Pascal's wager

[ReliStuPhD]

You're running scared.

Hardly. At least i got a good laugh out of this.

it's amazing how the religious mind is immune to so many levels of reason.

Theistic mind in this case. I've laid no claim to religion.

I'll tell you again, what is wrong with the wager...

So I respond point-by-point to your response and you just repaste it? Like I said, you're like a child trying to argue with grown-ups.

Pascal's wager is idiotic because it recommends belief, regardless of reason.

OK, show me where. I've quoted the relevant passage from the Pensées above, so cut & paste it in a response (or elsewhere from the Pensées if you'd want). I wish I could wager that you would, but insofar as I think the person "running scared" here is really you, I'm not hopeful that you'll rise to the occasion. You don't have a solid grasp of the argument, and it's painfully clear you've not read Pascal, which is why you couldn't respond to my comments and simply repasted your own. And since (it's really no longer a question of "if" where you're concerned), you can't show me where Pascal himself advocates for "belief, regardless of reason" you're not arguing about Pascal's Wager. Unless you can provide this evidence, I'll just stick to debating raw_thoughts. He (she?), at least, knows how to formulate a challenging response. All you seem good at is asserting something despite the evidence to the contrary.

Maybe one day you'll learn that you need to present your opponent's argument correctly if you hope to refute it. I guess they don't teach this in school anymore. Such a shame.

[raw_thought]

"Sure,Brahma works, but it would fail in the reward side of things (finite life), no?
ReliStuPhd
???
According to Hinduism, if I believe in Brahma ( who is incomprehensible, which you require for some unknown reason)
I will be rewarded in this finite life. But that has nothing to do with Pascal's wager. Pascal was more concerned with the afterlife. And yes, if I am a good Hindu and believe in Brahma I will be rewarded in the afterlife.
By showing that anything (Brahma, elves,Thor, Satan etc) works in Pascal's wager I have shown that it is ultimately a tautology and therefore meaningless.

[raw_thought]

"So you are saying that Pascal is saying that if one doesnt know with absolute certainty, one should act on self interest?"
ME
"No it recommends belief in the absence of reason."
ReliStuPhd
I was using the extreme case. However, far less than certainty still works at destroying his argument.
Pascal's argument is that one should believe in God because it is in one's self interest. You disagree with that???

I have no idea why yhis post (that I just made) went into the past. Hopefully, it will be in a current slot.

[raw_thought]

In other words according to Pascal, even if there is slim evidence that God exists,you should still believe in God because it is in your best interest.
That puts self interest above truth.

[ReliStuPhD]

Fair points. Hopefully I've answered them below.

Brahma ( who is incomprehensible, which you require for some unknown reason)

Because Pascal required it: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible..." If Pascal hadn't made it a condition of his wager, I promise you I wouldn't keep bringing it up. If we're being honest here, it's not a point I would defend outside the narrow confines of the wager.

According to Hinduism, if I believe in Brahma ... I will be rewarded in this finite life. But that has nothing to do with Pascal's wager. Pascal was more concerned with the afterlife. And yes, if I am a good Hindu and believe in Brahma I will be rewarded in the afterlife.

If you're a good Hindu (i.e. you're able to break the cycle of rebirth and redeath) you cease to exist. If you are reincarnated (in any form), you have not been rewarded but continue to be subject to maya (suffering). So on Hinduism, "you" never receive a reward, as there is no "you" to receive it. The very notion of "I" is the problem. Tat tvam asi, as they say. But if we took it that the annihilation of the self qualified as an infinite reward, then sure, it would seem the wager holds force as a decision-maker.

By showing that anything (Brahma, elves,Thor, Satan etc) works in Pascal's wager I have shown that it is ultimately a tautology and therefore meaningless.

Not that I see. If the things that Pascal says are true about God were taken to also be true of Brahma, elves, Thor, etc, then the wager would work. So while I disagree with how you've presented Brahma, I could accept, for the sake of argument, that we could replace God with Brahma. On those terms, if there's nothing we can know about Brahma, including the fact of "its" (non)existence, and the end results are either infinite gain or no loss, then to believe in Brahma would certainly seem to follow.

In other words according to Pascal, even if there is slim evidence that God exists,you should still believe in God because it is in your best interest.

That puts self interest above truth.

Would it? If there is slim evidence that God exists (which, I take to imply there is not thin evidence for God's nonexistence), that would put us closer to truth rather than farther away, no? Or are you saying we need scientific certainty before we can consider such belief to not be in our self-interests?

From what I can tell, by substituting Thor, Brahma, etc, you're trying to either (1) show the absurdity of believing in mythical beings or (2) assuming the characteristics of these entities in contradiction to the characteristics Pascal says much be present. If the first, they fail because we've already decided they don't exist. Pascal is talking about a case where you just can't know this. If the second, then you're just showing that the wager doesn't work with entities that do not fit the description of God Pascal has offered, in which case, I think he'd absolutely agree. You wouldn't wager on Thor. That would be crazy, because we can know loads of stuff about Thor. But God? Well, if Pascal's right about God's characteristics, it's not so crazy after all.

Final thought: I've said it before and I'll say it again (hopefully without it coming across as hostile): I don't think you're arguing against Pascal's formulation of the wager, but someone else's interpretation of Pascal's formulation. At this point, I want to ask a very pointed question, and if you answer yes, I'm happy to keep hashing this out. If you answer no (or no answer), I'll just leave the last reply to you, with a thanks for what has been an engaging debate.
So, have you actually read the appropriate section in the Pensées (that I've linked above)? Section III, Point 233.

PS We need to shift to "Brahman" most likely, since that is closer to the Xian God than is Brahma (an incarnation of Brahman).

[raw_thought]

No. I am saying that Pascal believes that one should believe in God even if there is slim evidence( I am not saying yes or no at this point,if the evidence is slim or not.) because even if the evidence is slim, it is still in your best interest to bet that God exists.

[ReliStuPhD]

No. I am saying that Pascal believes that one should believe in God even if there is slim evidence( I am not saying yes or no at this point,if the evidence is slim or not.) because even if the evidence is slim, it is still in your best interest to bet that God exists.

Well, I meant yes or no to whether you've read the Pensées.
As for believing in God on slim evidence, I think Pascal would agree that, on slim evidence, you should believe in God if the evidence against God is either slimmer, or non-existent. But this doesn't strike me as so objectionable. We believe some things on slim evidence because the evidence for the counter is less or non-existent.
Nevertheless that's not part of the wager. There is no evidence either way in the wager.
So, have you read the relevant section in the Pensées?

And just to be clear, I'm not arguing we should follow Pascal's Wager to decide on theism vs atheism (because I don't think we're faced with a coin flip). I'm only arguing that the Wager is not incoherent. I think it starts from a bad premise, but if that premise is taken as granted, the wager isn't bad advice.

[raw_thought]

Actually, you have a misunderstanding of Hinduism. Brahman is Atman. In other words you are God (Being,note the capital letter). It is not the elimination of self,it is the elimination of the mask (ego) and the realization that only God (Being) exists. Perhaps you are confusing Hinduism with Buddhism. But that does not matter.
Anyway, the wife and I are about to go out. I am glad our debate is more civil now. Do not think that my lack of response means that I wish to terminate this debate. I'll be back!

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're running scared.

Hardly. At least i got a good laugh out of this.

it's amazing how the religious mind is immune to so many levels of reason.

Theistic mind in this case. I've laid no claim to religion.

I'll tell you again, what is wrong with the wager...

So I respond point-by-point to your response and you just repaste it? Like I said, you're like a child trying to argue with grown-ups.

Pascal's wager is idiotic because it recommends belief, regardless of reason.

OK, show me where.

Right there - the idiocy of the believer. Exactly at the point where to all rational observers the "Wager" fails, the believer is blind.
My objection is the whole wager, the very essence of the wager. You can't see it because your theistic brain prevents you doing so.
Your like the priest in "Erik the Viking" who literally can't see all the references to the Old Gods, whereas everyone else in the film can.

[ReliStuPhD]

Actually, you have a misunderstanding of Hinduism.

The professor of Eastern Religions for whom I TA'ed in his Intro to Hinduism course felt I had a pretty solid grasp on this topic. I'll be sure to tell him he's wrong.

Brahman is Atman. In other words you are God (Being,note the capital letter). It is not the elimination of self,it is the elimination of the mask (ego) and the realization that only God (Being) exists.

But ego = self. Maybe I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you're saying exactly what I am. Tat tvam asi: that thou art. As long as you think you're a water drop, you'll never be part of the ocean. Once you become part of the ocean, there is no water drop (and no more "you").

Perhaps you are confusing Hinduism with Buddhism. But that does not matter.

No, but you're right that Buddhism takes a similar track.

Anyway, the wife and I are about to go out. I am glad our debate is more civil now. Do not think that my lack of response means that I wish to terminate this debate. I'll be back!

I hope you enjoyed your time out.

Right there - the idiocy of the believer. Exactly at the point where to all rational observers the "Wager" fails, the believer is blind.
My objection is the whole wager, the very essence of the wager. You can't see it because your theistic brain prevents you doing so.
Your like the priest in "Erik the Viking" who literally can't see all the references to the Old Gods, whereas everyone else in the film can.

Like I said, you're like a child trying to converse with grown-ups. You still can't respond to the points you need to if you want to be taken as anything other than a child throwing a temper-tantrum. For someone who apparently places a premium on rationality, you've yet to show any. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong and you can respond to the points I've mentioned. So, in that spirit, I'll start with the easy one: show where Pascal advocates "belief, regardless of reason." I look forward to your rational response, rather than you ducking the question.

[raw_thought]

Ego does not equal self. Ego is your self concept.
I have paraphrased Jesus. * " What would it profit a person to gain all the world's symbols and lose reality?"
* I am (I quess I should say "ego") very proud of that line!

[raw_thought]

The ego is like an idol. By worshipping it, we turn away from our true (divine) self.
By worshipping our ego (and obeying it) we transform ourself from a subject into a mere object.

[raw_thought]

I interpret "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art that) as you are Being rather then essence. Also I interpret "Brahman is Atman" as my individual consciousness (my consciousness, not what I am conscious of [essences] ) is the cosmic consciousness (God).

[Greylorn Ell]

but putting self interest above truth is immoral?

Pascal isn't saying this. He's saying put self-interest first when you cannot know the truth but have to choose.

RSP,

The only mistake you are making here is wasting your time, by getting sucked into an argument with ignorant people determined to remain that way.

You are the only one here who actually comprehends the argument. Somewhere in the book of Matthew (I think) there is a pertinent passage about casting pearls before swine.

Greylorn

[ReliStuPhD]

I interpret "Tat tvam asi" (Thou art that) as you are Being rather then essence. Also I interpret "Brahman is Atman" as my individual consciousness (my consciousness, not what I am conscious of [essences] ) is the cosmic consciousness (God).

I think you and I are speaking of different "selves" then, but in a terminilogical sense rather than something more substantive. So, that having been said, I'll go ahead and assent to your particular explanation for the moment and then ask how it undermines the wager.


Greyhorn, for his part, raw_thoughts has proved to be a good "opponent" (still not a fan of that term used in the context of a debate). As far as Hobbes goes, I couldn't agree with you more.