Dr. Liz Jackson defeats the objections to "Pascal's Wager."

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
141

I don’t think there is rational argument against the existence of common laws. The issue is one of demanding that they be common.

When every creature naturally strives to survive - that is common - but is it forced upon them against their will? Or is it merely a reflection of their will.

Laws don’t need to be made to force people to do what they were going to do anyway. Laws are made to force people to do something that - supposedly - the majority of people will benefit by - despite the use of force. Man doesn’t seem very good at figuring out exactly how to do that even in singular nations or religions - yet it is proposed that the entire world should be subjected to such insanity?

This seems similar to the idea that Man MUST populate Mars - when Man hasn’t even figured out how to live peacefully on Earth.

Why not fill the entire universe with Manly insanity?

Different kinds of lives in different kinds of situations need different kinds of rules for their cooperative efforts - that is a “God given” fact.

142

“Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).” Wikipedia

The “as if” clause means the wager requires the individual to enter the proposed way of living and thinking subjectively. Therefore, the person’s understanding of what God wants is always speculative. And of course everyone’s would be different depending on their particular point of view. And furthermore that would depend on when and where they were thrown into the world plus whatever degree of freedom they are able to achieve.

143

Just out of curiosity, what, in your opinion, is the best argument he makes in destroying atheism?

And, as some might insist here: define destroy.

And, again, why a leap of faith, a wager, to your God? Why not one of these One True Paths instead: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

Then [for me] this part:

144

Okay, so how would that all unfold if the rational wagers lived their life as though God did exist in regard to such things as abortion, human sexuality, gun control, animal rights, gender roles, hunting, the role of government, just wars, conscription, race, socialism, capitalism, fascism, anarchism, social and economic justice, natural rights, capital punishment, defunding the police, drug laws, global warming, minimum wage, universal basic income, gay marriage, prostitution, pornography, immigration policy…and on and on and on and on.

Again, given what is as stake: immortality and salvation.

And the points you raise are not all that far removed from the points I raise. Or, perhaps, were you just being ironic? Or…mocking?

:sunglasses:

145

I’m not mocking. How they assess what it means to live as if God existed is going to vary with the individual.

146

Okay, so what does that mean “for all practical purposes”?

With morality here and now and immortality there and then at stake, the wagers can fall anywhere at all along the moral and political spectrum in regard to the issues above?

Salvation cafeteria style?

Again, a general description spiritual assessment such as “to live as if God existed is going to vary with the individual” works fine up in the clouds of psychologisms. You think it, imagine it being true and it can comfort and console you.

But bring it down to Earth and what do you get? Well, a whole bunch of “one of us” [the righteous few] vs “one of them” [the sinner majority] newspaper headlines for one thing.

147

I don’t think that Pascal was addressing agnostics at all, except as a rhetorical foil. I think that he was first and foremost addressing himself.

Pascal was a mathematician who, like Descartes, favored “clear-and-distinct ideas” and deductive proofs. Yet as you yourself suggest, his own religious faith didn’t look like that at all. So I suspect that Pascal was trying to convince himself that his own Christian faith was rational in his own chosen terms.

His wager may indeed be a valid argument if one accepts the premises of the argument, but I don’t think that it has ever proven to be very effective against agnostics. I’m an agnostic myself and I don’t find it convincing, just circular.

148

For those who don’t want to sit through an hour long video, here’s a paper in which Elizabeth Jackson makes her arguments.

academia.edu/16612267/Salva … cals_Wager

149

That’s what debate is for.

150

Really? How so?

151

And I think his premise has a serious problem - a proposed forced dichotomy that isn’t substantiated.

  • Believe in God = Heaven
  • Disbelieve in God = Hell

If anyone actually believed that premise the whole decision would be trivial. But does everyone who believes in God go to eternal heaven? Satan believes in God - he can’t even get a visa much less a passport.

And is it true that only those who believe in God go to Heaven? If by some means (perhaps God’s will) a bloke behaved as saintly as humanly possible throughout his whole life - is he still disqualified - still condemned to Hell?

I think most people actually live between those two postulates - and that is what keeps them not taking the bet seriously.

And I don’t see Dr Jackson correcting for that problem.

152

My biggest objection to Pascal’s Wager is that it’s basically arguing that one should believe in the truth of whatever proposition would offer the biggest payoff if it was indeed true.

But is it really epistemically justifiable to make our judgements of truth into a function of our desires in that way? It seems to be an argument for wishful-thinking. ‘X is true because I want it to be true!’ I don’t think that reality works that way.

Is this kind of argument even religiously justifiable? Isn’t Christian faith supposed to be something more than this kind of self-interested calculation?

153

Satan believes in God but he doesn’t live like he believes in God. Or at least it doesn’t look like he’s living that way to you. In Satan’s mind he might be living like a saint. Who can say?

154

According to Jesus, God wants everyone to come to heaven.

Self-interest is totally acceptable.

155

It seems to me that Pascal’s wager aims to get the agnostic to a possible eternal life. It’s not about believing God exists. It’s about behaving “as if” one believed it because it’s a possibility.

156

Yeah. It’s a beginning to a full faith life.

157

Was that a sort of Freudian slip? :wink:

That’s just it. If God existed and were morally perfect, of course he would give a waiver to all non-believers. Instead, according to Pascal, he sends them to hell to be eternally tormented. Such an entity, if it existed, would be infinitely wicked, not infinitely good.

It reminds me of the story of how, about one week before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln visited a huge army hospital. There were thousands — literally thousands — of them there, many with grievous wounds that would prove fatal, man blind, men with amputations, etc. And Lincoln visited the bedside of every one of them. Every. One. Of. Them. It took him hours and hours.

But more: There were Confederate wounded there.

“You don’t want to go into that tent,” an orderly told Lincoln.

“Why not?” Lincoln asked.

“Those are the rebel wounded.”

“That is exactly where I do want to go,” the president replied.

And he did. And he clasped the hands of every man there. And he cried and they cried.

One of the rebels, not knowing who Lincoln was when the president effusively greeted him, was told it was Lincoln. “My god,” the man said. “Is that really true? You mean we have fought four long years against a man like that?”

Was Abe Lincoln greater than Pascal’s god? Of course he was!

158

Hell is a choice. The only reason people go there is because they choose it.

Here’s a great article explaining more:

catholic.com/magazine/onlin … ust-tyrant

159

Dude.

I’m the only person on these boards who’s been to actual hell.

By definition, hell is where you don’t want to be, it doesn’t happen when you want it to and you have no clue what to expect.

Everything you say about hell is wrong.

Everything the Catholic Church says about hell is wrong.

There is not a single being in all existence who chooses hell.

160

It was a voice to text slip.