"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[keith1]

If you take them out of context, then they would appear so, yes ...

I am agreeable to continue this conversation, with time given to research a good contextual version of the wager (verbatim), placing it following here in this thread, or in a fresh thresh OP. My guess is that it will be as equally vulnerable to having it's "ass handed to it", as the current "out-of-context" discussion has been an appetizer to it's demise.


And yes, Rav should return to clear up their cryptic statement. Good catch wynn.

 

[Rav]

It's not that aging, illness and death would render death as the greatest fear; it's that they render life as it is usually lived, meaningless.

That is not fair. If you believe you have a winning argument, then, by all means, present it!

Was it pointless for trees to sprout, grow and eventually whither away simply because they did in fact eventually whither away? Was it pointless for stars to go supernova in cases where the aftermath didn't result in a planet that was capable of supporting some sort of intelligent life? Is a black hole pointless? What about a rock on Venus? A comet in an elongated elliptical orbit around some distant star?

As far as I am concerned, the fabric of the entire universe is sacred in a way, as are all of it's many (and perhaps even infinite number of) manifestations, because it's substance is the substance of life itself. We're quite literally made out of it. In fact in some ways, it's like a mother.

I realize that not everyone views it with the same sort of wonder and reverence that I do, but it's really not such a stretch. It's here, it gives birth to conscious life, and we are currently a part of that. And ultimately, I think it's terribly self-important of us to suggest that it all becomes meaningless the moment we're no longer around in our current form, especially when it looks like it's going to be capable of supporting life for at least another 100 trillion years, and will have hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies in which to do it, and that's assuming that it's not spatially infinite, which it very well could be. But even more than that, it seems pretty obvious (to me, at least, primarily for what I consider to be sound philosophical reasons) that the fundamental fabric of reality is actually eternal, and it's manifestations possibly cyclical in some way. If true, it would essentially mean that there is infinite possibility (in accordance with the nature of 'nature' itself, that is). In other words, any quality that can manifest, will manifest, and a lot more than just once. In fact in the fullness of eternity (if that makes sense), everything that can be, is, has been, and will be again. It's a wholly complete and unending expression. Some pantheists call it God. I call it the universe. Existence itself.

Of course, I don't know for a fact that all of that is a true account of the ways things are, but it's what makes the most sense to me when I let my thoughts roam free as part of my own ongoing 'spiritual' journey. And yes, I do consider myself deeply spiritual, albeit not in the traditionally theistic sort of way.

So there you go. It's only a summary, and a lot of it is somewhat tentative, but it's me.

 

[keith1]

Nice embellishments Rav. It's babies and grandmom approved stuff.

Simple self-run processes, over millenniums, take on the appearance of " intelligences fighting for survival", because it happens to be an appearance that works in repetition, over millenniums . It's a "path of least resistance/lazy-man's almanac". Give me a life-form that lasts millenniums, and the brain I have now, and I will produce you a deity of comparable aspects to fit some bill required. But, as of today, it is not the case, and I must keep up other appearances...for grandma and the babies sake...(it is here the processes create the lightest schizophrenia--but we know what is truth, and what is the illusion required for sanity--and we are the most intelligent of jugglers..).

If I should succumb to your pretty balloons, please retain the courtesy to awaken me occasionally to the idea of the "simple sobering random eternal processes"...

 

[lightgigantic]

You still don't understand what it's about. Not proof, not betting or wagers - hence 'gambit', as in a chess game - not religion, not atheism: just statistics.
It doesn't apply to faith, which needs no reinforcement and is irrelevant to critical thought, which can't be changed at will.

What to speak of having a control group, given that you don't have a single data point to go out on a limb for statistics, its quite obvious its all about faith ( regardless which way you insist on driving home a conclusion)

 

[lightgigantic]

It was late so I will forgive us both, and allow you the benefit of rephrase, to fashion me escape by remembering, I negated both non-existence and deities in my discussion above. One is free to think whatever of the after-life (or lack thereof) as long as one attaches it to existence, as would be the evidential courtesy, given the current data.
Since non-existence does not attach to existence (does not =), and deities do not attach to existence (myth does not = existence), then it is easy to see how this conclusion is reached.

which brings us back to the point wagers begin where the question of evidence/current data exhausts itself.

The current data is so flimsy that it can't even properly establish the nature of what sustains life in the apparent shell of material composition, much less answer questions about what lies beyond corporeal existence.

At the very best you are simply offering one option in a wager that clearly offers two choices ("Deities do not exist just like myths do not exist so therefore the afterlife doesn't exist" is just as valid as "Deities do exist, just as this life exists so therefore the afterlife does exist")

 

[keith1]

...The current data is so flimsy that it can't even properly establish the nature of what sustains life in the apparent shell of material composition, much less answer questions about what lies beyond corporeal existence....

What of the perfectly sound processes of how proteins, near warm under-ocean vents, can (over a long time--remember the millenniums aspect?), become celled lifeforms. This concept is not flimsy.

..."Deities do not exist just like myths do not exist so therefore the afterlife doesn't exist"

What happened to, "Deities do not exist, yet an afterlife has a higher rate of conceivability, than either a deity or a state of non-existence"?

 

[Trooper]

I tend to agree with Austin Cline on the matter. It’s also an appeal to force fallacy.

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/pascalswager.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/liberationatheology/ig/Unapologetics-Posters/Unapologetics--Pascal.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/FearHellWrong.htm

But what if you are wrong? Nothing bad will happen upon your death, but the belief in an afterlife will have an impact on how you live this life. You know…the life that we all know to be true. Atheists celebrate life while you’re in church celebrating death. Enjoy!

 

[Syne]

...but the belief in an afterlife will have an impact on how you live this life....Atheists celebrate life while you’re in church celebrating death.

Then one wonders why feelings of isolation are common among atheists, while feelings of belonging and community are prevalent among church goers. You're right, it does have an impact on life.

 

[Trooper]

Then one wonders why feelings of isolation are common among atheists, while feelings of belonging and community are prevalent among church goers. You're right, it does have an impact on life.

Oh ya, you're right. Silly me. What was I thinking?

Those are good reasons to sacrifice critically thinking and who gives a shit about problem solving.

Toss in some idiot compassion and I'm in.

 

[Syne]

Those are good reasons to sacrifice critically thinking and who gives a shit about problem solving.

That's a false dilemma, as religion doesn't necessitate a lack of critical thinking. But it sounded as if you were comparing the subjective, self-reported quality of life.

 

[Trooper]

That's a false dilemma, as religion doesn't necessitate a lack of critical thinking. But it sounded as if you were comparing the subjective, self-reported quality of life.

Really? So you don't think that religion inhibits critical thinking at all?

Not so much the quality but the importance of life itself. If you believe in an afterlife, eternity is going to be more significant.

 

[Syne]

Really? So you don't think that religion inhibits critical thinking at all?

Not so much the quality but the importance of life itself. If you believe in an afterlife, eternity is going to be more significant.

Religion doesn't necessarily inhibit critical thinking. Those with a strong aptitude for critical thinking are not likely to find religion, even if ascribed to, a limiting factor. It is a given that the less critical will tend to follow any of a number of cultural/traditional social constructs. Gender roles, beliefs, etc..

Wouldn't you have to agree that those results of better problem solving that would add significance to life are more likely to have a greater impact beyond the very short lifetime of said individual?

 

[Trooper]

Wouldn't you have to agree that those results of better problem solving that would add significance to life are more likely to have a greater impact beyond the very short lifetime of said individual?

No.

 

[wynn]

I am agreeable to continue this conversation, with time given to research a good contextual version of the wager (verbatim), placing it following here in this thread, or in a fresh thresh OP. My guess is that it will be as equally vulnerable to having it's "ass handed to it", as the current "out-of-context" discussion has been an appetizer to it's demise.

The immediate context of the Wager here is some people's interest in it.



* * *

This is the text itself, from Pascal's "Thoughts":




233. Infinite--nothing.--Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds
number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature
necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to
an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the
infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our
justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion
between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the
outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy
towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As
we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true
that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It
is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition
of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and
every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite
number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what
He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many
things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also
are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite
and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but
not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of
God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature.
Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a
thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having
neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then
incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who
will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have
no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for
their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give
a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a
foolishness, stultitiam; [28] and then you complain that they do not
prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in
lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although
this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the
blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those
who receive it." 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.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you
know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this
choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who
chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The
true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which
will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see
which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and
the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your
knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun,
error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather
than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point
settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in
wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain,
you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may
perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of
gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one,
you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you
would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your
life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and
gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being
so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be
for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you
would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one
life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances
there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy
life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss,
and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the
infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against
that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And
thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve
his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as
the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is
certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the
certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained,
equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain
infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an
uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite
uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an
infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of
the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the
certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the
gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the
proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if
there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to
play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the
uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an
infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite
force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are
equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is
demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the
faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have
my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not
free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What,
then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings
you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince
yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of
your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way;
you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it.
Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all
their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would
follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow
the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the
holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you
believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of."
And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen
the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking
this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere
friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous
pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell
you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you
take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much
nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you
have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have
given nothing.

"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is
made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to
that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has,
for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for
His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.

234. If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on
religion, for it is not certain. But how many things we do on an
uncertainty, sea voyages, battles! I say then we must do nothing at
all, for nothing is certain, and that there is more certainty in
religion than there is as to whether we may see to-morrow; for it is
not certain that we may see to-morrow, and it is certainly possible
that we may not, see it. We cannot say as much about religion. It is
not certain that it is; but who will venture to say that it is
certainly possible that it is not? Now when we work for to-morrow, and
so on an uncertainty, we act reasonably; for we ought to work for an
uncertainty according to the doctrine of chance which was demonstrated
above.

Saint Augustine has seen that we work for an uncertainty, on sea, in
battle, etc. But he has not seen the doctrine of chance which proves
that we should do so. Montaigne has seen that we are shocked at a fool,
and that habit is all-powerful; but he has not seen the reason of this
effect.

All these persons have seen the effects, but they have not seen the
causes. They are, in comparison with those who have discovered the
causes, as those who have only eyes are in comparison with those who
have intellect. For the effects are perceptible by sense, and the
causes are visible only to the intellect. And although these effects
are seen by the mind, this mind is, in comparison with the mind which
sees the causes, as the bodily senses are in comparison with the
intellect.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.txt


Note that the book is a collection of enumerated fragments, some of which are connected, some are not.

Although the Pensées appears to consist of ideas and jottings, some of which are incomplete, it is believed that Pascal had, prior to his death in 1662, already planned out the order of the book and had begun the task of cutting and pasting his draft notes into a coherent form. His task incomplete, subsequent editors have disagreed on the order, if any, in which his writings should be read.[1] Those responsible for his effects, failing to recognize the basic structure of the work, handed them over to be edited, and they were published in 1669.[2] The first English translation was made in 1688 by John Walker.[3] It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that scholars began to understand Pascal's intention[citation needed]. In the 1990s, decisive philological achievements were made, and the edition by Philippe Sellier of the book contains his "thoughts" in more or less the order he left them.

Several attempts have been made to arrange the notes systematically; notable editions include those of Léon Brunschvicg, Jacques Chevalier, Louis Lafuma, and (most recently) Philippe Sellier. (See, also, the monumental edition of his Oeuvres complètes (1964–1991), which is known as the Tercentenary Edition and was realized by Jean Mesnard;[4] this edition reviews the dating, history, and critical bibliography of each of Pascal's texts.) Although Brunschvicg tried to classify the posthumous fragments according to themes, recent research has prompted Sellier to choose entirely different classifications, as Pascal often examined the same event or example through many different lenses.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensées

* * *


Who do you think Pascal was talking to?
If you feel addressed by what he says, can you explain why you feel addressed?

 

[wynn]

Was it pointless for trees to sprout, grow and eventually whither away simply because they did in fact eventually whither away? Was it pointless for stars to go supernova in cases where the aftermath didn't result in a planet that was capable of supporting some sort of intelligent life? Is a black hole pointless? What about a rock on Venus? A comet in an elongated elliptical orbit around some distant star?

I was talking about people and how they usually go about living life -

It's not that aging, illness and death would render death as the greatest fear; it's that they render life as it is usually lived, meaningless.

and how the experience of "living life as it is usually lived" is rendered meaningless [for people, obviously, in their private experience] by aging, illness and death.


Reflections on the greatness and worth of the Universe and existence are all fine and well, but we don't live nor experience our day-to-day lives on that level of awareness.
Our awareness can be and is more specific than that.

We are negatively affected by aging, illness and death, and we experience it, and we can know it, we can reflect on it.

 

[wynn]

which brings us back to the point wagers begin where the question of evidence/current data exhausts itself.

I think it is possible to restate the troubling decision into terms that are decidable and actionable, whereby decidable on the basis of a non-controversial moral principle and actionable within a particular person's means.

This is related to William James' idea of what a genuine option is, and to basic Buddhist principles of decision-making and acting.

For different people, different options are genuine.

For someone, the option in Pascal's Wager is a genuine option, and for someone else, it is not. For Pascal, it was; it is also for some other people; but for someone else, it is not.

The mistake many people make is that they do not reflect on what their own genuine options are, and instead they simply go with whatever options are presented to them by some other people. No wonder they get upset then.

I think that to not reflect on what one's own genuine options are, is an act of bad faith, a reflection of the implicit conviction that God, if God exists, is evil, or that ultimately, life doesn't make sense and it's all for naught.

A basic practice in Buddhism is to reflect on one's intentions before performing and action, while performing and action, and after performing an action.
When one is about to perform and action, one ought to reflect "Is it going to lead to harm to myself or others? If I see harm for myself or others coming from that action, I shall refrain from it. If not, I should do it."
A similar reflection for while one is performing an action, and afterwards - if one has seen that harm for oneself and others has come from an action, one should refrain from it in the future.

If one is attentive, one can restate all decisions and actions into such terms, so there is no need for giant leaps of faith and wagers.

 

[wynn]

I tend to agree with Austin Cline on the matter. It’s also an appeal to force fallacy.

The question is why do atheists interpret it that way.

 

[Rav]

and how the experience of "living life as it is usually lived" is rendered meaningless [for people, obviously, in their private experience] by aging, illness and death.

And again, I don't think anything is meaningless, especially not my own life, even though it will end. So I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree on this point.

 

[Balerion]

I think it's sad that some people require a deity for their lives to have meaning. It shows a terminal absence of self-esteem, creativity, and imagination.

 

[wynn]

And again, I don't think anything is meaningless, especially not my own life, even though it will end. So I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree on this point.

There has never been a philosopher who could endure a toothache.