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.

[William]

[Replying to post 60 by Divine Insight]

There simply is nothing in science that requires that a God exists.

There is something in nature that may indeed require an explanation of a creator being. Science doesn't require that a GOD exists. Nor does science require that a GOD doesn't exist. Science is neutral on that.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 60 by Divine Insight]

There simply is nothing in science that requires that a God exists.

There is something in nature that may indeed require an explanation of a creator being. Science doesn't require that a GOD exists. Nor does science require that a GOD doesn't exist. Science is neutral on that.

And that is totally compatible with atheism. Atheism doesn't say there is no God, it simply says that there is no compelling or convincing reason to believe that a God exists. Period.

Atheism - (a-theism) - without a belief in theism.

[Divine Insight]

By the way, Pascal's entire philosophy is based on the assumption that people will live their lives differently based on whether or not they believe a God exists.

Pascal even suggests that as part of this proposition we would need to "give up" things in life that we would rather being doing if there is no God.

I find this to be quite revealing in terms of what Pascal must personally want to do in life. There must be things he wants to do that he feels would upset a God. Otherwise his idea that he would lead a totally different life as a believer than as a non-believer makes no sense.

I personally find this to be a flawed philosophy (although it may certainly be true for some people).

However, for me personally it makes absolutely no sense because there is nothing I desire to do in this life that I feel a God would disprove of. In fact, anyone who thinks they would be happy in a God's "Heavenly Kingdom" should also have no desire to do anything that God would disapprove of. How could they be happy living for eternity in a place where they could never do what they truly desire to do?

Pascal's philosophy is grossly misguided.

[The Tanager]

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.

Let's try to make sure I'm understanding you first. Pascal would have defined atheism as the belief that there is no God. It seems to me that the position you are describing is closer to what is usually called skepticism (in this specific case concerning the existence of God and what that God is like).

Pascal says there is no scientific or philosophical proof (100%) that there is no God. You seem to agree with him there, right? He calls that atheism, but you would call it something else.

You aren't talking about that, however, when you say atheism. You mean there is a lack of evidence that would credibly lead someone to rationally believe God exists. If so, Pascal agrees with you.

Or are you saying something else?

[Divine Insight]

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.

Let's try to make sure I'm understanding you first. Pascal would have defined atheism as the belief that there is no God. It seems to me that the position you are describing is closer to what is usually called skepticism (in this specific case concerning the existence of God and what that God is like).

Think of it this way. You claim there is a boogieman in the closet. I say that I don't believe there is a boogieman in the closet. By saying that I don't believe there is a boogieman in the closet does not mean that I am proclaiming to know 100% that there is no boogieman in the closet. I'm merely saying that I see no compelling reason to believe there is one.

We can even take Pascal's religious beliefs further. We can actually look in the closet and see that there is nothing in there. Pascal would then need to claim that his boogieman is invisible. Once more I would say that I don't believe there is an invisible boogieman in the closet. Not believing is not the same as saying that I am 100% certain that there is not. However, if I have looked and haven't seen one, I have the further assurance that if a boogieman exists he would also need to be invisible which surely you agree would be rather absurd.

With further arguing from Pascal, I open the closet again, walk in and feel around within the closet. I return and say, I can't feel this invisible boogieman so I don't believe there is an invisible boogieman in the closet.

If Pascal keeps arguing for the invisible boogieman that I can't even feel I would then argue that an invisible boogieman that cannot interact with me physically is hardly a threat in any case, so whether I believe in the boogieman or not is irrelevant.

Pascal would then argue that if I would only believe in the boogieman it would cause me to change my life and how I behave. At that point I can only conclude that Pascal is going insane. He's being totally irrational and our conversation is fruitless.

Pascal says there is no scientific or philosophical proof (100%) that there is no God. You seem to agree with him there, right? He calls that atheism, but you would call it something else.

I would only agree with him in terms of an ill-defined totally abstract notion of "God". In the case of the Biblical God (which Pascal is attempting to address) we actually have tons of philosophical and logical proofs that no God can possibly exist as described by the Biblical stories. So in the case of Pascal's God we do have proof that it can't exist.

You aren't talking about that, however, when you say atheism. You mean there is a lack of evidence that would credibly lead someone to rationally believe God exists. If so, Pascal agrees with you.

Or are you saying something else?

If Pascal agrees that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God he has finally come to his senses.

In fact, all Pascal appears to be doing in his entire approach to the subject is to openly confess that he has absolutely no rational reason to believe in a God himself. Otherwise he could make his rational argument for the existence of God.

So Pascal is being totally irrational in his approach to the subject of theism.

Keep in mind that Pascal's entire philosophy is grounded on the idea that if a person believes in a God (or even places a bet that God might exist) this would supposedly change how they behave in their life.

That alone is an absurd assumption that I can personally see is not true in the case of every single human. I would have absolutely no reason to change my behavior whether or not a God exists. Therefore Pascal's philosophy is utterly absurd to me.

The only people Pascal's philosophy could appeal to are people who would rather be doing things that they believe God would disapprove of.

In fact, read my signature line.

[The Tanager]

If Pascal agrees that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God he has finally come to his senses.

I'm pretty sure Pascal hasn't changed his mind during the entire course of the conversations in this thread.

In fact, all Pascal appears to be doing in his entire approach to the subject is to openly confess that he has absolutely no rational reason to believe in a God himself. Otherwise he could make his rational argument for the existence of God.

So Pascal is being totally irrational in his approach to the subject of theism.

In his view, he is not being irrational or rational. He doesn't think reason gets us God's existence and character, yes. But he also does not think that God's existence and character have been proven to be irrational.

Saying that we should be skeptical of theism because of a lack of evidence is different than saying God's existence and character (either in its general form or a specific form) have actually been proven to be irrational. I think that it's a distinction between unreasonable and irrational. Do you think theism and/or Christian theism is unreasonable or irrational (i.e., theism and/or Christian theism cannot possibly be true)?

[Divine Insight]

Do you think theism and/or Christian theism is unreasonable or irrational (i.e., theism and/or Christian theism cannot possibly be true)?

Yes, I believe that Christian theism cannot possibly be true.

Christian theism is entirely based upon the Biblical stories. I have read those stories and I have concluded that they cannot possibly be true because the require self-contradictions in the nature of God himself as well as his character. They also contain obvious self-contradictions in the story plots as well. The story of the Canaanites is one of the most profound in this regard, but certainly not the only instance of obvious self-contradictions.

On the question of "theism" in a more general abstract sense I cannot say that there cannot be some sort of "God". In fact, I can't even show that the God of Buddhism is false. For all I know the God of Buddhism could indeed be true.

However, unlike Pascal, I realized that whether I believe in Buddhism or not (i.e. believe in God or not), it wouldn't make one iota of difference in how I behave. So a belief in a God is not important in terms of how I live my life.

I should point out also that I can't even say that the Greek God of Zeus cannot be true. Zeus may very well be true. Why? Because nowhere in Greek mythology does it claim that Zeus is all-righteous, or that he can be trusted. Therefore we can't point to stories about Zeus and say that those stories contain contradictions therefore Zeus cannot be true. If Zeus does not need to be righteous or trustworthy then there is nothing preventing Zeus from allowing us to be filled with all manner of garbage falsehoods about him.

Keep in mind that the Biblical God is supposed to be all-righteous, and totally trustworthy. So we can't have the Biblical God filling us with tales about him that are filled with self-contradictions, and behaviors that are not coherent with an all-wise trustworthy God.

If you take away those attributes, then I can't say that the Biblical God cannot exist. If you allow that the Biblical God can be evil, deceitful, and untrustworthy, then of course he could exist. But that's a big no-no in Christianity. They refuse to allow that their God can be an evil, deceitful and untrustworthy God.

Moreover, even if they were to allow that, then we couldn't trust this God, or his son Jesus to be true to their promises. So it wouldn't help to allow them to be evil, deceitful and untrustworthy anyway.

So the bottom line ends up being that they simply cannot exist "as described in the Biblical stories".

Now if you want to claim that the Christian God does not need to be "as described in the Biblical stories", I say fine. But in that case, why call that God "The Biblical God", and why bother holding the Bible up as a trustworthy source of demands, commandments, or promises made by the Christian God?

So Christianity theology is totally dependent upon the truth of the Bible. There's no getting around that.

[The Tanager]

Yes, I believe that Christian theism cannot possibly be true.

Christian theism is entirely based upon the Biblical stories. I have read those stories and I have concluded that they cannot possibly be true because the require self-contradictions in the nature of God himself as well as his character. They also contain obvious self-contradictions in the story plots as well. The story of the Canaanites is one of the most profound in this regard, but certainly not the only instance of obvious self-contradictions.

Assuming what you say about the Biblical contradictions are true, I fail to see how this necessarily means Christian theism is false. All the contradictions would show, it seems to me, is that the Bible is not inerrant. Why can you not believe the Bible contains some contradictions and still be a Christian? It may be a less reasonable position than before, but I don't see how that would be an irrational one.

Now if you want to claim that the Christian God does not need to be "as described in the Biblical stories", I say fine. But in that case, why call that God "The Biblical God", and why bother holding the Bible up as a trustworthy source of demands, commandments, or promises made by the Christian God?

So Christianity theology is totally dependent upon the truth of the Bible. There's no getting around that.

Even if you don't think the Bible is inerrant, you can still think it generally trustworthy on certain matters. That's the case with all of our ancient historical writings, isn't it? Historians don't throw the baby out with the bath water. They trust parts of it as historically accurate and they mistrust the parts that contradict other things that are more certain. A person could still hold to the core of the Christian teachings about God and believe that there are some errors in the Bible.

[Divine Insight]

First I would like to thank you very much for asking the following question. These questions are indeed paramount to my view of this religion. I would very much like to explain why I take the position I do on the Bible and why I feel that it's a totally justifiable position.

Assuming what you say about the Biblical contradictions are true, I fail to see how this necessarily means Christian theism is false. All the contradictions would show, it seems to me, is that the Bible is not inerrant. Why can you not believe the Bible contains some contradictions and still be a Christian? It may be a less reasonable position than before, but I don't see how that would be an irrational one.

To begin with the Bible is all we have in terms of defining what we even mean when we refer to the Christian God. If the Bible is errant then clearly not everything stated in the Bible describes this God. If that is true, there are several problems that follow.

The first problem should be obvious. If we can't trust the Bible to describe God then which parts of it can we trust, and which parts do we ignore, or toss out as being clearly non-representative of God. Obviously Christian theology has never even attempted to address this problem since they continue to keep and maintain the entire canon.

Let's not also forget that within this cannon of stories it is even claimed that these scriptures cannot be broken and that not one word shall be removed or added to them. I suggest that if there truly is an omnipotent God associated with these so-called "Holy Texts" then he should have been able to have some control over what goes into them. Or at the very least, he should have been able to inspire at least some of the authors to explain to the readers that these scriptures cannot be depended upon to be inerrant. That would have at least been somewhat helpful.

Keep in mind also that even in the New Testament we have Matthew claiming that Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. Well jots and tittle refer to the written law, and the only written law that Jesus could have been referring to was the Old Testament. So even Jesus isn't suggesting that there could be errors in these texts. To the contrary he's suggesting that every jot and tittle of it is correct.

So for me an errant Bible is catastrophic for Christian theology. At the very best it would represent an inept God who has no control over his own message to humanity, and a God that we cannot trust in terms of making certain that we get the correct information.

So the idea that we as Christians, could just ignore an errant Bible and basically pretend that God might be different from what the Bible actually says, is simply not going to fly. If that were the case, then what would we be basing Christian theology on? The mere opinions of hopeful believers who have no choice but to reject many parts of the Bible simply because they may or may not be in error?

The second problem:

In fact, how could we know which parts came from God and which parts are in error?

We would necessarily need to be guessing based on what we think and hope this God might be like. All the while our eternal fate being at stake.

I suggest that when we have a religion where obedience to the will of this God is paramount in our eternal fate there simply is no room for error or guesswork. A God who does not make it crystal clear what he expects from us without ambiguity can hardly expect us to be responsible for following he commandments and requirements.

So I hold that a Christian theology that acknowledges an errant Bible but fails to recognize that this is a necessarily end to that theology, is itself being extremely unreasonable. They are simply holding out faith that some God might exist that they could approve of. A God that isn't precisely as described in the Holy Texts that are at the foundation of the theology.

Basically a "make-believe" God that isn't even as described in the Bible.

So I reject that theology. If we're going to make up a God that we approve of why bother starting with errant texts? Why not just make up our own imaginary God from scratch?

Even if you don't think the Bible is inerrant, you can still think it generally trustworthy on certain matters. That's the case with all of our ancient historical writings, isn't it? Historians don't throw the baby out with the bath water. They trust parts of it as historically accurate and they mistrust the parts that contradict other things that are more certain. A person could still hold to the core of the Christian teachings about God and believe that there are some errors in the Bible.

I reject your above proposal because there is a huge difference between evaluating historical writings that we know were written by fallible humans with "Holy Texts" that are supposed to be the inspired word and commandments of an omnipotent God.

To begin with, we know that humans fabricate stories for many reasons. They may simply exaggerate to impress. They could outright lie for many different reasons. They could based their writings on their own superstitious beliefs. They could simply be wrong in their reporting. There are many reasons to question the writings of mere humans.

Also, there is no omnipotent God associated with normal historical writings who is threatening to condemn us to eternal damnation if we fail to do as the writings say.

Therefore comparing how we handle normal historical writings with how we should be handling "Holy Texts" that give us directives and commandments that will result in our eternal condemnation by an omnipotent God is a comparison that makes no sense.

The mere fact that you even suggest that these things should be treated in a similar manner tells me that you haven't fully thought about this.

The Bible is supposed to be telling us what our supposed omnipotent creator expects us to do, and it threatens us with eternal damnation should we fail to do what he says.

So how can you even begin to compare this with the writings of mere mortal humans concerning what they claim my or may not have historically happened?

There is no room for error or falsehoods in a Holy Text that proclaims that it is giving us instructions from a God who will condemn us if we get it wrong.

In fact, this is why many religious theists refuse to give up the idea of an inerrant Holy Text. They recognize that any Holy Text that is recognized to contain errors become totally useless. How could we then know which parts are God's actual commandments and directives, and which parts are the errors?

In fact, I would like to restate my position on these forums:

My position is that the Bible cannot be true, as it is written.

The only people who would argue with this are the "Inerrant Fundamentalists".

As soon as any Christian theist grants that the Bible might contain errors, they have already conceded my position.

Once we agree that the Bible contains errors, my argument is made. If they want to continue to argue that they can continue to imagine a God based only on parts of the Bible whilst tossing other parts out, that's certainly their option. But at that point my position has already been made.

[The Tanager]

Here's the general point. Christianity basis itself on Jesus and a relationship with Jesus. God is who Jesus said God is. Another author claims something that contradicts Jesus? The author is wrong no matter who thought they were correct. Jesus is the authority.

Keep in mind also that even in the New Testament we have Matthew claiming that Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. Well jots and tittle refer to the written law, and the only written law that Jesus could have been referring to was the Old Testament. So even Jesus isn't suggesting that there could be errors in these texts. To the contrary he's suggesting that every jot and tittle of it is correct.

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says "not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." This doesn't seem to say anything directly about the historical accounts in the Tanakh (things like the story of the Canaanites). And in Matthew 7:12, Jesus says "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." And Matthew, in 22:37-40, has Jesus saying that to love God and love your neighbor as yourself is what all the law and the prophets hang on. So, all Jesus is saying in 5:18 is to not break the commandments of loving God and loving others. He's not saying the Tanakh is inerrant.

You could even just say that Matthew got it wrong.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating these kinds of moves or conclusions, but trying to fully think this through. It seems to me logically possible (maybe not that reasonable, but possible) for someone to say God is who Jesus says God is and the Bible contains some errors. For your critique to go through, you need there to be no logical possibility of this.

So the idea that we as Christians, could just ignore an errant Bible and basically pretend that God might be different from what the Bible actually says, is simply not going to fly. If that were the case, then what would we be basing Christian theology on? The mere opinions of hopeful believers who have no choice but to reject many parts of the Bible simply because they may or may not be in error?

The basis would be direct experience of God. If God exists it is possible that this God directly reveals Himself to some and not others, for whatever reason. To that kind of believer, if the Bible contains a contradiction, then the person who wrote that was not getting it from God.

At the very best it would represent an inept God who has no control over his own message to humanity, and a God that we cannot trust in terms of making certain that we get the correct information.

To that kind of believer, God controls His message through direct experience. And that God gives humans free will, so they can compile a collection of books that they think contains only truth about God, yet be wrong. God, through direct experience, will make sure His followers get the correct information.

I reject your above proposal because there is a huge difference between evaluating historical writings that we know were written by fallible humans with "Holy Texts" that are supposed to be the inspired word and commandments of an omnipotent God.

To the kind of believer we are talking about, the Bible is not a "Holy Text" inspired by God, but an historical writing by fallible humans that have gotten some things right about God and some things wrong about God.

The Bible is supposed to be telling us what our supposed omnipotent creator expects us to do, and it threatens us with eternal damnation should we fail to do what he says.

The core of traditional Christianity says that we are damned if we fail to put our trust in Jesus who forgives us of our sins. We can be wrong about some things and not be damned. We just need to be right about trusting that Jesus died for our sins.