Wikipedia summary: "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)"
Could the same argument not be used to justify any action, as long as someone claims that there are infinite gains?
For example, if someone tells me they are part of a cult which believes the only way to heaven is cutting my dick off, according to pascal's argument, it is rational search for the nearest knife because it is only a finite loss (my dick), whereas I stands to receive infinite gains (eternity in Heaven).
Am I missing something?
Pascal's Wager?
well you're definitely retarded, but at least you partially understand how circumcision works
Where does Pascal write about Pascal's wager?
>For example, if someone tells me they are part of a cult which believes the only way to heaven is cutting my dick off, according to pascal's argument, it is rational search for the nearest knife because it is only a finite loss (my dick), whereas I stands to receive infinite gains (eternity in Heaven).
What have I misunderstood about Pascals position? Or did you both just half read my post and have no idea about the wager?
in Pensees
im not that educated on the matter but it i think you've got a point op. it'd be nice if someone could provide an actual counter argument rather than brainlet wojaks
For one thing they're not equivalent acts since any rational person would know that emasculating oneself is a ridiculous act.
Pascal intended his wager for a Christian who was having doubts, not to convince anyone firmly of the truth of Christianity, which he didn't believe could be done through reason. Also if you had actually read the section where Pascal discusses his wager you'd know it's something actual more profound and existentialist than that piss-poor wikipedia summary
>Could the same argument not be used to justify any action, as long as someone claims that there are infinite gains?
yes if there is a 50% chance that the claim is true
>if someone tells me they are part of a cult which believes the only way to heaven is cutting my dick off
it works if there's a 50% chance that the guy is right, but I highly doubt that. It is necessary to rely on common sense to evaluate the claim.
>it works if there's a 50% chance that the guy is right, but I highly doubt that. It is necessary to rely on common sense to evaluate the claim.
no, because you stand to have infinite gains. I'm pretty sure Pascals wager justifies any finite cost for a potential infinite gain. I could be wrong though
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>that piss-poor wikipedia summary
What does it get wrong?
don't you actually have to believe in god? like you have to have faith, not a rational justification, no? i'm not familiar with religion.
What exactly is stopping me from gaming the system by confessing and being pardoned at the last second?
>I know I've lead a life of sin father but I truly regret it and want to repent
>you are forgiven
>*dies*
>goes to heaven
The wager doesn't work! i can't believe anyone still talks about it
why would god let you in if you literally believe in him out of self-interest or instrumentality
surely you should have to have real, disinterested faith/love for god, as opposed to being some feeble servant attempting to play the system
>Am I missing something?
Yes. First of all, the existence of a transcendent God is a bit les arbitrary than a dick-cutting religion, or a teapot floating around Jupiter. Second, Pascal defended Christianity in detail in Pensées. It takes faith to believe, but Pascal actually thinks we can use reason to distinguish Christianity from all other religions. Also, there are finite gains within this life as a result of believing in God as well as the infinite gain.
Yes I think this is one of the common criticisms of the wager, that it is not true faith. I guess it probably could be done to accept a rational justification and then move to faith. I'm not sure
overly simplistic, the actual wager is something closer to Kierkegaard's leap of faith
it would be an insincere repentance and you would go to hell
>not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven
The wager is the beginning of a journey to acquire actual faith. Pascal acknowledges that you don’t have true faith immediately. He says you must perform important actions such as praying, avoiding sin, reading the Bible, doing good works, going to church, etc.
How else are people converted than first appealing to their self-interest?
How is it any less arbitrary? There is no rational justification to pick Christianity over any other religion, right?. If there is, please enlighten me - this is the question I was trying to ask with my post in the first place
>If there is, please enlighten me
I won’t write 100 pages when Pascal has already done it. If you are that interested, read Pensées.
Aren't people then simplifying Pascal's wager quite a bit? His thoughts are a lot more profound than "just gamble your life bro".
I sincerely want to believe in the christian God. At the moment I find myself not being able to do so.
Other than Pensees, are there any more books or arguments that I should look into?
All it took for me was Pensées. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what to suggest but I hear CS Lewis is good
Augustine, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, various lives of the saints should also help
Which denomination did you pick? how?
I haven’t yet picked a denomination. I just read the Bible and try to follow it best I can. I mean, it’s pretty clear about what you should and shouldn’t do to be saved. When I get out of college and start my career I’ll try to find a church near me that just feels right. I think it’s a good thing that some are able to worship as Catholics, others as Protestants. In the end, I see no reason why any should be excluded from Heaven unless they simply ignore the Bible’s important teachings.
>how else are people converted than first appealing to their self-interest?
by appeal to a higher calling - doing what is right. The same way that political parties (at least, those which are noble) would appeal to someone on the grounds that they have the legitimate potential to improve a state, or to do what is honourable.
If faith is first grounded on self-interest then it is corrupt. If God's message does not strike awe within you upon first contact, then how powerful can it really be?
Interesting idea. So then what should the agnostic seeking to believe in God do? just burn?
Seeking to believe?
Do you "seek to believe" that 2 + 2 is 4?
You can't be partially swayed by the existence of God - you either believe in it or you don't. There's no such thing as agnosticism. Agnosticism is atheism.
Some people are raised agnostics. You’re beating around the bush
Sorry I don't understand what you mean
He asked
>so what should an agnostic seeking to believe in God do?
to which you gave no answer
I was raised an atheist, I now wish to be christian. What should I do?
>you either believe it or you don't
So i'm stuck not believing and I never can believe?
>What should I do?
faith:
>strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
>dude just believe
not really that helpful
>I was raised an atheist, I now wish to be christian. What should I do?
>you either believe it or you don't
>So i'm stuck not believing and I never can believe?
Pascal addresses this issue just after the wager thing. You can't decide to become a christian but there's still something you can do. "Kneel down and pray." Ask God to give you faith. Ask him the following: "Inclina cor meum, Deus."
i'm certain that an omniscient god that knows "the hearts of men" wouldn't be able to tell that your faith is only a half-hearted back-up plan 'just in case'
I think Pascal's triangle is a much more brilliant idea by Blaise Pascal. Pascal's wager is kind of dumb.
Read Pascal
the grandest of keks
Basically your right op. P's Wager has that fundamental problem that no just God would implement the eternal hell system in the first place
Pascal himself was of the opinion that Hell exists because 1) we choose it and 2) we deserve it
>Believing a man raised from the dead because you want to and reality hurts your fee fees
How can logiclets be this retarded?
God is incredibly based and getting closer to Him is arguably the only thing worth doing in life
A cope fairy tale is the only thing worth doing in life? Said only by someone who cannot achieve what he really wants
Its false. If you believe in god because you fear hell then youre going to hell anyway. You should feel shame for wrong actions. Only fearing that youll be punished for them is sociopath tier thinking.
Someone hasn’t read Pensées
Uh... we actually believe ZFC is consistent. We really believe about it when it comes to mathematical property.
i think i gave an answer. read the post again.
yes, essentially. i don't believe in god, and unless something fucks with me mentally at some point during rest of my life,i can never sincerely believe in him.
faith isn't a choice but something that happens to you
persist long enough and you'll find yourself entrapped