational. In other words, his entire argument is both circular and hypocritical in that case.

But he isn't saying all reasoning is wrong. He thinks we can rationally reach many positions. One of those positions we can rationally reach is that reason cannot prove or disprove God exists. I don't see how that's circular. It would be circular if he argued rationally that reasoning cannot give us any truth in any matter whatsoever, but he doesn't say that.

He then says that since we can't rationally settle God's existence or nonexistence, you are left with a 50/50 bet. And reason tells you to bet on God's existence under that scenario. But betting on God's existence is not the same thing as knowing God and Pascal wants you to know God exists, not bet on God's existence. So, he doesn't want you to place a bet on the wager, but seek God with your heart because that is the only way he thinks you will find God.

The problem is that Pascal was thinking like a typical blind theist. He didn't want to see the problems in his favorite religious mythology. So he blinded himself to those problems by ignoring them. That's how it works in Christianity.

That's how it works for some Christians, yes.

There is no bankruptcy in using reason to decide on whether or not to believe in the Biblical God. To the contrary, applying reason to the Bible shows clearly that this fictitious God cannot possibly exist.

I agree we should use reason on questions concerning God. But if what you say is so clear, then you should have no problem presenting an airtight proof. So, go ahead.

[Divine Insight]

Here I will side with Pascal. There is no scientific proof of atheism. You offered conclusions that, if based on sound reasoning, would then lead to atheism, but it is still an open philosophical question as to if those arguments are sound in their reasoning. Your stating of the arguments for disbelief in God's existence do not do them justice. Nor does your post do justice to the still robust philosophical debate concerning them and why they may ultimately fail. If you think otherwise, provide the detailed scientific proof. Go all the way, don't just gesture towards some conclusions and act like the debate has been obviously settled. If it is that obvious you would have no problem providing the undeniable proof.

Atheism is not a belief that there is no God. Atheism is simply the position that there is no credible or compelling evidence to suggest that there might be a God.

So in this sense there is scientific "proof" of atheism, because science shows why there is no credible or compelling evidence to suggest that a God exists.

There simply is nothing in science that requires that a God exists. In fact, scientific inquiry and study has explained everything that used to be attributed to the gods. So there is no longer any reason to even turn to an idea that Gods exists as an explanation for anything.

So science does prove that atheism is a valid view.

In that case his "reasoning" to place a wager is misguided because that reasoning itself can only be defended by claiming that it's rational. In other words, his entire argument is both circular and hypocritical in that case.

But he isn't saying all reasoning is wrong. He thinks we can rationally reach many positions. One of those positions we can rationally reach is that reason cannot prove or disprove God exists. I don't see how that's circular. It would be circular if he argued rationally that reasoning cannot give us any truth in any matter whatsoever, but he doesn't say that.

He then says that since we can't rationally settle God's existence or nonexistence, you are left with a 50/50 bet. And reason tells you to bet on God's existence under that scenario. But betting on God's existence is not the same thing as knowing God and Pascal wants you to know God exists, not bet on God's existence. So, he doesn't want you to place a bet on the wager, but seek God with your heart because that is the only way he thinks you will find God.

No one has ever encountered an actual supreme being via seeking them via their "heart" which basically means to see them with emotions. At best they can psyche themselves up to feel that they have had an emotional experience. But no one has actually encountered an actual entity that they can have an intelligent conversation with.

Any theist who claims to have encountered "God" could easily prove the truth of that claim. Thus far no theist has been able to do this. In fact, theists who claim to know God can't even agree with each other on just what it is that God is like or what God expects from humans, thus proving that their claim to have encountered a God cannot be true.

The problem is that Pascal was thinking like a typical blind theist. He didn't want to see the problems in his favorite religious mythology. So he blinded himself to those problems by ignoring them. That's how it works in Christianity.

That's how it works for some Christians, yes.

This is how it works for all Christian. No Christians can justify the Bible. They can't even convince each other of their disagreeing apologetics on the obvious contradictions that the Bible presents.

There is no bankruptcy in using reason to decide on whether or not to believe in the Biblical God. To the contrary, applying reason to the Bible shows clearly that this fictitious God cannot possibly exist.

I agree we should use reason on questions concerning God. But if what you say is so clear, then you should have no problem presenting an airtight proof. So, go ahead.

The story of the Canaanites proves that this story is false. So there's a major part of the Bible that is clearly false.

The story of the Great Flood is also filled with extreme self-contradictions, not the least of which is the fact that Noah and his family who were necessarily not without sin were spared. That would not be supreme justice if this God was supposed to be drowning out all sin. So the story of Noah is a blatant contradiction in terms of a fair and just God as well.

There are many contradictions in the New Testament as well. Jesus asks God to forgive those who crucified him arguing that they know not what they do. That's an absurd contradiction as well. Why should Jesus have to ask God to forgive people and argue a reason to justify that forgiveness? Shouldn't this all-perfect just God already know who deserves to be condemned or forgiven without Jesus having to explain to God the situation?

These stories are riddled with self-contradictions.

Consider this God speaking from the clouds to proclaim that Jesus is his son. What was that all about? That would imply that God himself didn't even expect people to believe Jesus even though they had been with Jesus in person.

Yet, here we are some 2000 years later being expected to believe in hearsay rumors about Jesus lest we'll be condemned to death, or worse.

Not only did we never hear God proclaiming that Jesus was his son from a cloud, but neither did we ever meet Jesus in person. In fact, we don't even have anything written by Jesus. All we have are totally unbelievable hearsay rumors written about Jesus decades after Jesus had supposedly lived.

The fallacy of the Biblical dogma is obvious to anyone who stops and seriously thinks about these things without just getting defensive to defend the Bible at all cost in total denial of the problems contained within.

For you to claim that these problems haven't already been exposed is nothing short of absurd. This is nothing more than a continuation of theistic denial.

And there are countless other obvious contradictions in the Bible. Jesus casting serpents out of the bodies of humans and into swine for example. There has never been any scientific evidence that any human has ever been possessed by a demon that could be cast out of the body of the human and into the body of a pig.

There are also extreme philosophical contradictions as to why Jesus would be casting demons out of people's bodies in the first place. If the demons were there legitimately then God's system of justice if flawed. And if they were there legitimately then why is Jesus casting them out? Also, why couldn't he spiritually heal the corrupt priests? He's supposed to be a spiritual healer remember? But he couldn't heal the spiritually sick priests.

Clearly these ancient fables have extreme self-contradictory problem. And the apologists have created an entire discipline concerned with trying to make excuses for all these absurd contradictions. Excuses that they can't even convince their fellow apologists of. This is why the theists have so many disagreeing sects and demoninations of Christianity. They can't even agree on the excuses they make up for the overwhelming contradictions associated with their doctrine.

So the contradictory nature of this religion is obvious. It's time to quit the eternal denial.

Keep in mind that the theists always end up falling back on one of the following in the end, after even they give up trying to push their feeble excuses:

"God works in mysterious ways".

"We mere mortal humans can't expect to understand an omniscient God".

"We must have faith that God has the answers to these contradictions and will share those answers with us in heaven after we did. We just can't see the answers right now because we don't have all the knowledge required."

These are the types of excuses the theists end up with after they realize they have painted themselves into a corner with their nonsensical apologies.