Pascal's Wager Revisited

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is only one way to God and that his through His Son Jesus Christ by
the salvation He gives us, through the work Jesus did. So yes, salvation is
a mighty gift from God, not one we can earn only accept.

Thank you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Pascal, as with many scientists/philosophers was battling with a conflict between his learning and his faith. He was trying hard to justify his faith to himself and was willing to abandon reason whilst attempting to do so. He is far from unique in this regard.

I don't think Pascal was conflicted at the time he came up with that "wager". I believe he called it a wager because successful gamblers necessarily need to think along the same lines. He may have seen this as a practical approach for persuading people to think about it rather than summarily dismissing it. People who rely only on luck, and gamble without weighing possible gains against risk of losses are more likely to lose bets.

This is only speculation on my part, because I know very little about Pascal himself. Judging from your message you seem to know he was conflicted and unsure of what he believed. But whether he was or not isn't important to me. In my opinion, it's only okay to shoot the messenger if that messenger is (literally) shooting at me... after all, I do have the right to defend myself.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
Pascal's Wager Revisited

[quote]Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3. You must wager (it is not optional).

4. [b ...[text shortened]... ral body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?

Pascal's Wager Revisited

Criticism

Criticism of Pascal's Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists, who question the 'benefits' of a deity whose 'realm' is beyond reason, and the religiously orthodox, who primarily take issue with the wager's deistic and agnostic language. It is criticized for not proving God's existence, encouragement of false belief and the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped.[11]

Nature as not a proof of the existence of God

Voltaire (another prominent French writer of the Enlightenment), a generation after Pascal, rejected the idea that the wager was "proof of God" as "indecent and childish", adding, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists".[12] Pascal, however, did not advance the wager as a proof of God's existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is "impossible to avoid" for any living person.[13] He argued that abstaining from making a wager is not an option and that "reason is incapable of divining the truth"; thus, a decision of whether or not to believe in the existence of God must be made by "considering the consequences of each possibility".

Honestly judged, however, Voltaire's critique concerns not the nature of the Pascalian wager as proof of God's existence, but the contention that the very belief Pascal tried to promote is not convincing. Voltaire hints at the fact that Pascal, as a Catholic Jansenist, believed that only a small, and already predestined, portion of humanity would eventually be saved by God.

In this context Voltaire explained that no matter how far someone is tempted with rewards in order to believe in Christian salvation, the result will be at best a faint belief.[14] Pascal, in his Pensees, agrees with this, not stating that people can choose to believe (and therefore make a safe wager), but rather that some can not believe.

As Étienne Souriau explained, in order to accept Pascal's argument, the bettor needs to be certain that God seriously intends to honour the bet; he says that the wager assumes that God also accepts the bet, which is not proved; Pascal's bettor is here like the fool who seeing a leaf floating on a river's waters and quivering at some point, for few seconds, between the two sides of a stone, says: "I bet a million with Rothschild that it takes finally the left path." And, effectively, the leaf passed on the left side of the stone, but unfortunately for the fool Rothschild never said "I bet"[15]... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism (to be continued)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Pascal's Wager Revisited

Criticism

Criticism of Pascal's Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists, who question the 'benefits' of a deity whose 'realm' is beyond reason, and the religiously orthodox, who primarily take issue with the wager's deistic and agnostic language. It is criticized for not proving ...[text shortened]... "I bet"[15]... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism (to be continued)

[/b]

What are your own thoughts on the shortcomings of Pascal's Wager, Grampy Bobby?

Originally posted by FMF
What are your own thoughts on the shortcomings of Pascal's Wager, Grampy Bobby?

1) That Blaise Pascal was seeker of absolute truth; 2) That if he was here today his investigative threads and posts wouldn't be viewed as the work product of a troll; 3) That he died at an incredibly young age [39] by 2015 actuarial standards; 4) That any and all "shortcomings" of his wager will become apparent as we explore the "Criticisms; Arguments for: Beauty, Christological, Consciousness, Cosmological (kalām· contingency), Degree, Desire, Experience, Fine-tuned universe, Love, Miracles, Morality, Ontological, Proper basis, Reason, Teleological (natural law watchmaker), Transcendental." As well as Arguments against: 747 gambit, Atheist's Wager, Evil, Free will, Hell, Inconsistent revelations, Nonbelief, Noncognitivism, Occam's razor, Omnipotence paradox, Poor design and Russell's teapot" if warranted by the level of objective interest.

The sole focus of this thread is the final question at the end of the original post which Pascal himself apparently never asked: "What if there is a Sovereign God responsible for creation of the universe as well as the creation of human life [beings with both a temporal body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Pascal's Wager Revisited

[quote]Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3. You must wager (it is not optional).

4. L ...[text shortened]... body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?

in a game where there are **equal** risks of gain and of loss

The wager is not a fifty fifty proposition!


Suppose I bet on one sovereign god and it then turns out there's actually 23 of them, one of which who hates anyone that believes in the god you are referring to - and will torture them for all eternity!??

I'd be in a bit of a pickle then wouldn't I?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... any and all "shortcomings" of his wager will become apparent as we explore the "Criticisms... " etc. etc.

What I asked was, what are your own thoughts on the shortcomings of Pascal's Wager. Your answer is that your own thoughts "will become apparent"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
This is only speculation on my part, because I know very little about Pascal himself. Judging from your message you seem to know he was conflicted and unsure of what he believed.

I didn't say he was unsure of what he believed. I said what he believed, conflicted with what he knew: a common problem theists have. The usual response is to make up some argument that seemingly resolves the problem, if you don't look too carefully. We see this sort of behavior all the time on this forum. I think C.S. Lewis was a master at that sort of thing. Making seemingly profound statements that simply don't stand up to even basic scrutiny, but most believers don't seem inclined towards subjecting them to scrutiny.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The sole focus of this thread is the final question at the end of the original post which Pascal himself apparently never asked: "What if there is a Sovereign God responsible for creation of the universe as well as the creation of human life [beings with both a temporal body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?"

So does the thread really have nothing to do with Pascal or his wager? You just threw that in to bait us?
I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So does the thread really have nothing to do with Pascal or his wager? You just threw that in to bait us?
I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll.

Without Blaise Pascal and his wager, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Please remain objective. Thanks.

Note: Please clarify your concluding sentence: "I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll."

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Without Blaise Pascal and his wager, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation. Please remain objective.

I am remaining objective. It appears you threw in Pascal's Wager as a bait to draw in readers to your real purpose which was something altogether different. Is this correct, or will you refuse to answer as usual?

Note: Please clarify your concluding sentence: "I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll."
You have confessed to trolling in another thread. I should not really expect you to be any different in this thread.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The sad thing is in my opinion this line of questioning, I think it displays
God in a very shallow light and really doesn't do anything towards meeting
God, since there are many who do believe in God who are going to go to
Hell, because they believe yet reject Him. The end goal has never been in
my opinion just believe there is a god, the end goal is God with us, that is
done only on God's terms.

What do you (anyone) think of this idea:

We should live the same way, regardless of whether God exists, and regardless of whether we believe God exists. This is because what is moral is moral regardless of whether God exists and regardless of whether we believe God exists. Some say that faith is essential to salvation. Be that as it may be, faith does not change something that we should do into something we should not do.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby

Note: Please clarify your concluding sentence: "I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll."

What do you think he might mean?

.. have a think ..

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, but I wasn't going to go there.

I've gone there before with the easy-to-imagine "and it all went downhill from there" moments following right behind.

Eh.

It all goes downhill from the moment anyone posts anything in this den of atheists and fundamentalists (but I repeat myself).

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Eh.

It all goes downhill from the moment anyone posts anything in this den of atheists and fundamentalists (but I repeat myself).

Just as bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is... emotionally immature trolls [with minimal focus on issues or ideas, only on nit picking personal attacks] disrupt serious threads because that's where the attention is...