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

[anonymous66]

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?

If a person were to take Pascal's argument seriously, then that person would be compelled to look at all world religions and find the one with the worst concept of punishment and convert to that religion. Or perhaps that persons would convert to all world religions, just to "cover his bases".

[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?

If a person were to take Pascal's argument seriously, then that person would be compelled to look at all world religions and find the one with the worst concept of punishment and convert to that religion. Or perhaps that persons would convert to all world religions, just to "cover his bases".

I would be inclined rather to look at the best type of teachings that indicate we are going to be rewarded or punished.

That would eliminate most of the world religions immediately, but not the religion of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Most world religions indicate their gods were born. In the religion of Abraham he is eternal and Creator of all that is.

[Charlemagne]

Humans are not earthworms. This would be the attitude of someone who doesn't like humans.

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

Please remember, this thread is not about earthworms.

It is about Pascal's argument that the atheist is foolish to throw away his chances on the gamble (not the certainty) that there is no God.

OK, then address my first paragraph, not the second.

If one makes the leap of faith, one is no longer an atheist and quickly learns to adapt to a life of faith. If one professes to be a believer but is not, that person remains an atheist. There are many such people who live inside religious communities, but they are only kidding themselves.

[anonymous66]

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?

If a person were to take Pascal's argument seriously, then that person would be compelled to look at all world religions and find the one with the worst concept of punishment and convert to that religion. Or perhaps that persons would convert to all world religions, just to "cover his bases".

I would be inclined rather to look at the best type of teachings that indicate we are going to be rewarded or punished.

I agree with you here - it seems very likely that if a person were to take Pascal's Wager seriously - then that person would do the above.

That would eliminate most of the world religions immediately, but not the religion of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

If a person were serious about Pascal's wager, then that person would not want to do anything "immediately".... that person would do some very serious studies of all religions - and also consider "dead" religions as well. That person would not want to make any mistakes.

Most world religions indicate their gods were born. In the religion of Abraham he is eternal and Creator of all that is.

A person compelled by Pascal's wager would look carefully to be sure that what you affirm above is actually true.

[anonymous66]

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?

It's also possible that a person who took Pascal's wager seriously would say to himself "wow. That's a good argument. I now believe in God... now what?"

[Count Lucanor]

You have to do better than this.

Seems to be enough so far. I mean, you have put the doctrines of the Catholic Church, from one of its theologians, on the table. Do you really think it's going to be hard?

The choice of which God to believe in is a choice everyone has to make.

Sure, but you already made your choice and this thread is exactly about that choice. I gave you the chance to avoid it, but you're now full on board with the Christian god and the Catholic Church. That's the faith you had been talking about when I asked what we would be gaining or losing, remember?

Even the atheist Jean Paul Sartre had to make it, and he naturally chose the God of Abraham as he lay dying.

Even if Sartre supposed deathbed conversion was true, which is doubtful, I'd rather take more seriously his well-known, documented intellectual stances on the subject, than a dubious story about his confessions as a senile patient dying.

What other God in the history of the world so fully satisfies our need to find a God who creates not only the entire universe, but also loves his creation with a love unparalleled by any other of the gods people have worshipped?

How can this god have unparalleled love for his creation and still mess it up so hard and even destroy it? This god endorses slavery and murder of innocent children for his cause.

One can shop around for gods worthy of worship, but I ask you to find me one more worthy than the God of Abraham. Tell me why you would find that god more worthy, a god who offers more solace and sense than the God of Abraham.

Yeah, I have heard that this is the ultimate god, the best that there can be. And yet, I see him being quite mediocre, imperfect, morally deviated, pretty much fitting the description you would get from a bunch of illiterate shepherds and superstitious clerics. I could easily choose a better god from the thousands available, but it makes more sense not to take even one of them seriously.

In any case, you have now confessed you're an atheist in relation to all the other gods. By pure faith. Talkng about Pascal's wager, you must admit you could be wrong and wasting your entire life worshiping the wrong deity. That seems like a terrible bet. A non-denominational, non-local, all-encompassing deity would have worked better for you.

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

[Good_Egg]

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

I have no data on which to base an estimate.

But the answer in the Christian tradition is - young children. God is described there as a loving father, and humans as made in his image.

Maybe people need to know and understand the religious tradition of their culture before they pronounce on whether it has anything to offer ?

Seems to me that Pascal is right, in the sense that what religion claims to offer - eternal life - is such a big deal that it's irrational not to spend a little time investigating it.

But wrong if you read him as saying that God can be fooled into accepting a token statement of belief made on the off-chance.

Which argument tends to support Charlemagne 's point that the one-line summary of Pascal's idea isn't enough to make a judgment on.

[Charlemagne]

You have to do better than this.

Seems to be enough so far. I mean, you have put the doctrines of the Catholic Church, from one of its theologians, on the table. Do you really think it's going to be hard?

The choice of which God to believe in is a choice everyone has to make.

Sure, but you already made your choice and this thread is exactly about that choice. I gave you the chance to avoid it, but you're now full on board with the Christian god and the Catholic Church. That's the faith you had been talking about when I asked what we would be gaining or losing, remember?

Even the atheist Jean Paul Sartre had to make it, and he naturally chose the God of Abraham as he lay dying.

Even if Sartre supposed deathbed conversion was true, which is doubtful, I'd rather take more seriously his well-known, documented intellectual stances on the subject, than a dubious story about his confessions as a senile patient dying.

What other God in the history of the world so fully satisfies our need to find a God who creates not only the entire universe, but also loves his creation with a love unparalleled by any other of the gods people have worshipped?

How can this god have unparalleled love for his creation and still mess it up so hard and even destroy it? This god endorses slavery and murder of innocent children for his cause.

One can shop around for gods worthy of worship, but I ask you to find me one more worthy than the God of Abraham. Tell me why you would find that god more worthy, a god who offers more solace and sense than the God of Abraham.

Yeah, I have heard that this is the ultimate god, the best that there can be. And yet, I see him being quite mediocre, imperfect, morally deviated, pretty much fitting the description you would get from a bunch of illiterate shepherds and superstitious clerics. I could easily choose a better god from the thousands available, but it makes more sense not to take even one of them seriously.

In any case, you have now confessed you're an atheist in relation to all the other gods. By pure faith. Talkng about Pascal's wager, you must admit you could be wrong and wasting your entire life worshiping the wrong deity. That seems like a terrible bet. A non-denominational, non-local, all-encompassing deity would have worked better for you.

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

[anonymous66]

You have to do better than this.

Seems to be enough so far. I mean, you have put the doctrines of the Catholic Church, from one of its theologians, on the table. Do you really think it's going to be hard?

The choice of which God to believe in is a choice everyone has to make.

Sure, but you already made your choice and this thread is exactly about that choice. I gave you the chance to avoid it, but you're now full on board with the Christian god and the Catholic Church. That's the faith you had been talking about when I asked what we would be gaining or losing, remember?

Even the atheist Jean Paul Sartre had to make it, and he naturally chose the God of Abraham as he lay dying.

Even if Sartre supposed deathbed conversion was true, which is doubtful, I'd rather take more seriously his well-known, documented intellectual stances on the subject, than a dubious story about his confessions as a senile patient dying.

What other God in the history of the world so fully satisfies our need to find a God who creates not only the entire universe, but also loves his creation with a love unparalleled by any other of the gods people have worshipped?

How can this god have unparalleled love for his creation and still mess it up so hard and even destroy it? This god endorses slavery and murder of innocent children for his cause.

One can shop around for gods worthy of worship, but I ask you to find me one more worthy than the God of Abraham. Tell me why you would find that god more worthy, a god who offers more solace and sense than the God of Abraham.

Yeah, I have heard that this is the ultimate god, the best that there can be. And yet, I see him being quite mediocre, imperfect, morally deviated, pretty much fitting the description you would get from a bunch of illiterate shepherds and superstitious clerics. I could easily choose a better god from the thousands available, but it makes more sense not to take even one of them seriously.

In any case, you have now confessed you're an atheist in relation to all the other gods. By pure faith. Talkng about Pascal's wager, you must admit you could be wrong and wasting your entire life worshiping the wrong deity. That seems like a terrible bet. A non-denominational, non-local, all-encompassing deity would have worked better for you.

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

If you really want to convert people to Christianity - it might help if you were actually do some research - actually learn about other world religions. Then demonstrate that you understand them - don't strawman them.

[Charlemagne]

Seems to be enough so far. I mean, you have put the doctrines of the Catholic Church, from one of its theologians, on the table. Do you really think it's going to be hard?


Sure, but you already made your choice and this thread is exactly about that choice. I gave you the chance to avoid it, but you're now full on board with the Christian god and the Catholic Church. That's the faith you had been talking about when I asked what we would be gaining or losing, remember?


Even if Sartre supposed deathbed conversion was true, which is doubtful, I'd rather take more seriously his well-known, documented intellectual stances on the subject, than a dubious story about his confessions as a senile patient dying.

How can this god have unparalleled love for his creation and still mess it up so hard and even destroy it? This god endorses slavery and murder of innocent children for his cause.

Yeah, I have heard that this is the ultimate god, the best that there can be. And yet, I see him being quite mediocre, imperfect, morally deviated, pretty much fitting the description you would get from a bunch of illiterate shepherds and superstitious clerics. I could easily choose a better god from the thousands available, but it makes more sense not to take even one of them seriously.

In any case, you have now confessed you're an atheist in relation to all the other gods. By pure faith. Talkng about Pascal's wager, you must admit you could be wrong and wasting your entire life worshiping the wrong deity. That seems like a terrible bet. A non-denominational, non-local, all-encompassing deity would have worked better for you.

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

If you really want to convert people to Christianity - it might help if you were actually do some research - actually learn about other world religions. Then demonstrate that you understand them - don't strawman them.

In the course of our lives it is not possible to thoroughly investigate all religions. We have to take short cuts. Atheism takes the biggest short cut by summarily dismissing all religions without even investigating. But it seems to take a particular relish in dismissing the God of Abraham. And many atheists do that without even investigating as thoroughly as they could and should.

I prefer not to see this thread turned into a world religions thread, but if you decide to start such a thread, I'd be glad to join you there.

[anonymous66]

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

If you really want to convert people to Christianity - it might help if you were actually do some research - actually learn about other world religions. Then demonstrate that you understand them - don't strawman them.

In the course of our lives it is not possible to thoroughly investigate all religions. We have to take short cuts. Atheism takes the biggest short cut by summarily dismissing all religions without even investigating. But it seems to take a particular relish in dismissing the God of Abraham. And many atheists do that without even investigating as thoroughly as they could and should.

I prefer not to see this thread turned into a world religions thread, but if you decide to start such a thread, I'd be glad to join you there.

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

[LuckyR]

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

Please remember, this thread is not about earthworms.

It is about Pascal's argument that the atheist is foolish to throw away his chances on the gamble (not the certainty) that there is no God.

OK, then address my first paragraph, not the second.

If one makes the leap of faith, one is no longer an atheist and quickly learns to adapt to a life of faith. If one professes to be a believer but is not, that person remains an atheist. There are many such people who live inside religious communities, but they are only kidding themselves.

Accurate as written, but not taken to it's logical conclusion.

Are those living inside religious communities yet don't believe, members of a religion or atheists? I ask because those who measure these things do not count them as atheists.

If they are atheists, that would boost the number of atheists dramatically, such that atheism would begin to outnumber many more religions.

My guess, considering the amount of intellectual processes required to buck the prevailing cultural tide of religiosity in order to become an atheist, that any such atheist who bought into the "logic" of Pascal's argument would not truly believe.

[Charlemagne]

Please remember, this thread is not about earthworms.

It is about Pascal's argument that the atheist is foolish to throw away his chances on the gamble (not the certainty) that there is no God.

OK, then address my first paragraph, not the second.

If one makes the leap of faith, one is no longer an atheist and quickly learns to adapt to a life of faith. If one professes to be a believer but is not, that person remains an atheist. There are many such people who live inside religious communities, but they are only kidding themselves.

Accurate as written, but not taken to it's logical conclusion.

Are those living inside religious communities yet don't believe, members of a religion or atheists? I ask because those who measure these things do not count them as atheists.

If they are atheists, that would boost the number of atheists dramatically, such that atheism would begin to outnumber many more religions.

My guess, considering the amount of intellectual processes required to buck the prevailing cultural tide of religiosity in order to become an atheist, that any such atheist who bought into the "logic" of Pascal's argument would not truly believe.

I happen to believe there are many more atheists than theists and that is proving itself in the deplorable decline of morals in our civilization. It cannot reasonably be argued that atheism on its own has, like the religion of Abraham, been a centuries long conveyor of human morals.

[Charlemagne]

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

If you really want to convert people to Christianity - it might help if you were actually do some research - actually learn about other world religions. Then demonstrate that you understand them - don't strawman them.

In the course of our lives it is not possible to thoroughly investigate all religions. We have to take short cuts. Atheism takes the biggest short cut by summarily dismissing all religions without even investigating. But it seems to take a particular relish in dismissing the God of Abraham. And many atheists do that without even investigating as thoroughly as they could and should.

I prefer not to see this thread turned into a world religions thread, but if you decide to start such a thread, I'd be glad to join you there.

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

[anonymous66]

If you really want to convert people to Christianity - it might help if you were actually do some research - actually learn about other world religions. Then demonstrate that you understand them - don't strawman them.

In the course of our lives it is not possible to thoroughly investigate all religions. We have to take short cuts. Atheism takes the biggest short cut by summarily dismissing all religions without even investigating. But it seems to take a particular relish in dismissing the God of Abraham. And many atheists do that without even investigating as thoroughly as they could and should.

I prefer not to see this thread turned into a world religions thread, but if you decide to start such a thread, I'd be glad to join you there.

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Even if someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.