Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Pensees
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Pascal's Wager
date
newest »
newest »
David - thanks for the review - I haven't visited Pascal in a while. I think our Christian God wants us to worship, adore, and obey him; not just believe in him for fire insurance.
Totally agree, the wager is good prudential reasoning and something agnostics should consider as you say in the right context.
Logically I think it makes sense. In most cases, atheism is an affliction of the will, not the reason. So that kind of logic is wasted on those hopeless and worst cases. In a best case scenario, the wager can be used to spur someone on to do some soul searching if they are more open to an either/or possibility. Obviously at some point the actual reality of what faith requires would have to take hold.For someone to accuse Pascal of over intellectualizing faith, only shows they haven't read much of Pascal. I think Pascal said a lot of really great things. The wager doesn't even factor into what I like about him. It's rather sad that he is remembered almost solely for that.
I didn't mean to say Pascal is "over intellectualizing" faith, if you meant that towards me. I too like Pascal, its why I am reading Pensees for the second time. The wager works in the right context. I like how you said it can be used to spur someone on to soul-searching. My skepticism is whether approaching faith in that way can truly lead to life-giving, lifelong faith. To use an analogy, imagine you love a woman...or think you do. You see some things that you think could lead the two of you to be together till death and others that you think will lead to a soon-to-be-broken relationship. In other words, either possibility seems logically possible. Is this a healthy way to enter a marriage or any sort of long-term relationship?
Obviously all analogies break down. As a Christian I would say if you take Pascal's wager and dive in (a la leap of faith, Kierkegaard) you will find true spiritual life. So unlike a questionable human relationship, God will not let you down. Maybe it would be better to not frame the wager as rewards/punishments in the afterlife but more as diving into the best way to live life right now.
Where Pascal's wager falls apart for me is that I would not wish to share eternity with a God who would condemn unbelievers to hell. However, I would be happy to share eternity with a merciful and loving God. Therefore, for me, the logical choice is unbelief.
David wrote: "I didn't mean to say Pascal is "over intellectualizing" faith, if you meant that towards me. I too like Pascal, its why I am reading Pensees for the second time. "It wasn't in reference to you. I was worried you might take it as such. I was anticipating that someone might say that is what Pascal was doing. I wasn't thinking of you.
Great point Erick, unbelievers don't doubt due to logic, but due to a crippling of the will (2 Cor 1:18, 2:14ff). It follows that the wager seems to be good backup ammunition for the already-a-abeliever, but nothing more. Pascal did ride a good mediary line between evidentialism and fideism, however.
David wrote: My skepticism is whether approaching faith in that way can truly lead to life-giving, lifelong faith... As a Christian I would say if you take Pascal's wager and dive in (a la leap of faith, Kierkegaard) you will find true spiritual life... "Sorry David, I wanted to respond to your points earlier but got sidetracked. I agree that Pascal's wager isn't much more than an introduction to a possible leaping off into faith. I personally detest the evangelizing by helling people into heaven. I feel its one of the lowest evangelization tools. I don't think Pascal was doing that as such. He was giving a simple logical proposition; that stands even if it wouldn't lead directly to a genuine conviction of faith. I know that there are Christians who first believed because they were feared into it. Many of them later do come to a more genuine non-coerced faith. The same can happen here. I believe he was proposing this simply as a logical approach for those who might be more inclined to such a method. I feel it's inadequate on many levels as direct evangelization. I like Pascal for other things personally, but I really saw this as more a logical proposition that might be more of a window into faith.
Brent wrote: "Great point Erick, unbelievers don't doubt due to logic, but due to a crippling of the will (2 Cor 1:18, 2:14ff)... Pascal did ride a good mediary line between evidentialism and fideism, however. "Interestingly enough this ties into our previous conversation on Calvin and the fathers. Pascal was a Jansenist and they were heavily Augustinian, so fideism was a strong aspect of his Christianity through Augustine. It is probably what makes Catholics like him and Fenelon a little more palatable to Protestants. I agree about the crippling of the will. While I reject complete bondage of the will (at least in initial stages of life), I fully believe it is impaired as an instrument of God's righteousness. Atheism and other beliefs seem to illustrate that it can go from being just impaired to even nigh on bound.
I should add that Fenelon was opposed to the Jansenists in their more Protestant leanings but was still very Augustinian.
of course you agree in some crippling of the will, Erick, otherwise you'd be a heretic! (;
Brent wrote: "of course you agree in some crippling of the will, Erick, otherwise you'd be a heretic! (;"Haha. I've been told the opposite in fact.
Erick - at least helling people into heaven is Biblical which beats trying to reason your way to Christ through the bleatings of secular philosophers.
"unbelievers don't doubt due to logic, but due to a crippling of the will (2 Cor 1:18, 2:14ff)."That's a strange statement. Besides the fact that quoting the Bible to determine how unbelievers think is nonsensical, wouldn't it make more sense to ask an unbeliever why he or she doesn't believe? My agnostic stance is due purely to logic, beginning with the abundance of evidence that if there is a God, the Bible is too unreliable as a historical document to trust.
Lee wrote: That's a strange statement. Besides the fact that quoting the Bible to determine how unbelievers think is nonsensical, wouldn't it make more sense to ask an unbeliever why he or she doesn't believe?"I do get what you are saying, but maybe it can be equated with this: Suppose Jung or Fromm bear witness to certain personality traits through experiential and experimental knowledge. Sure, someone who fits those traits could deny that they are fitting for them. A man who has aggression issues might deny that he has any. Someone who has a regressive or a narcissistic disorder may do the same. In none of these cases is it certain that they are unbiased and knowledgeable about their own state. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that suggests people with disorders like those above most often deny they have them. One either can bear witness to the truth of the analysis through tried experience, or one can reject it through the same method. But one cannot reject or accept it based just on the perspective of the one being analyzed. It assumes too much about their ability. While the above is an analogy to psychology, I do believe spiritual states are not that far removed. Spiritual sickness is actually quite similar.
Yes, Lee, and logic as a Faith instrument is too unreliable to trust!
Lee, never trust anyone who tells you God didn't give you a brain to use. He in fact did. Thankfully He did so; even if some Christians fail to use it. Thankfully, Paul and John and every other disciple, could string words together in an orderly and logical fashion. It is a good thing that even with that very logical order, my faith is not in any way impaired when I am reading the Bible. But faith is certainly more than just logic.
Erick - if you are referring to me, I have a series of award-winning scientific journal articles as well as a published book out stringing genetic ideas together you couldn't even begin to comprehend. That being said, logic is about 50% of a person's belief, the other half is Faith. Your "art's only" interpretation of any kind of comprehensive truth is merely laughable as is your limited exercise of brainpower.
Lee, in reference to your post six. I can't recall if Pascal talks about hell much in Pensees, though I assume he would hold to the traditional view like any 17th century person. My question is, so what? The vast majority of people throughout church history have held to the traditional view of hell, does this mean we discount everything else they say?
I'd argue that even if we reject the traditional view, the wager has a lot to say. Maybe more, as we move the wager into living in this life. I think living in the way of Jesus, from trusting in his grace for salvation on into daily living as a disciple, is objectively a better and more fulfilling way to live then other ways.
To try an example, if you become a Christian you know there will be demands on you, such as to be generous with your money and to love others self-sacrificially. You aren't sure if self-sacrificial love is the most logical way to live, self-centeredness also makes sense. I would say not to reject self-centeredness out of a fear of hell, instead choose self-sacrifice in the hopes of the person you will become. In the same way, choose generosity over greed, you have so much more to gain and less to lose.
I don't know if that makes any sense. My point is simply that whatever Pascal's belief on hell is can be separate from the wager.
Robert wrote: Your "art's only" interpretation of any kind of comprehensive truth is merely laughable as is your limited exercise of brainpower. It's embarrassing for a so-called Christian to have to be warned about abuse once and then get his comments removed. It is doubly bad for it to happen twice. Have you no shame?
As far as brain power goes. If I were responding to you, don't slight me for thinking I wouldn't need to exercise all of what I had.
I've been wanting to read more of Pascal, your comments on this thread make me want to read it even more. Thank you all.
Tovis wrote: "I've been wanting to read more of Pascal, your comments on this thread make me want to read it even more. Thank you all."You're welcome. I hear the Provincial Letters are quite good. I have a copy of the book but haven't cracked it open yet. Pensees is of course very good.
Erick - I had my comments removed because some little pansy cried to goodreads that I was threatening him. Hope that "someone" doesn't have to endure real persecution for the Lord, he's not man enough for it.
Robert wrote:I had my comments removed because some little pansy cried to goodreads that I was threatening him. Hope that "someone" doesn't have to endure real persecution for the Lord, he's not man enough for it. "I'm sure you won't ever have to worry about that. You would have to be a Christian first. I would never accuse you of being that Bob. So you are safe. And I am not so juvenile as to make idle threats that make me look like a very insecure and foolish man.
Robert wrote: "Now, I know the Christian tent is a big one, but right now we're treated to the spectacle of an intense Jew-hater (Erick) huddled in one corner of the tent and good-old faithless..."Bob really now, do you really need to try so hard to prove that your Christianity is a sham? I won't need to flag you because I fear persecution, my only MO would be to expose you as the hateful bombastic pseudo-Christian you really are. Try harder Bob. I am sure you can top yourself. I'm over here having a bit of chuckle. I can almost see the vain popping out of your head.
Robert wrote: "Erick - if you are referring to me, I have a series of award-winning scientific journal articles as well as a published book out stringing genetic ideas together you couldn't even begin to comprehend..."
Forgive me Robert, I didn't respond to your advertisement. If I get pseudo-Christianity here, can I expect quack-science there? If stringing generic ideas together is common here, can I expect the same generic string there? You are very gifted at making strings here. I'm sure your other writings are equally entertaining.
It's genetic, Erick. Try to tone your ignorance down just a little.
Robert wrote: "It's genetic, Erick. Try to tone your ignorance down just a little."Oh, I am sorry. I read what I thought you meant and what I know you are good at. You take yourself very seriously indeed. I think you are gifted at comedy, but don't know it.
OK, Erick, I'll take that as a compliment, not offer a rejoinder, and end this triffling spat.
I can share Davids first point here that the wager seems overly logic. However if it is to be meant as logic than Goedels Incompleteness theorems apply and as such the wager losses its own argument, as it cannot be fully logic and complete. I personally think that any argument based on logic after Goedel gets more complicated. This is also why in most discussions on logic only philosophers in pre Goedel times are referenced.
Brent - I have had another of my exchanges flagged by Erick and subsequently deleted by Goodreads for "abuse". I've said nothing untruthful or excessive, just turned his own posts back against him. We've functiioned well in the past without the political correctness police hanging over our head. I make a motion that Erick be banned so we can continue our policy of free and open discussion.
Robert wrote: "Brent - I have had another of my exchanges flagged by Erick and subsequently deleted by Goodreads for "abuse"."Lol. Good job Robert. I didn't delete your posts, they did and they saw that they qualified as abuse. If you were a Christian you'd feel some pangs of shame and guilt. The fact that your heart is that hard that you can treat people they way you do and think they are to blame, shows the caliber of person you are. You've been exposed.
Robert wrote: We've functiioned well in the past without the political correctness police hanging over our head. I make a motion that Erick be banned so we can continue our policy of free and open discussion."
So far you've been given carte blanche here to say whatever foul thing you like and it has gone unchecked. You're incredibly intimidated by me so the full force of the hellish vitriol that is in your heart has come out. That is simply the person you are deep down. The love of Christ is completely absent from you. I simply exposed that it is.
I love the irony of me being banned so that no policing be present but that can't happen unless policing removes me. The hypocrisy is quite confounding. Oh Bob you really are spiritually sick.
Unfortunately, banning Erick would also hamper free and open discussion. Let's try and encourage mutual discussion and understanding without getting our feelings hurt, folks. I understand that this is a Christian apologetics forum, but it's simply goodread ethics and not Christian ethics that is the arbiter of this discussion, otherwise many would have been banned a long time ago. As the moderator, I understand Robert, among others, as more or less abiding by our rules laid out, and hence let the discussion fly; Erick, if you have a personal quelling with Robert, I would take it up with him personally, but as I said before, whether you think a member is discussing with the attitude of Christ or not is irrelevant to whether they are obeying the forum rules. Let's all take a moment to breathe: where' Rod when you need him, lol (-:
Brent wrote: " Let's try and encourage mutual discussion and understanding without getting our feelings hurt, folks. "Calling me a Jew hater is unacceptable in my opinion. That is the sort of thing that should not be tolerated in a Christian forum. I have said nothing against Jews as a people, as a race, as a religion etc etc. That accusation is libelous slander. It's hate speech of the worst kind because it marks someone in the eyes of those who see it. It's used without validation by a hate filled human being.
The day I'm intimidated by a snivelling little crybaby coward who uses a third party to fight his fights will be the day my Maker can take me. No wonder you're anti-Jew, sonny, your tactics are much more akin to hiding behind women and children than fighting the good fight.
Robert wrote: The day I'm intimidated by a snivelling little crybaby coward who uses a third party to fight his fights will be the day my Maker can take me. No wonder you're anti-Jew, sonny, your tactics are much more akin to hiding behind women and children than fighting the good fight.This coming from a man (I use the term loosely of course) who threatened to sick homeland security on me. Of course, he wants full freedom of speech to voice his idiotic tirades, but when someone voices their opinions, he threatens them with calling the authorities. My only motivation was to embarrass you by having your posts deleted. It worked. Those stupid lines of drivel all still exist in quotations in my own posts. They have not gone anywhere. They certainly aren't hiding and neither am I. I just wanted to shame you. And I did. Your temper tantrum proves it. You lack the intellect for repartee Bob. You must go straight for slander and libel because that's all you can do.
Bob, you are a hypocritical sorry excuse for a man. You are no Christian. You have been exposed as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Gentleman, just ignore each other. Good grief.
David - Oh, I'll gladly ignore the worm, as I tried in a peace offering in msg. 28, but he can't go around flagging my messages for deletion everytime his panties get in a wad. Sure you can take the high road sitting on the sidelines, David, but someday you'll say something that upsets his fragile ego (probably without even addressing him directly) and quickly find a nasty letter from goodreads in your inbox. Brent tried reason, but our perp defends his censorship with spurious argument. None of us can enjoy this board without free reign to express our deeply held Christian beliefs. If we allow the self-righteous to decide what can be said, we can just kiss another freedom or two (speech, religious) goodbye.
Erick - I have a proposal for you. I won't converse with you ever again which won't be any burden for me considering your exposed stripes. You, in turn, should freely agree to not flag my or anyone else's comments on this board for deletion. Because you're not the moderator and have no chance of ever being it, that shouldn't cramp your style in any way to express your opinions. Do we have a deal?
Guess you'll have to go back to harassing liberal Christians, Robert. I believe you consider us Jew-haters too, is that right?
Guys have you ever read 1 Corinthians 13?
Ha! Ha! Lee - no, not Jew-haters, just sin lovers!
Cay - great Scripture 1 Corinthians 13. Love - that's what replaces the need for the 10 Commandments in the New Testament isn't it? I love my neighbor therefore I don't cuckold him with his wife, steal or covet his property, bear false witness against him, or kill him in a fit of pique. Got the love bit down, Cay, what's the problem?
Where are all the bleeding hearts interjecting weepy, slushy poet's love into the Bible? This board has all the fire of an ancient spinster's kaffeklatch.
Cay wrote: "Guys have you ever read 1 Corinthians 13?"I have in fact. What I have said would look a lot different if I hadn't.
First, the context for wager. As Pascal says:
This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied; wherefore I have a hundred time wished that if a God maintains nature, she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow. Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty. My heart inclines wholly to know where is the true good, in order to follow it; nothing would be too dear to me for eternity.
Pascal, Blaise (2012-05-12). Pascal’s Pensées (pp. 65-66). . Kindle Edition.
Pascal is saying that both sides make sense. On one hand, there is a lot that makes him think there is a God; on the other side there is a lot to make him doubt. So how do you choose when both sides make sense?
This, and only this, is where the wager comes in.
“Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions” (Pascal, Blaise (2012-05-12). Pascal’s Pensées (pp. 67-68). . Kindle Edition).
“If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is” (Pascal, Blaise (2012-05-12). Pascal’s Pensées (p. 68). . Kindle Edition)
“According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost.—”But,” say you, “if He had wished me to worship Him, He would have left me signs of His will.”—He has done so; but you neglect them. Seek them, therefore; it is well worth it” (Pascal, Blaise (2012-05-12). Pascal’s Pensées (pp. 70-71). . Kindle Edition).
Thoughts?
The wager, in its context, can make sense. It is not meant to be a tool to use to people who are not open to faith; it is not an apologetic starter. You don't go to a hardened skeptic and use the wager because they are not in a position to doubt their skepticism. The wager would come in when people can see both sides - some evidence for God but not sure.
My problem with the wager is that it does seem a bit too logical. I don't know if you can choose to have faith this way; you can choose to assent or force yourself to believe it is true. But does this lead to life-sustaining faith? I guess if you bring in a leap of faith with the hope that once you choose to believe you will experience God, then maybe it makes sense. I just fear that Pascal's wager may be overly cold-logic.