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 1 by 2ndRateMind]

It is quite a weird one really.

In relation to what you could have in the here and now as apposed to what you are promised you could have in the hereafter, there seems to also be a kind of suppressing of natural desire for the sake of the promise 'to be delivered later'.

Obviously the whole thing is based upon the dominant religion of Pascals time, but it also something of a similar rule-set for other religions and primarily it is about not falling into temptation/ lifestyles which would have you forfeit the promised outcome of living a life which avoided these temptations.

Problematic to this is that in adopting the beliefs of any organised religion - of Christianity for example - is that one can be drawn into the organisation through the threat of loss (or of gaining the experience of hell for an eternity) is that you will most likely also adopt other beliefs related to the particular organisation, and are these beliefs any more relevant to truthfulness for that?

As to the here and now, risks just have to be taken as part of the process of discovery.

Materialism can just as easily be used to discount any risk related to afterlife by claiming that there is no such thing and therefore supporting ideas re lifestyles which are detrimental to human society as a whole, but are justified by law as being alright anyway, because there is no deterrent. Heaven acts as a reward and hell as a deterrent. Christianity of itself is open to interpretation due to its conflating rendering unto the law of man and rendering unto the law of GOD (the Abrahamic idea of GOD) - that lines are blurred sufficiently to cause much confusion.

Which is why I understand Christianity to be, primarily, a political invention.

However the way I have come to understand afterlife and the likely experience an individual will have has to do with my own experiences with OOBEs and what others have shared in relation to Astral Projection.

In relation to that, religious stories which also share the same type of processes as are related with Astral Projection - delivering experiences of 'heavens and hells' and associated visions of angelic and demonic entities etc - altogether give me the impression that what a person believes will be what unfolds for them in the next phase of continual experience as the individual person.

I share more on this here:

♦ My thoughts on death.

Inasmuch as I am convinced there is more to life (conscious experience) after this present one, I recognize therein a certain risk involved regarding personal belief systems.

One example - one members beliefs regarding life after death here.

Quote form link:

So will DrNoGods and Divine Insight cease to exist and all memory of them be wiped out when their bodies die? Yes. Does this mean that this is the end of them and they will never have another experience again? Not according to Buddhism, Taoism, and many other pantheistic worldviews.

If such a belief is held and - in relation to my own understanding of what takes place -anyone who believes the above will be reconstituted into the human experience and in that, the next 'personality' to arise from this process will determine the outcome in relation to their beliefs created over their lifetime, and eventual death.

Thus the avoidance of ego-related belief systems and their consequences still circle back into the ego eventually having to experience NOT recycling back into the reincarnation process, but staying on in the realms of afterlife and experiencing their own creations based upon their own beliefs, within that realm.

Which is to say that the Astral is not something which can forever be avoided through the belief in reincarnation.

So there are risks, and impermanent methods of avoidance but ultimately the Astral in terms of 'the next phase' is unavoidable.

In relation to those who believe that when their body dies, that is the end of them, such beliefs also translate into experience for them through the properties of the Astral - an aspect of the mind of the Earth Entity.

All these experiences - whatever they may translate into through personal belief, while they can and do go on for a long time, are not in themselves permanent for that. They also have anomalies which contradict the individuals beliefs systems, and therein are the keys to removing oneself from the self created reality (be that a heaven, a hell or something else entirely) because those experiences are illusions based upon beliefs and eventually will be removed as the individual changes their beliefs whilst experiencing what for them, is 'real'.

In effect, these are partitions within an aspect of the mind of the EE and useful for instruction - both in relation for those experiencing them and for those observing.

The whole reason for this having to be the case is linked to the idea I share here:

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

[Divine Insight]

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.

This mentality makes absolutely no sense to me at all. What was Pascal thinking?

In other words, what did Pascal want to do that he felt God would frown upon?

If there exists a decent benevolent loving God then there is absolutely no reason why such a God would disprove of anything that I do. Therefore it shouldn't matter one iota whether I believe in a God or not.

In fact, in order for Pascal's wager to make any sense at all it requires that a person would necessarily have a desire to do evil nasty things. Otherwise what would be the problem?

IMHO, Pascal's Wager is no different from a Christian who proclaims that if there was no God they would see nothing at all wrong with raping, murdering, pillaging, cheating, etc. In short, all they are doing is proclaiming that in their heart they are a horrible person and the only thing that prevents them from being who they truly are is the belief that some God might give them a bad spanking after they die.

Seriously. People who make these kinds of arguments for believing in a God should be seriously ashamed or themselves. It's a ridiculous "wager" that requires that the "gambler" has a desire to do nasty things.

What kind of a God do these Christians believe in anyway? Do they believe in a God who wants them to be miserable and not enjoy life at all? What kind of a God would that be?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

The problem is that God knows our hearts. I am not sure we can fake salvation.

[Wootah]

What kind of a God do these Christians believe in anyway? Do they believe in a God who wants them to be miserable and not enjoy life at all? What kind of a God would that be?

Is the purpose of life hedonism?

Incidentally, I find Christianity quite pleasurable actually. It's as if God wants me to enjoy life to the full.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

The problem is that God knows our hearts. I am not sure we can fake salvation.

I agree. We can't choose to believe this or that simply because such a belief would be to our advantage. We can only believe what we think to be true, irrespective of any benefit or cost that may or may not accrue to us.

Cheers, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

What kind of a God do these Christians believe in anyway? Do they believe in a God who wants them to be miserable and not enjoy life at all? What kind of a God would that be?

...Incidentally, I find Christianity quite pleasurable actually. It's as if God wants me to enjoy life to the full.

I agree with this, too. To know a life filled with love for God, His world, and all His children more than outweighs the sacrifice of any transitory sensual pleasures. Seems Christians get to have their cake, and eat it too.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Is the purpose of life hedonism?

The purpose of life is whatever a person decides to make it for themselves. Therefore each individual needs to answer this question for themselves.

Also what is implied or meant by hedonism?

I found the following definition for hedonism:

Hedonism - the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.

This definition suggests that pleasure is found in sensual self-indulgence. Is that the only way to find pleasure in this life? I think not. Therefore the pursuit of pleasure in and of itself may not qualify as hedonism if that pleasure is not focus on, or limited to sensual pleasure, or self-indulgence. Many people actually find pleasure in making other people happy for example. Or helping other people in some way.

The definition of Hedonism also includes the following:

Hedonism - the ethical theory that pleasure (in the sense of the satisfaction of desires) is the highest good and proper aim of human life.

Actually this alone is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, setting goals and achieving them is deemed to be a very good thing by most Christian theists. And why would a person bother setting goals or trying to achieve them if there weren't some satisfaction to be found in that? That's the whole reason goals are made in the first place.

Also this definition if lacking big-time because it states that this is an "ethical theory" yet it didn't even bother addressing ethical issues. If there any ethical problem in seeking the satisfaction of desires? I think that depends entirely on two things:

1. What exactly is being desired in the first place?

Until this question is answered we can't speak to whether or not this goal is ethical. Some desires are ethical some are not.

and

2. How is this goal of finding satisfaction in these desires being attained?

This again will determine the ethical questions. Are people being hurt or helped in the process?

I think the term "Hedonism" is intended to be a derogatory term of behavior that is selfish and violates ethical behavior in favor of instead self-gratification even at the expense of others. If we allow this to be the meaning of Hedonism then of course it's a derogatory terms since that was the intent.

And finally, how would this apply to what I had asked? I asked what things Pascal would want to do that he felt that God would disprove of?

And that question has not yet been addressed.

Are you suggesting that Pascal's purpose in life was to be a hedonist seeking self-gratification of the senses in an unethical manner, and he simply chose to refrain from this in order to appease an possible God?

That was my question and point.

If he didn't want to do things different from what he thought God would want, then why the need to make a "wager" at all?

[Divine Insight]

Case in Point:

Today I have been outside nailing shingles onto the roof of a garage I'm building. I'm doing this because I desire to have a garage to work in.

I don't believe in a God who expects me to build a garage, or not build a garage.

The bottom line is this: What would change if I believed in a God? Especially in terms of Pascal's Wager?

Should I not be building a garage? Would the Christian God that Pascal believed in disapprove of people building garages? Do Christian theists never build a garage?

Pascal's wager seems to only make sense for people who "desire" to do unethical things.

Is there anything unethical about building a garage?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

It's been awhile since I read Pascal, but I remember reading someone who says that Pascal was presenting his wager only to those who felt the evidence was equally for theism and atheism. That for someone who was undecided, they should wager on Christianity being true. But I didn't and still haven't looked as deeply as I've wanted to on this.