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]

Jesus argued that He was interpreting it correctly.

If Jesus was God or "The Word Made Flesh", then he shouldn't need to have interpreted anything.

Not only that but if the original scriptures where God's instructions to mankind, then shame on God for not making those original instructions crystal clear.

In fact, the very idea that any human would listen to Jesus but not be willing to listen to the Father God is, quite frankly, absurd.

Christianity is a self-defeating religion the moment that it even remotely suggests that we need accept Jesus in order to appease Yahweh. If we were willing to appease Yahweh we could have done that directly.

So Christianity is a self-contradictory theological paradigm on many levels.

I might be over-swayed by a desire for a good God and eternal plan and you might be over-swayed by a dislike of any kind of god messing around in your life.

And you might be jumping to extremely false conclusions by making assumptions about someone you don't even know.

I have no dislike of any "Good Gods". In fact, if you can show me a good God that is REAL I'd be more than happy that it exists.

In fact, I have always said that the I have absolutely nothing to fear from a GOOD God. The only kind of God I would need to fear would be an EVIL God.

Christians are demanding that their God is EVIL the very moment they claim that I might have anything at all to fear from him. And, moreover, they claim that if I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God then their God will condemn me.

Clearly Christianity has a very EVIL God.

By the way, if you want a GOOD God, look into Buddhism.

Why would you reject the God of Buddhism?

We both have the problem of being swayed by our biases; by a great many strong previous beliefs (Atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc). Our task is to examine ours hearts, arguments, and beliefs honestly (a very difficult thing).

I'm not swayed by any biases at all. And I can't imagine being anymore honest than I already am when it comes to any God.

I TRUTHFULLY confess that I do not know whether or not a supernatural God exists.

Do you?

I also TRUTHFULLY confess, that I find the God described by the Christina Bible to be totally ignorant and disgusting.

Would you have me lie about that and pretend the the Biblical God could be seen as an intelligent sane entity?

If the Biblical God actually exists and values TRUTH at all, then shouldn't he be tickled pink that I openly confess I think he's the most ignorant disgusting jerk I've ever heard of? Especially considering that he's supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, and he still act like an ignorant barroom thug???

If the Biblical God exists shouldn't he be able to handle TRUTH, and even RESPECT it?

I don't believe there is any God associated with the Bible. How could their be? How in the world could an omniscient omnipotent all-righteous entity be that ignorant and stupid?

It's simply not possible.

If a REAL GOD actually exists She should be thrilled that I refuse to believe that the Bible could be describing Her.

I was a hard atheist from at 15 to 21, and there are power Atheists like Dan Barker were famous former ministers. So worldviews can and do fully flip. We are not doomed to our indoctrinations. We are all heavily indoctrinated and few realize the depth of it.

I was a Christian until the age of about 20. At which time I actually decided to preach "God's Word", and so I took up the Bible to learn God's Word in detail. After all, I could hardly teach it without first learning it thoroughly to the point where I had no questions left.

In fact, I even recognized that Christian clergy don't even agree with each other.

It was when I studied the Bible that I realized it cannot possibly be true.

Also, I didn't even become an "atheist" at that point. I simply realized that the Bible was false, and that all the Abrahamic religions were also necessarily false. But I didn't stop believing in a "God". To the contrary, I continued to believe in a God. Just because the Bible is false doesn't mean that a God cannot exist.

After that I looked around for other religions. Not looking to find God mind you. I already HAD God. I just wanted to see if there were other religions that knew the God I knew. And I found that in Buddhism.

However, I also came to the realization that just because Buddhist recognize the same God I had come to know doesn't mean that our idea of God is true. Also, it wouldn't be important to become a "Buddhist". Even Buddhists know that.

Religion is meaningless. God (if God exists) is not affiliated with any religion.

I have since come to embrace TRUTH.

And the truth is that I don't know whether a God exists or not. Therefore I am necessarily agnostic. And if any God does exist then I would need to confess this truth even to that God. To claim otherwise would be a bald faced lie.

I also openly confess to having problems accepting pure secular materialism as the true nature of reality. I can't see that either.

However I have come to realize that atheists are right. It really doesn't make any more sense to believe in a creator God than it does to believe in pure accidental materialism. Why not? Because both realities are equally unexplained and equally impossible.

After all, I can't imagine how a God could exist anymore than I can imagine how anything can exist. So pretending that a God would somehow be a better explanation for the existence of reality is itself a farce. There's no rational reason to draw that conclusion.

So I'm actually agnostic on the question of whether or not there is a "God".

But I am a very hardcore anti-theist when it comes to Hebrew mythology (i.e. the Bible or any of the Abrahamic Religions)

Nonbelievers often fear a believers will go mad and start killing because he thought God told him to in prayer or a dream. I argue that if I were your neighbor, you'd much more like me now then when I was 20, unbelieving, shoplifting, feeling deep hatred over little aggressions. My faith (true or myth) has calmed the beast in me for 50 years.

Well, I'm certainly glad that a belief in a God has changed your behavior dramatically, especially if you were a dangerous person to have a neighbor.

See, that kind of thing doesn't come into my equation because I was always a safe and trustworthy neighbor who was never a threat to anyone.

My personal moral values don't depend on a belief in any Gods. I would be the same nice guy I am right now if I were to suddenly receive absolute undeniable proof that there is no possible God of any kind and we just die when we die.

That still wouldn't change who I am. I simply have no desire to steal, rape, murder, lie, or whatever. I just don't have a desire to do any of those things.

But yeah, if you need to believe in a God in order to behave yourself, then by all means keep the faith.

It was such a large and fast change that it sure appears to me to be supernatural. If I did hear a voice telling me to kill, my first reaction would be to think it was demonic. I'd see that it was not Biblical.

But the Biblical God has asked people to kill people. He has even asked them to commit genocide against entire other cultures.

None the less, I'm glad to hear that you at least judge the things you believe come from God based on your own personal moral evaluation. Kind of strange since you claim that this God is the reason you've decided to behave. But a good practice in any case. It's always good to judge whether or not you think a moral directive is moral by your own standards.

Yes, there are "religious" nut-cakes who hate and murder the innocent. They killed Jesus. But who's philosophy forbids murder and who's philosophy does not? How do you get around survival of the fittest and animalistic, deterministic anything-goes? Do you hope for something better and real?

Well, the problem is that the religious nut-cakes you are talking about don't see there actions as "murdering the innocent". To the contrary they see their actions as carrying out the righteous directives of God.

Consider the killing of homosexuals for example:

Islamic extremists toss homosexuals off rooftops. They consider their group to be the theocratic power.

Christian extremists prefer to work through a more elaborate theocracy. None the less I've seen TV evangelists who preach that we should indeed be excuting gays according to "God's Law".

So I ask you,... Would it make it right if a Christian Theocracy declared by law that gays should be put to death via capital punishment?

You might see that as being less brutal than a mob of Islamic extremists tossing gays off rooftops, but both the end result, and the rationale for committing the act is the same in both cases. God said to do it!!!

And by the way, in the case of Jesus, the Biblical God of the Old Testament actually commanded that someone like Jesus should indeed be put to death for blaspheme.

In fact, this is a huge problem with the entire Christian story. God commands people that if any man preaches against his word they should be put to death. Jesus rebuked a lot of what the God of the Old Testament had commanded people to do.

Therefore those who killed Jesus were only following God's instructions.

After all, Jesus preached, "No man cometh to the Father but by me"

But the God of the Old Testament commanded, "Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me"

So Jesus was asking people to put him before God. To kill him for his blaspheme was the only thing they could do if they wanted to obey the original God.

[Complexity]

Divine Insight Wrote:

And you might be jumping to extremely false conclusions by making assumptions about someone you don't even know.

I have no dislike of any "Good Gods". In fact, if you can show me a good God that is REAL I'd be more than happy that it exists.

In fact, I have always said that the I have absolutely nothing to fear from a GOOD God. The only kind of God I would need to fear would be an EVIL God.

Christians are demanding that their God is EVIL the very moment they claim that I might have anything at all to fear from him. And, moreover, they claim that if I don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God then their God will condemn me.

Clearly Christianity has a very EVIL God.

By the way, if you want a GOOD God, look into Buddhism.

Why would you reject the God of Buddhism?

My oldest son is a very strong Skeptic, refusing to take any stand. We have had numerous marathon discussion (friendly but strong & honest). He believes that a good God (“if he exists�) would accept him (saved him), because he is open to such a God and has spent decades diligently seeking truth. I don’t know if he or anyone is saved; and I would never presume to judge anybody. I can’t read heart, not even a loved one I know so well. So how could I understand hearts of strangers? Judging hearts is God’s business. I do believe that being honest with one’s doubts, seeking hard after truth, and using all our mental tools and information are all highly virtuous. My son does all that well. But goodness has other elements.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Is goodness also in the eyes of the beholder? Billy Graham, Hitler, terrorist bombers, etc have vastly different beliefs about what is good. We are all on a mission to discover what is good and true; how powerful is reason and how much should we use it and trust it, how deep is sin in the heart of man, what should we follow and love, etc, etc.?
I’ve read the writings of Buddha. He was a diligent seeker and great reformer. He fought many wrongs of his day. He told his followers that he was not god, and they should keep looking. Did he listen to God in his heart. Maybe he is in heaven. Who knows how many Hindus are saved.
I grew up in a church that taught that everyone who was not Baptized by their ordained priest was doomed to hell; even babies in Africa. Even at age 10, I was horrified; and dumped that dog at age 15. A good God would judge each person according to his knowledge, abilities, pressures, cultural indoctrinations, revelations, etc (Rom 2:11-16). Hosea 4:14, 4:8, 5:4, tell us that God forgives women for prostitution, because that culture relishes wickedness. The powerful men pressured women into that profession.

Hosea 4:14 "I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery, because the men themselves consort with harlots and sacrifice with shrine prostitutes-

My older son presses me to show him how Jesus would condemn him when he has not hatred for Jesus and would accept him if only he was given a fragment of reliable evidence, untainted by circularity and indistinguishability (a matrix super-programmer may have made a virtual Jesus walk on water, thus fooling us). Every person has issues that are hottest in his head (make most sense to him). When I was an Atheist 50 years ago, I had other issues than you or my son (all valid & sincere concerns). I would never condemn him nor give him false hope that he is OK with God. I share my findings, give my case for faith, and then it is between each person and God to wrestle it out; like Jacob did. I solidly believe John 14:6 that nobody comes to the Father except by Jesus. But this is not a wooden literal platitude, without excuses or other factors. Those who never knew Jesus by name, were misinformed, honestly tangled in intellectual knots of doubt, are mentally feeble, etc, (all these) are not judged by the literal interpretation but the intent of the verse. Jesus is reveal to everyone differently, often not by name. To be saved a person doesn’t need a doctorate level degree in divinity, philosophy, and science.


Divine Insight Wrote:

I also TRUTHFULLY confess, that I find the God described by the Christina Bible to be totally ignorant and disgusting.

Would you have me lie about that and pretend the the Biblical God could be seen as an intelligent sane entity?

If the Biblical God actually exists and values TRUTH at all, then shouldn't he be tickled pink that I openly confess I think he's the most ignorant disgusting jerk I've ever heard of? Especially considering that he's supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, and he still act like an ignorant barroom thug???

I don’t blame you for being disgusted by the god you describe. I don’t believe in that god either. But of course, there are difficult issues & mysteries. No belief should be rejected due to one issue unless that issue is so devoid of reasonable excuse and the belief is devoid of a large body of positive elements. We must consider the whole picture. The faith decision includes:
1. Estimate the evidence ratio (positive/negatives). Is it zero, small, large, or tremendous?
2. Estimate the goodness ratio (positive/negative). Is it zero, small, large, or tremendous? Are the excuses for negatives non-existent, weak, modest, or strong?
3. Compare all this to alternate candidates including Atheism. Does Christianity excel, & by how much? Is the alternate choice of Atheist/Skeptic lily-white and spring-time clean; perfect in every way; and offering a powerful hope; and having explanatory power giving good answers to the problems facing man?
4. Look for possible revelations from beyond the natural. Don’t be fooled by common human false correlations and coincidences.
5. Consider the factors such as potential eternal value. Does Skepticism or Atheism have a plausible foundation for goodness, unity, order, reason?
6. Check your motives at the door. Why am I drawn to faith X or non-faith? Are those motives blinding me; biasing my judgement? Am I driven by selfishness, greed, pleasure seeking, etc.
7. Decide what level of faith/following is appropriate: None, provisional lukewarm faith, strong faith with eyes wide open, put the blinders on and don’t ask questions. Each choice can be done with no hope, little hope, or great hope for a good God. What kind of faith and what level is virtuous?
8. What would a good God want me to do?
9. What are rational starting principles for determining what is good and how to discover it?

There is nothing simple about the faith calculation. Doubts are rather irrelevant, as we humans have reasons to doubt everything and anything. Belief is irrelevant as all the demons have 100% belief in God and yet condemned.





Divine Insight Wrote:

So I ask you,... Would it make it right if a Christian Theocracy declared by law that gays should be put to death via capital punishment?

That is an interesting question. As a thought experiment pretend that Oklahoma and Texas broke away from the US. Pretend that most unbelievers fled the new little country. Pretend that good conservative Christians (not nut-cakes) were a 98% majority. I don’t know what we’d do about gays. Probably very little beyond current laws, even after 100 years. Activist gays would likely move out. I bet we would not allow gay teachers to entice student to give homosexuality a try (“don’t knock it until you try it�). I was exposed to a little of that. I think that is harmful for young minds. I’ve had a couple gay friends. They were great people and wished to control the radical elements within their group. Every group has their radicals. The new Texas country might vote to allow gay pride parades, but would enforce public sexual misconduct laws (to some level). The Old Testament, Jewish nation (weak & faulty as it was) , situation was an entirely different ball game; vastly different from anything we have today. We don’t have temple prostitutes and bestiality sex both performed publicaly for the gods. We don’t throw live babies into the arms of Molech, with fire underneath. Those types of witches and gays have committed capital crimes. We have God and the Jewish nation to thank for fighting these great evils. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t start an anti-gay movement against the popular & powerful gay practices of the Roman Empire (rich men had young girls and guys to satisfy them). This question deserves its own thread to dig deeper.

[Complexity]

I wanted to answer a couple additional interesting points you brought up.

Divine Insight wrote:

I'm not swayed by any biases at all. And I can't imagine being anymore honest than I already am when it comes to any God.

Secular philosophers and psychologist seem to agree that there are logical fallacies that are common to all of use. You can find these on YouTube.com by searching “biases� or "illusion of control". We all tend to favor our preconceived ideas (often without even knowing it). Skeptics are big into this. This is a topic in philosophy and psychology that typically has no religious overtones. For believers: some biases are innocent, ignorant errors; but some are sin (willful, knowing truth twisting). We are responsible for fighting back the dogs of our bad inner drives. We are tempted to protect our pet beliefs by fair and unfair means. It is those unfair intellectual rationalizations we need to admit having and fight against. Christians and Atheists alike don’t like to think they are bias, harbor error, and do wrong. It is an ugly, negative, unpopular business; making us insecure humans feel even more inadequate. Who wants that for our kids? But those most in tune with their frailty have their emotions and pet desires most under control.

Divine Insight wrote:

I TRUTHFULLY confess that I do not know whether or not a supernatural God exists.

Do you?

That simple question is deceptively very tricky, as we all are have different thoughts about it. My answer depends on what you mean by knowing God exist.
1. I don’t have absolute certainty God exists. I am not certain I have a real right hand with finger typing these words. I might be a brain in a bottle, a dream, or a CGI character in the matrix (problems of indistinguishability, circularity, and great gapping gaps). I’d have to be a know-all god to see fully. I don't yearn for that, nor need it. I have human-level knowledge, certainty, and belief in both God and my right hand.
2. Is the case for Jesus as strong as the case that my right hand exists? That question is irrelevant since the case for Jesus doesn’t have to be at the same level or type as the case for my right hand. Atheists seem to require that those cases must be equal before they’d believe. Even if my intellectual case for Jesus was weak, I’d hope strongly for a good God. If there were several weak cases, for gods X, Y, Z, and no stand-out superior candidate; then I would not flip a coin, or follow my gut intuitions or traditions. I’d simple have a simple hope, keep looking, and follow the least harmful path of most good (as best I’d understand goodness) (as Buddha reportedly did). If I knew just fragments of Jesus’s Sermon on the Mound, I’d be extremely interested in Him, and lean strongly in His direction.
3. I believe there is a strong case for Jesus; yes, with a few nagging doubts. I gladly follow Jesus. If Jesus turns out to be a royal jerk as you believe, then in the afterlife, you and I can join a rebellion and storm the pearly gates.