Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News1 min ago
Do you think you can cheat God?
83 Answers
Pascal’s Wager, in short, states that:
**a man has everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.** (**-** Copied from the internet).
So, according to that, Pascal’s faith wasn’t genuine – but more importantly, he rather stupidly overlooked the fact that God is, allegedly, omniscient, and would therefore be aware of this devious ploy.
Many of the religious here appear to have no hesitation in trumpeting their piety and their good deeds, whilst at the same time often vilifying their fellow man, and in particular those who don’t believe as the religious claim to. In my understanding of Christianity, all of that seems rather contrary to Christ’s teachings. However, it now appears that one self-proclaimed Christian here is, in fact, taking the path of Pascal’s Wager, and I wonder just how many others are secretly following suit– and if so, if it transpires that God does indeed exist, do they really think they are capable of cheating him?
**a man has everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.** (**-** Copied from the internet).
So, according to that, Pascal’s faith wasn’t genuine – but more importantly, he rather stupidly overlooked the fact that God is, allegedly, omniscient, and would therefore be aware of this devious ploy.
Many of the religious here appear to have no hesitation in trumpeting their piety and their good deeds, whilst at the same time often vilifying their fellow man, and in particular those who don’t believe as the religious claim to. In my understanding of Christianity, all of that seems rather contrary to Christ’s teachings. However, it now appears that one self-proclaimed Christian here is, in fact, taking the path of Pascal’s Wager, and I wonder just how many others are secretly following suit– and if so, if it transpires that God does indeed exist, do they really think they are capable of cheating him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Zabadak - “... What I see here (remarkably consistently, it seems, as I'm an infrequent visitor and it seems to be going on every time I visit) is a tendency to mock and caricature the supposed opposition before they have a chance to join in the debate...”
I would disagree that the 'opposition' are stymied before they have a chance to join in the debate. I would suggest that unfortunately, the vast majority of those people on AB who attempt to argue the case for religion are not very adept at debate and some of them appear to know so little about the fundamentals of their own religion that it's almost laughable. Some post quote after quote of biblical scripture; others post platitudinous one-liners.
There are of course a few exceptions to this.
I would disagree that the 'opposition' are stymied before they have a chance to join in the debate. I would suggest that unfortunately, the vast majority of those people on AB who attempt to argue the case for religion are not very adept at debate and some of them appear to know so little about the fundamentals of their own religion that it's almost laughable. Some post quote after quote of biblical scripture; others post platitudinous one-liners.
There are of course a few exceptions to this.
Hi birdie - for sure my comment was intended to work both/all ways, and there are certainly some anti-religionists whose debating skills barely rise above level of "your stuff is rubbish","it's all fairy tales", and the trotting out of sub-Dawsonian caricatures.
I would exclude the present question-setter and a few others from such a critique, though Pascal's position, developing a rationale for belief in (his) religion is not well represented here as a "devious ploy" or as an attempt to cheat God. His observation that the fundamental question of human existence - whether there is a God or not, or more subtly whether materialism is all there is = is so finely balanced that it's impossible to come to a wholly rational conclusion is not a cheat's charter. Rather, given that, it makes sense to live one's life open to the possibility of the divine, and (more importantly from his point of view) as if life beyond mere material existence were a confirmed reality: lose nothing significant, win (potentially) everything.
He certainly retained a lively scepticism towards some of religion's representatives and forms and, if I may venture an opinion intended as a compliment, Naomi appears much of the time much closer to his position than the "self proclaimed Christian", though I'm not sure who that is. Pascal's Wager is not a blind bet so much as a rational transaction. It deserves more than a trite dismissal.
I would exclude the present question-setter and a few others from such a critique, though Pascal's position, developing a rationale for belief in (his) religion is not well represented here as a "devious ploy" or as an attempt to cheat God. His observation that the fundamental question of human existence - whether there is a God or not, or more subtly whether materialism is all there is = is so finely balanced that it's impossible to come to a wholly rational conclusion is not a cheat's charter. Rather, given that, it makes sense to live one's life open to the possibility of the divine, and (more importantly from his point of view) as if life beyond mere material existence were a confirmed reality: lose nothing significant, win (potentially) everything.
He certainly retained a lively scepticism towards some of religion's representatives and forms and, if I may venture an opinion intended as a compliment, Naomi appears much of the time much closer to his position than the "self proclaimed Christian", though I'm not sure who that is. Pascal's Wager is not a blind bet so much as a rational transaction. It deserves more than a trite dismissal.
Zabadak, //Pascal's position, developing a rationale for belief in (his) religion is not well represented here as a "devious ploy" or as an attempt to cheat God.//
Since the question is not designed to provoke discussion on the complexities of Pascal’s Wager - which is why I quoted it ‘in short’ – this is not, as you say, a ‘trite dismissal’. The representation I gave is perfectly suitable for purpose. It was prompted by an admission by someone who calls himself a Christian that this is the path he follows, and it is simply an observation of the way in which some people of religion appear to embrace their apparently dubious’ faith’.
// it makes sense to live one's life open to the possibility of the divine, and (more importantly from his point of view) as if life beyond mere material existence were a confirmed reality: lose nothing significant, win (potentially) everything. //
^^That is precisely what’s at the heart of this question. It makes no sense at all. Since God - allegedly - knows the secrets of all hearts, as far as 'faith' goes, selecting that option is utterly irrational. Living one’s life open to the possibility of the divine is not 'faith' – it is a considered choice taken specifically in an effort to allow oneself the best chance possible. It is, as I said, a devious – and rather stupid – ploy intended to cheat God.
As far as your claim that there //is a tendency to mock and caricature the supposed opposition before they have a chance to join in the debate// ….
…..I agree with Birdie. To be perfectly frank, those who claim religion – and their apologists - have every opportunity to put their case - and I for one would welcome a little sensible input from them - but many prefer instead to employ those very tactics that you accuse non-believers of using. A quick glance at the first page of this thread alone will confirm that.
Since the question is not designed to provoke discussion on the complexities of Pascal’s Wager - which is why I quoted it ‘in short’ – this is not, as you say, a ‘trite dismissal’. The representation I gave is perfectly suitable for purpose. It was prompted by an admission by someone who calls himself a Christian that this is the path he follows, and it is simply an observation of the way in which some people of religion appear to embrace their apparently dubious’ faith’.
// it makes sense to live one's life open to the possibility of the divine, and (more importantly from his point of view) as if life beyond mere material existence were a confirmed reality: lose nothing significant, win (potentially) everything. //
^^That is precisely what’s at the heart of this question. It makes no sense at all. Since God - allegedly - knows the secrets of all hearts, as far as 'faith' goes, selecting that option is utterly irrational. Living one’s life open to the possibility of the divine is not 'faith' – it is a considered choice taken specifically in an effort to allow oneself the best chance possible. It is, as I said, a devious – and rather stupid – ploy intended to cheat God.
As far as your claim that there //is a tendency to mock and caricature the supposed opposition before they have a chance to join in the debate// ….
…..I agree with Birdie. To be perfectly frank, those who claim religion – and their apologists - have every opportunity to put their case - and I for one would welcome a little sensible input from them - but many prefer instead to employ those very tactics that you accuse non-believers of using. A quick glance at the first page of this thread alone will confirm that.
cupid04 // The evil comes from the wrong choices human beings make. Greed and the love of money cause wars not peoples personal faiths. //
Perhaps but religion is used as a cover for the underlying greed. For example the genocide conducted by Joshua and his followers as they massacred more then thirty tribes was really about taking over the land but they pretended they were simply going their god's will by slaughtering them.
They collected all the gold and silver in a box (The Arc of the Covenant). Oh but it wasn't for them, it was for God as a reward for keeping His side of the agreement that He would help them anihilate the people who already lived in the Promised Land.
(Just what an omnipotent deity who had created the whole Universe and everything in it including all the gold and siver would want with a box full of the stuff was never clear.)
Perhaps but religion is used as a cover for the underlying greed. For example the genocide conducted by Joshua and his followers as they massacred more then thirty tribes was really about taking over the land but they pretended they were simply going their god's will by slaughtering them.
They collected all the gold and silver in a box (The Arc of the Covenant). Oh but it wasn't for them, it was for God as a reward for keeping His side of the agreement that He would help them anihilate the people who already lived in the Promised Land.
(Just what an omnipotent deity who had created the whole Universe and everything in it including all the gold and siver would want with a box full of the stuff was never clear.)
Naomi: I think we may have to disagree on what faith is in this context, or perhaps define our terms more carefully. Pascal claims to push rationality as far as it will go, reaching the point where he faces a decision either to live in a world which includes the divine/an eternal dimension, or to accept that there is nothing beyond ourselves and what we can empirically prove. He chooses the former on the basis that, if it's the right choice, he has everything to gain. He may or may not be right about that, but that's certainly how he saw it.
That's where he puts his faith, not as a piece of luggage that he carries with him, but as a life choice, like any convert. It has a profound impact on who he is and what he does, on the values he lives by.
He expressly addresses the issue of feigned belief, acknowledging, long before you made the point, that God would not be deceived by such trickery and unwittingly reward the disingenuous. Part of the deal is that you have to be sincere in belief, if necessary by applying oneself to spiritual discipline, study, and community. In any case, as I said earlier, even if God doesn't know it's a con, you do: that would be an unbearable tension, and for Pascal wholly irrational.
A lot of the debate here centres around faith versus rationality. Pascal pushes that debate as far as it will go, and chooses faith not least (but not only) for pragmatic reasons.
That's where he puts his faith, not as a piece of luggage that he carries with him, but as a life choice, like any convert. It has a profound impact on who he is and what he does, on the values he lives by.
He expressly addresses the issue of feigned belief, acknowledging, long before you made the point, that God would not be deceived by such trickery and unwittingly reward the disingenuous. Part of the deal is that you have to be sincere in belief, if necessary by applying oneself to spiritual discipline, study, and community. In any case, as I said earlier, even if God doesn't know it's a con, you do: that would be an unbearable tension, and for Pascal wholly irrational.
A lot of the debate here centres around faith versus rationality. Pascal pushes that debate as far as it will go, and chooses faith not least (but not only) for pragmatic reasons.
The is a line of reasoning I've heard from quite senior churchmen that addresses this but personally I find it quite disturbing.
The logic is that you must allow faith to grow. That you may not believe at first but if you start to pray and worship then faith will grow in you until you truely believe.
Obviously this is quite "Sect-ish" logic.
The logic is that you must allow faith to grow. That you may not believe at first but if you start to pray and worship then faith will grow in you until you truely believe.
Obviously this is quite "Sect-ish" logic.
The other major criticism of PW is that it is a false dichotomy.
You believe in God and are saved or you don't and are not.
Well there are actually hundreds of religions and maybe you're following the wrong one.
Perhaps you'll be damned for following the wrong God whereas I'll be saved for living a good life and not following a false faith.
Obviously this totally undermines Pascal's argument
You believe in God and are saved or you don't and are not.
Well there are actually hundreds of religions and maybe you're following the wrong one.
Perhaps you'll be damned for following the wrong God whereas I'll be saved for living a good life and not following a false faith.
Obviously this totally undermines Pascal's argument
Absolutely right, Jake: it's no accident that Pascal ended up with pretty much the same religion that he started with, though underpinned by a kind of rationality that pleased him. Much the same is true of the reductionist Descartes, who managed to get from the cogito to a fully familiar and theistic universe that he previously inhabited.
Zabadak, I may have misunderstood you when you said…
//you are a truly god-like person if you can discern whether Pascal's faith was genuine or hypocritical.// …
….and forgive me if I have …. but if you are referring to me personally, then you have succeeded in validating the point I made in my post at 08.41 Sunday – see last paragraph.
//you are a truly god-like person if you can discern whether Pascal's faith was genuine or hypocritical.// …
….and forgive me if I have …. but if you are referring to me personally, then you have succeeded in validating the point I made in my post at 08.41 Sunday – see last paragraph.
