Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

[JackDaydream]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

The problem which I see with Pascal's wager is that it is a philosophy based on fear, as opposed to faith. If there is a God or higher source of power in the universe the principle of Pascal's wager would be like a God standing over people with a big stick, saying, 'You must believe, or else..?'. This would seem to me to be in contradiction to the spirit of enquiry and a true basis for belief.

[Mercury]

What if faith in God is exclusive of trust in science? Then, I would argue, there is a great deal to lose. Conceivably, everything. Take climate change denial, for example:

Religious Beliefs a Root Cause of the Denial of Climate
Change Being Anthropogenic
Authors: Bryan Ezawa and Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.

Summary: Denial of climate change being caused by human activity, or anthropogenic climate change, is thought to be divided between political lines with Republicans generally denying climate change while Democrats believing that climate change not only exists but is caused, at
least in part, by humans. There appears to be a correlation between being religious and being a climate change denier.

https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/ru ... DF/1/play/

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

The problem which I see with Pascal's wager is that it is a philosophy based on fear, as opposed to faith. If there is a God or higher source of power in the universe the principle of Pascal's wager would be like a God standing over people with a big stick, saying, 'You must believe, or else..?'. This would seem to me to be in contradiction to the spirit of enquiry and a true basis for belief.

Now comes the pejorative claim often levelled again religion, that the basis for it is fear. But why shouldn't that be? Don't we fear the loss of many good things in addition to the loss of a loving God? Don't we fear hunger, which is the loss of food; loneliness, the loss of friends; poverty, the loss of comforts; and perhaps most of all despair, the loss of hope in eternal life? What we should really fear is not belief, but unbelief, which leaves us adrift in a universe where death becomes our catastrophic, final, and only end.

[Charlemagne]

What if faith in God is exclusive of trust in science? Then, I would argue, there is a great deal to lose. Conceivably, everything. Take climate change denial, for example:

Religious Beliefs a Root Cause of the Denial of Climate
Change Being Anthropogenic
Authors: Bryan Ezawa and Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.

Summary: Denial of climate change being caused by human activity, or anthropogenic climate change, is thought to be divided between political lines with Republicans generally denying climate change while Democrats believing that climate change not only exists but is caused, at
least in part, by humans. There appears to be a correlation between being religious and being a climate change denier.

https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/ru ... DF/1/play/

I don't see faith in God as exclusive of trust in science. Not that science is entirely trustworthy, having delivered to the human race nuclear weapons sufficient to annihilate itself.

By the way, there are quite a few scientists who are also climate change doubters.

[Charlemagne]

Scientists who doubt climate change:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

The problem which I see with Pascal's wager is that it is a philosophy based on fear, as opposed to faith. If there is a God or higher source of power in the universe the principle of Pascal's wager would be like a God standing over people with a big stick, saying, 'You must believe, or else..?'. This would seem to me to be in contradiction to the spirit of enquiry and a true basis for belief.

I don't follow your logic. Obviously, it is the choice of the atheist, not of God with a big stick. People are free to be as atheistic as they like. God will not stop them. But when they are dead God may well show them how dead wrong they were.

Atheism is not logical. It is openly and spiritually suicidal, accepting death as a final end beyond which we do not survive.

When the skeptics die, when the moment arrives for them to boldly confront their certain and final end, do they consider what bargain they have made with their logic? Do they look at the Christian who dies with hope in his heart? The skeptic must reason that if there is no God, the Christian when he dies will never know that he was wrong. Whereas the skeptic has to know that if he (the skeptic) is right, and there is no God, he also will never know it for a certainty; but if he is wrong, he will at last know it with a good deal more certainty than he bargained for. Surely, in rejecting God, it can come as no surprise to the skeptic that God is free at last to reject him. What a way to end, by losing a foolish bet that God is dead!

[JackDaydream]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

The problem which I see with Pascal's wager is that it is a philosophy based on fear, as opposed to faith. If there is a God or higher source of power in the universe the principle of Pascal's wager would be like a God standing over people with a big stick, saying, 'You must believe, or else..?'. This would seem to me to be in contradiction to the spirit of enquiry and a true basis for belief.

Now comes the pejorative claim often levelled again religion, that the basis for it is fear. But why shouldn't that be? Don't we fear the loss of many good things in addition to the loss of a loving God? Don't we fear hunger, which is the loss of food; loneliness, the loss of friends; poverty, the loss of comforts; and perhaps most of all despair, the loss of hope in eternal life? What we should really fear is not belief, but unbelief, which leaves us adrift in a universe where death becomes our catastrophic, final, and only end.

Fear exists in all aspects of life, not simply as something conjured up in relation to religious ideas, including that of hell. In many ways, a lot of religious systems of belief may be based on the fear of death itself. Personally, my biggest fear is probably not even annihilation but the worst possible states of despair, which may be 'hell' in itself. The nature of loss or forms of extreme misery may be of a physical, emotional and mental nature, but I am not really sure that belief in God simply as a safety resort helps necessarily. However, that doesn't mean that I rule out some kind of higher source . I am not a materialist and do hold on to some kind of faith but that is different from accepting the specific idea of Pascal's wager.

It may come down to the whole spectrum of what is faith and what is superstition? Even though I would like to disentangle this rationally, it is not simple and even those who see religious ideas as magical thinking may not be rational completely because fear is based on psychological aspects of human nature, rather than based on philosophy premises entirely.

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

The problem which I see with Pascal's wager is that it is a philosophy based on fear, as opposed to faith. If there is a God or higher source of power in the universe the principle of Pascal's wager would be like a God standing over people with a big stick, saying, 'You must believe, or else..?'. This would seem to me to be in contradiction to the spirit of enquiry and a true basis for belief.

Now comes the pejorative claim often levelled again religion, that the basis for it is fear. But why shouldn't that be? Don't we fear the loss of many good things in addition to the loss of a loving God? Don't we fear hunger, which is the loss of food; loneliness, the loss of friends; poverty, the loss of comforts; and perhaps most of all despair, the loss of hope in eternal life? What we should really fear is not belief, but unbelief, which leaves us adrift in a universe where death becomes our catastrophic, final, and only end.

Fear exists in all aspects of life, not simply as something conjured up in relation to religious ideas, including that of hell. In many ways, a lot of religious systems of belief may be based on the fear of death itself. Personally, my biggest fear is probably not even annihilation but the worst possible states of despair, which may be 'hell' in itself. The nature of loss or forms of extreme misery may be of a physical, emotional and mental nature, but I am not really sure that belief in God simply as a safety resort helps necessarily. However, that doesn't mean that I rule out some kind of higher source . I am not a materialist and do hold on to some kind of faith but that is different from accepting the specific idea of Pascal's wager.

It may come down to the whole spectrum of what is faith and what is superstition? Even though I would like to disentangle this rationally, it is not simple and even those who see religious ideas as magical thinking may not be rational completely because fear is based on psychological aspects of human nature, rather than based on philosophy premises entirely.

Yes, life is not just a philosophy. It is more so a story. This is why Jesus chose so often to teach through parables. Human needs are different from human thoughts. Should our needs serve our thoughts, or vice versa? I say vice versa.

[JackDaydream]

The trouble with the question of whether thoughts should serve needs or vice versa is that it is theoretical and, in life, it may not be straightforward. People have mixed motives and some do believe in God out of fear. I was brought up in Catholicism to believe that it was wrong to question, to be a 'doubting Thomas'. For better or worse, I seriously questioned and I am still travelling the slippery path of philosophy and any basis which I have for belief in God is not going to be based on the idea of it being a safety net, but on some firmer foundations for genuine belief.

[Mercury]

By the way, there are quite a few scientists who are also climate change doubters.

So to summarise, you believe in God and doubt climate change? Is that what you're saying?

[Count Lucanor]

[...] it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing.

We would not lose nothing by believing in the existence of Quetzalcoatl, the serpent dog, right? Or Marduk, right? Why not then?

If we are right, we stand to gain everything.

What exactly are we gaining by just believing in its existence?

[Charlemagne]

The trouble with the question of whether thoughts should serve needs or vice versa is that it is theoretical and, in life, it may not be straightforward. People have mixed motives and some do believe in God out of fear. I was brought up in Catholicism to believe that it was wrong to question, to be a 'doubting Thomas'. For better or worse, I seriously questioned and I am still travelling the slippery path of philosophy and any basis which I have for belief in God is not going to be based on the idea of it being a safety net, but on some firmer foundations for genuine belief.

Well, of course you are right there. Pascal offered his argument not as a total rational for belief, but as a starting point for those who resist God's grace. Having at least a concern for their own welfare, the skeptic can begin to explore more substantive reasons for faith. Lacking the conviction of self-interest, there is not likely to any growth of interest in why faith can be such a source of comfort and conviction down the line. It is generally the experience of converts that they are excited about the discoveries that will lead them to greater comfort and conviction than is produced by the mere wager argument.

[Charlemagne]

[...] it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing.

We would not lose nothing by believing in the existence of Quetzalcoatl, the serpent dog, right? Or Marduk, right? Why not then?

If we are right, we stand to gain everything.

What exactly are we gaining by just believing in its existence?

We are talking about God, not dogs.

You don't just gain by believing. True faith should bring a host of gains not only for the individual but for the world at large.
Most of all for the individual the gain is a life of hope and reward at the end of life. For the world faith unites people in a conviction that God cares and has given us the means by which we can care for ourselves and each other. Atheism cannot offer that conviction of caring and hope. Atheism is just the denial of God. Aside from the freedom to deny, it is concerned with nothing else. Every atheist is a law unto himself, and with the rise of modern atheism we have seen plenty of evidence of how that will turn out.

[Charlemagne]

To exist without faith in the first place is to be deprived of all the benefits and graces that faith opens the door to. We can assert that faith is a fiction or a fraud, but not opening the door and experiencing faith will not prove a thing. Experiencing it, we follow up faith with our works, and these are the proof that faith is of such great value to the person and to society at large. The commonest complaint against religion, that it is filled with fraudulent characters and opportunists, is a very old complaint. It has been justified ever since Judas took his thirty pieces of silver. But even Judas came to realize that his betrayal of his friend did not make his friend a fraud. We can despise certain people who call themselves Christians. But in that there is no warrant for despising Christ.