[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 9 KB, 220x262, 1394807299614.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4661892 No.4661892[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is there any argument against Pascal's wager?

>> No.4661894

No its perfect. Like all Christian arguments.

>> No.4661896

Why Christianity and not any other religion in the world?

>> No.4661900

God's omniscience. I think he wouldn't be very pleased if you turn faith in him into a betting game

>> No.4661901

There is a much better argument for an anti-Pascal wager, because of the number of Gods who are jealous of people of another faith, the safest bet is to be an atheist.

>> No.4661904

>>4661892
Thousands of different religions to bet on. I have less than 1% chance of making the right bet. May as well abstain.

Also it's intellectually dishonest and not in the spirit of faith at all.

>> No.4661908

If you bet on God who's to say that the specific religion matters.

>> No.4661927

if you love God and have him in your heart then it doesn't matter

>> No.4661998

>>4661892
I reckon an omnipotent god would notice if you were only acting a certain way because you think you'd gain an advantage by doing so. If that's the case this implies you might act differently if you could get away with it, hence I'd say your actions are guided by opportunism rather than personal integrity and an inherent tendency towards human decency. But if you aren't bound to morals but to whatever gives the best outcome, how could you trust such a person? Even further, let's turn Pascal's argument around and pretend for a second there was an evil good who actually wants you to sin, and the only way to gain entrance to heaven is to do evil. What would you do?

To me it seems like if there's a god the only way to satisfy him is to act like he didn't exist and to do what you do because you yourself decided to do so and to nevermind the consquences. Doesn't mean you automatically get to heaven, but if there's a god you can't do anything about his judgement and you'd be judged either way.

If you act a certain way just because... he will notice. If you don't act a certain way just because ... he will notice. If you pretend to be somebody else, he will notice. Nothing left to do besides living.

>> No.4662026

Also, Pascal himself didn't take it that seriously. I think it's kind of sad that this is what he's remembered for.

>> No.4662027

The Bible has a pretty clear one. It's pretty clear in the Christian religion that Jesus prefered sincere disbelief than insincere belief.

Revelation 3:15-16
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."

>> No.4662033

Not really.

When I was a skeptic growing up I used to pray "just in case". Mind, I grew up in an atheistic and liberal household in England, but when I liked a girl at school I would pray to the God that I had heard about "just in case" he could help me fulfill my little romantic ardours.
Then I became truly lovesick with a girl. She agreed to be my girlfriend and I remember thanking God for allowing this. The next day she revoked the agreement and I went from being an agnostic to an atheist.

The trutb is that if you really ARE a skeptic or agnostic you should go to Church, "just in case". Which Church? The Catholic Church ofc., because that's the one that says it is infallible and nobody can be saved outside of it. I heard of a king who made the decision to become Catholic rather than Calvinist for this very reason,.

>> No.4662050

>>4662033
cont.

This is the point of Pascal's argument, and it is really ingenious.

If you know for certain that God exists and that you have the right Church there is no problem.

If you know for certain that God doesn't exist then you have no problem. However, if there is even the tiniest, tiniest doubt that God exists then logically you ought to be religious because the potential rewards and punishments are both absolute. The reason why you ought to gamble on Christianity and not any other religion is because the rewards and punishments in Christianity are absolute / infinite. There is no refuting this. If you are truly agnostic you ought to be Catholic, logically speaking.

>> No.4662062

>>4662050
Catholics don't believe that anymore. What else is left that's that dogmatic?

>> No.4662067

>>4662033
I'm Catholic and I think that's a dumb reason. You're still not going to hell for it though.

>> No.4662076

>>4662050
cont.

That vid wherein Hitchens calls the Wager "hucksterism" is vile; it totally fails to consider the deep intellectual and spiritual nuances of Pascal's argument. The Wikipedia page on the wager is just as vulgar. You have to read the wager in the context of the probing and concerned spirituality of the Pensees to appeciate how brilliant and beautiful it is. It's not a vulgar gamblers game that Pascal puts forward; it's the expression of a profound spiriual anxiety over certainty and truth, and one's fate.

It makes me mad thinking about how crude its misrepresentations are when in original context it is so sublime.

>> No.4662080

>>4661904 /thread

Pascal's argument from probability gets kicked in the nuts by a refined, though a same kind of argument of probability (albeit the Humean problem of induction lies in wait and could be just as easily weighed against the latter argument). If only Pascal was aware of the variety of religion at his time he wouldn't have bothered with it.

Delete the thread before it turns into a shitstorm.

>> No.4662081

>>4662033
>>4662050
Salvation in Catholicism is very lenient and they don't condemn Christians outside of it anymore. Church has changed since medieval times.

I'd argue that Islam is a safer bet because of their graphic depictions of hell and hatred of atheists, but they also tolerate Jews and Christians to my knowledge, so dunno.

>> No.4662096

>>4662067
It's not a dumb reason at all, it is logically unassailable.

If you lack certainty about the existence of God then you must wager. There is no avoiding the wager. You have to either wager that he does exist and live accordingly, or wager that he doesn't and live accordingly. However, if God does exist and you live as though he doesn't, your punishment will be absolute and your rewards for living a life without the restraints of religion are only relative. If you wager that God does exist then your potential reward is infinite while the burden of having to live a life of restraint is only relative. That said, you would be an irrational fool not to wager that God exists.
According to reason, if there is even the SLIGHTEST of chances that God exists, you MUST be Catholic. It's really brilliant.

>> No.4662102

>>4662096
I wager that he's not an asshole who condemns people due to relative theological questions since he's supposed to be better than humans. I wouldn't torture people infinitely for finite acts committed by faulty beings of my own creation, so I wager that God is good. Your point applies to people who already accept your conclusion.

>> No.4662105

>>4662080
As I've said, Pascal refutes your contention in advance. The punishment and rewards of other religions are not as absolute as the ones in Christianity.
The concept of the absolute or infinity is what makes the argument work.

>> No.4662111

"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."

I must disagree, because

a) I would feel a loss in self-respect if I were to accept such a wager and

b) of course I would have a loss in time and mental capacity (freedom?) when assuming the existence of god and living the consequences

>> No.4662112
File: 4 KB, 222x211, 1293935494138.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662112

Why would anyone need to 'believe' in an omni-potent, all pervasive cosmic entity? Shouldn't something of such immense power and influence be easily observable?

>> No.4662121

>>4662096
I'll wager that a god's existence or non-existence is irrelevant to how I live my life and if someone wants to label me then I don't really care.

>> No.4662127

You don't need present your own argument against a retarded one, just point out the original one's retardation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

>> No.4662128

>>4662112
It is observable, in the whole of creation.

>> No.4662131

>>4662128
You just invalidated Pascal's wager, genius.

>> No.4662132

>>4661892

Yes, it's pussyfooting garbage. Go hard or go home.

>> No.4662138

>>4662105
>The punishment and rewards of other religions are not as absolute as the ones in Christianity.

That's just categorically untrue.

>> No.4662142
File: 117 KB, 1585x1527, 1353869933312.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662142

>>4662112
>>4662128
>>4662131
Perfect.

>> No.4662145 [DELETED] 

>>4662112
it is. no matter where you look in this life you see it.

right in front of your face and you still ask dumb shit. LOL!

>> No.4662147

>>4661892
Probability.

>hey girl, my witch mother will curse you if you don't suck my dick. better safe than sorry right?

>> No.4662152

>>4662127
>Epicureanism is a religion

>> No.4662156

>>4662152
Doesn't affect the point at all, though.

>> No.4662158

>>4662127
The argument that Pascal doesn't include EVERY SINGLE RELIGION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND as a counter-argument I find really stupid. Yes, if you put every single form of belief on the equal scale of probability, you'll dismiss the argument. But it's not how it works. Obviously people today don't put serious consideration into Greek gods, but do indeed consider Christianity, and you must at least concede that Christianity has a better historical claim than other religions. I said better, not good, don't yell.

>> No.4662160

>>4662156
I know I just felt the need to point that out.

>> No.4662163

>>4662128
You're taking a conclusion (God exists) and extrapolating it onto the fact that reality exists, and then justifying the existence of your initial premise on the basis of the conclusion from which your supposed premise is to be justified.

Theism is nothing more than circular logic.

>> No.4662171

>>4662158
>The argument that Pascal doesn't include EVERY SINGLE RELIGION IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND as a counter-argument I find really stupid.

Actually, it's every possible religion. There's no law of the universe saying we have to have thought up the correct answer. Also, "it's stupid" and "that's not how it works" are not valid arguments.

>> No.4662173

>>4662158
>you must at least concede that Christianity has a better historical claim than other religions
Depends quite a lot on the historian to be honest. Even if we agreed on that, Christianity is still built on the same sorts of unfalsifiable claims as any other religion, which makes it as probable to be true as any other.
>you'll dismiss the argument
What?

>> No.4662180

>>4662163
I didn't say that to justify that God exists or anything of the sort, you people have some strong assumptions off the bat. But the way God is conceived is in no way hurt by the notion that we can't "observe him", because he is un-observable.

>> No.4662187
File: 17 KB, 240x260, thisnigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662187

>>4662158

>Obviously people today don't put serious consideration into Greek gods, but do indeed consider Christianity, and you must at least concede that Christianity has a better historical claim than other religions.

Lel.

>>4662132

>> No.4662195

>>4662163
do you even faith brah?

>> No.4662196

>>4662180
If god is not observable, yet the products of his actions are, how do you know that "creation" is/was an act of god? If you cannot provide any sort of evidence for that claim then what's the point?

>> No.4662198

>>4662180
>It is observable, in the whole of creation.

>he is un-observable

Literally one response deep. How is it that your remember to breath.

>> No.4662200

>>4662158
Ancient Egyptian religion lasted more than 3,000 years, bro. They got a millennium on Christianity. How could so many generations be wrong?

>> No.4662202

>>4662198
I'm pointing out arguments by religious people to show that common questions like this are easily answered if you put the least amount of thought to the possibility of God.

>> No.4662203

>>4662195
How can you make truth claims on the basis of "I believe it"?

>> No.4662208

>>4662200
It's antropomorphic paganism. I consider a monotheistic God as a more serious claim. Pre-conceived notion? Sure, but so is atheism.

>> No.4662209

>>4662076
>Hitchens
The shitstorm has begun. Bringing in third-rate authors into a philosophical discussion that had boners for nothing else than polemic and sophism.

>>4662105
Your objection that Christianity has x compared to other religions is besides the point (it only concerns if we do not take into account other religions); moreover, it in no way or shape "refutes" the refined argument.

>> No.4662213

>>4662180
>He is observable
>But he is unobservable

The mental gymnastics involved here are quite staggering.

>> No.4662218

>>4662208
It's anthropomorphic in its depictions, but doctrine-wise it makes more sense in most ways than Christianity does. Christianity is just a crude adaption of Zoroastrianism applied to Judaism, duality applied to authoritarianism, incredibly simplistic. Egyptian theology by contrast is sophisticated and developed.

>> No.4662221

>>4662208

Hindus would disagree. Again, been around longer than Christianity. Why shouldn't I consider their claim more seriously than yours?

>> No.4662228

>>4662221
You're welcome to?

>> No.4662237

>>4662208
Parsimony. You can deny parsimony, but then you have to justify why there's only one god and two or twenty, and why god is simple.

>> No.4662241

>>4662158
Religions come and go, rise and fall for no other reason than Geo-politics, not their validity as a theology. Conquerors forcing their enemies to convert and so forth. Christianity has had the Roman Empire and the armies of Europe behind it. Ultimately, it's "historical claim" comes at the point of a sword.

>>4662228
So you admit that Pascal's wager is worthless? The whole point being any religion is as valid as another.

>> No.4662284

>>4662202
Easily answered? Yet somehow you did not manage to answer the question.
>if you put the least amount of thought to the possibility of god
What you mean here is "consider God as existing", because with only possibility you could not give an answer without slipping God in there.

Pascal knew that his wager made no sense if you considered other religions, but he wanted to say that Christianity was the only religion to have a worthy claim and therefore it made sense. Classic religious silliness to justify faith.

If a man walks up to you in the street and says "I am a wizard. If you do not suck my dick right now I will trap you into my magic bag of torture for all eternity" a theist who thinks Pascal's Wager is valid would suck his dick because he cannot know with absolute certainty that the man is not a wizard. Brilliant.

>> No.4662329

>>4662241
>Religions come and go, rise and fall for no other reason than Geo-politics
No. There are many religions and cults that have originated in the absence of any "geopolitics".

>(not) their validity as a theology
...and exactly because of this reason they come and go. Some find it appealing, some not. If it gathers many people, you've got yourself a new religion. Take Christianity as an example. If someone initiates (even if it is unintentional) a persuasive counter-movement in return (think Hitchens & co), you get a gradual fall (difficult to say *how* increasing; haven't looked at the statistics fuck off) of Christianity with the absence of any geopolitics and a rise of a new religion (reddit atheism etc. retards) too, not because of geopolitics, but in Hitchens & co succession of convincing contrariwise.

>> No.4662445

>>4662329
>No. There are many religions and cults that have originated in the absence of any "geopolitics" ... Some find it appealing, some not. If it gathers many people, you've got yourself a new religion.

I should have been clearer. Before you can have organised religion you must have a tribe or cult who follow the teachings of a preacher, yes. The actual forming of a religious belief begins on a tiny scale.

However, although micro-religions of this sort play out on a much smaller stage, they can and do fall victim to geopolitics on a smaller scale also - inter-tribal warfare, growing communities that absorb smaller ones, etc.

The point is, for a religion to "rise" on the world stage, the political element becomes for more important. An organised religion is one that has spread with the movement of power. Do you think the barbarians of the British Isles would have learned the word of Christ if not for the Romans who conquered them? What about the Native Americans? Pacific Islanders?

Look at the history of every predominantly Christian nation and you will see that at some point or another, they were conquered by another, more powerful Christian nation. Missionaries played a part in some parts of the world but they have rarely been solely responsible for the conversion of an entire nation. It is political and military might that is the key.

>> No.4662470

>>4661892
I think you have to accept 2 things for the argument to work:

1) There is a chance that God existes (so atheists need not apply)
and
2) The world is really shitty, so you don't lose anything by devoting yourself unquestionably to the next life, because you are going to have a shitty life any way because life sucks.

>> No.4662473

>>4662138
Name another religion that has an eternal hell.

Protip: Muslims and Jews do not.

>> No.4662480

>>4662445
cont

As for the point about modern religious movements, it is irrelevant. The modern world does not operate in the way of the ancient world (where the majority of today's organised religions began). Sects that have sprung up since the early modern age have had the benefit of the changing times and new communications technologies to find followers, and today it's a whole new game.

Remember, the original point was that Christianity has more of a "historical claim" for your consideration of it's theology.

>> No.4662484

ITT Is there any argument against [keyword]

>rest of /lit/
>goes to Wikipedia and looks up [keyword]

>> No.4662499

>>4662484
Are you seriously implying most people haven't heard of Pascal's Wager?

>> No.4662504

>>4662473
Zoroastrianism.

>> No.4662510

>>4662484
Don't project your own ignorance onto the rest of us. Pascal's Wager is entry-level theological debate.

>> No.4662525

Can't you use the same line of reasoning to justify much more absurd proposition?

The extremity of the variables can accelerate infinitely with no real conflict with the wager.

Since the most remote possibility of God provides infinite or some kind of maximum value of benefit, any amount of work in a finite time can justify a negligible chance to reap the benefits of faith.

e.g. chop off your left hand and blind yourself for the .000000000000000000000001% chance doing so will facilitate spiritual growth - even if said growth were entirely negligible in the short term.

>> No.4662537

>>4662504
Nope, that's like Islam, where hell is reformative and in the end all souls get united with the God.

Try again.

>> No.4662543

>>4662525
Yes, that's why pascal's wager doesn't work with atheists who prescribe a 0% chance of God existing. You must concede that it is possible that the theological God exists. Which works for agnostics and normal people, just not edgy atheists. That's also why it doesn't work for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think Pascal expressly mentions this in his argument? Could be wrong though.

>> No.4662578
File: 1.72 MB, 291x352, 1323927732392.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662578

>>4662525
>>4661892
Pascal explicitly states his "wager" is not a serious theological argument. For Christ's sake guys, he never even published it. It was found as an offhand comment in one of his journals. The argument "against" Pascal's Wager is that it is not a serious argument. It's an introduction to the idea of seriously considering Christianity. The point of it isn't "hurr durr dis is irrefutable u might as well be a Christian instead of anything else!!" it's "Hey, you should really spend some time thinking about this thing instead of idly dismissing it because it has the potential for serious consequences, either good or bad."

As for the idea that "well, it could apply to everything else, like all those Pagan religions!" Pascal literally rebukes that in the same part of the journal where he discusses the wager itself. This line of thought shows a pretty incredible unwillingness to even bother looking up what you're trying to "refute".

moderately-frustrated/10

>> No.4662586
File: 141 KB, 318x334, 1336439789992.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662586

>>4662543
>it might be possible

And it might be possible that I'll become the president of Burma one day. It might be possible that sugar is *actually* salt and we just don't know about it. There are an infinite number of things that *might* be possible but the important thing to recognize is that regardless of whether or not we can conceptualize the existence of things hitherto unknown, people should not establish their worldviews around ideas that have no proven existence.

Otherwise it will only skew their thought process and lead them to take actions that can lead them to do things that are horribly wrong (ie, bullying children into believing a sky wizard loves and cares for them and everything they do is watched and judged by him/her/it).

>> No.4662590

>>4662578
> Pascal literally rebukes that in the same part of the journal where he discusses the wager itself.

how?

>> No.4662594

>>4661892
What if God sent all Catholics to hell and all Atheists to heaven? Pascal's gambit is a false dichotomy.

>> No.4662598
File: 42 KB, 510x510, 1284335769992.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662598

>>4662594
>God's face when it was all a ruse

>> No.4662601

I can't believe people still actually use strawman terms like 'sky wizard'.

>> No.4662608

>>4661904
1%>0

>> No.4662611

I can't believe people still actually use strawman terms like fedora/edgy

>> No.4662615

>>4662473
Many pagan religions had places of eternal punishment. The question is whether you go there as a non-believer.

Also, Islam does teach an eternal Hell:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.068

>009.068
YUSUFALI: Allah hath promised the Hypocrites men and women, and the rejecters, of Faith, the fire of Hell: Therein shall they dwell: Sufficient is it for them: for them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment,-
PICKTHAL: Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.
SHAKIR: Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.

>> No.4662640

>>4662578
>>4662578

>The point of it isn't "hurr durr dis is irrefutable u might as well be a Christian instead of anything else!!" it's "Hey, you should really spend some time thinking about this thing instead of idly dismissing it because it has the potential for serious consequences, either good or bad."

I suppose I agree with you.

I don't have any niche knowledge about Pascal, I just see this wager often mentioned as though it were a supremely rigorous argument. This kind of grinds my gears, seeing how it takes only like 10 seconds of thought to dismantle it.

>> No.4662649
File: 57 KB, 480x595, 1352643874347.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662649

>>4662590
Read it and find out, broheim. It's even, literally, on the wikipedia page for his argument. This kind of lazy anti-intellectual attitude is exactly what he criticizes, and time has shown that he was completely right in this. He's criticizing people who are just not interested in seriously considering anything outside of their own beliefs, and encourages them to seriously question whether Christianity is really like other religions, and whether it's just a philosophical question, or otherwise seeking some way to dismiss or ignore it, and this is almost always, and always here on /lit/ from what I've seen, what people are trying to do by just dismissing it and ignoring it instead when they can't even google it.

>What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.
Then there's more commentary explaining what he's said on the Wikipedia page alone, which leads to further links to books discussing it.

>> No.4662667
File: 260 KB, 1685x1930, pascal.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662667

1. Which religion do you wager on? Many of them are mutually exclusive. (See chart.)
2. The nature of the wager goes against the spirit or teachings of many of the religions, which require sincere belief in the doctrines because they are just, good, true, etc, not because of the possibility of a reward.
3. It's not actually possible to genuinely believe in things you don't already hold to be true. (This doesn't matter if the doctrine is faith based, of course.)
4. Many religious doctrines are restrictive. A slim chance of a distant, infinite or large reward may be outweighed by the very probable chance of a near reward, large or small. Consider reversing the argument and applying it to life: if you go outside, there is a slim chance that you'll get hit by a car and you'll have horrible injury related pain for the rest of your life, but there's the probable chance that you'll get to go to a rock concert you have tickets for.

>> No.4662673

>>4661892
Sure there is. If you don't deny all Gods, then there's a magical unicorn who will make you immortal but will torture and rape you for all eternity.

You better deny God because you wouldn't want to risk that.

>> No.4662681

>>4662667
Can anyone explain what the fuck is going on in the Wicca column of that chart? I cannot figure out for the life of me why Christians and Muslims go uncertainly to hell while Jews and exotic semi-Christians (LDS, JW) go to "heaven".

>> No.4662688

>>4662537
This is a point of contention in Zoroastrianism, actually. The Bundahishn, which details the Frashokereti (apocalypse wherein all souls are saved), is not scripture, and was written many centuries after the original Gathas, which were said to be written by Zoroaster himself.

Here is an excerpt from the Gathas:

http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/dji/yasna46.htm

The Karpans and the Kavis have tyrannized over humanity,
Their evil actions are destructive of Life.
Verily, the conscience of such a one shall torment his soul.
And thus, when they shall come to the Bridge of Judgment,
Their abode, for endless ages, shall be in the House of the Lie.

>> No.4662700

>>4662667
>Pascal says that unbelievers who rest content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism has seduced them into a fatal "repose". If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine "in detail" whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered. Their objection might be sufficient were the subject concerned merely some "question in philosophy", but not "here, where everything is at stake". In "a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are concerned", they can manage no better than "a superficial reflection" ("une reflexion légère") and, thinking they have scored a point by asking a leading question, they go off to amuse themselves.
>As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a "trap" that he had no intention of falling into. If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter "in detail". In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on "other religions".

>that feel when your clever retort was refuted by a guy who died hundreds of years before you were even born
burn.

>> No.4662718

>>4662608
So I might as well take a random stab in the dark? Put all the religions in a hat and see which one I pull out, because at least there's a chance it might be the right one?

What if there really was a creator but it's not any of deities any religion has yet come up with, and it judges us in the afterlife by whether or not we chose to be religious or abstain and put our faith in the fact that the truth is unknowable?

>> No.4662729

>>4662718
That reduces your chance, it doesn't eliminate it.

>> No.4662752

>>4662700
Pascal's objection to the many religions criticism applies within Christianity as much as it does to completely different religions. There are multiple versions of Christianity, and many of these versions exclude the other versions. Hell, some are on the chart. And there's plenty of them that are historically defunct. Is he going to say Christianity isn't like itself?

And the emotional state of the person making an argument isn't relevant to the cogency of it, which is basically what "a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are concerned" amounts to. What's there is a thinly veiled, "if you don't believe what I believe, then you haven't studied Christianity enough." Why should I, if the embrace is based on the wager, and not on uniqueness of the doctrines.

>> No.4662754

>>4662700
>>4662649

The presumption being that we're all totally ignorant of Christianity, except for the fact that we are surrounded by it and probably even grew up with it. This might be fair to say of people who were not raised in the West but here, where it saturates our culture, you have to expect that yes, actually, we do have plenty of experience with it.

All that statement makes me think is that actually I ought to study the less popular religions more closely, because I know less of them than I do of the big three.

>> No.4662761

>>4662729
No, the point still being that atheism is just as likely to be the right choice as to choose any religion past or present.

>> No.4662833

>>4662700

Pascal makes the assumption that to study Christianity to great length is to find it the undeniable truth. But that is exactly what every other devout theist will say of their own religion. As an non-believer, how can any of these claims be believed over another? One would have to devote their life to studying the theology of every religion still practiced in the world today to satisfy this notion. Ultimately the wager remains the same - yours, mine, or all of theirs?

>> No.4662860
File: 26 KB, 500x375, 1367818709357.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662860

>>4662754
>>The presumption being that we're all totally ignorant of Christianity, except for the fact that we are surrounded by it and probably even grew up with it.
You're right, I'll take it back if you've read Aquinas and Augustine, or have any theological experience. No joking here. If you've read the major theological works and have educated reasons for rejecting Christianity, that's cool m8. Second hand experience doesn't actually qualify though, just like being half-awake through a high-school physics class doesn't qualify me to dismiss heliocentrism or any physics theory.

>>4662752
>Is he going to say Christianity isn't like itself?
>Listen, if we take these different things that conflict with one another and say they're the same, we can show that this thing isn't like itself!
How did you type that out and assume it sounded reasonable. Also the only Christian branches worth considering are the Traditional ones, Catholicism and Orthodox. Any serious look into Protestantism shows it's not worth taking as seriously as the main branches.

>>4662833
> But that is exactly what every other devout theist will say of their own religion.
Sadly, this kind of response is all too common. He lists Islam and Orthodox as also worth serious consideration, along with their branches from what I recall. He's open to considering other religions besides his own particular branch, and even the fact that he's a Christian mean what he says can be dismissed any more than we would dismiss what a Physicist would have to say about Physics (because being a Physicist, he MUST be biased!).

>One would have to devote their life to studying the theology of every religion s
If you actually read my posts, you can see that yes, Pascal is asking people to seriously consider their religious options instead of saying "Well, it's too complicated, just gonna do nothing instead." and presents a foundation for that. That's what the "Wager" is for.

>> No.4662881

>christians actually arguing this point

go to your church to verbally shitpost. we don't want your shit here

>> No.4662883
File: 121 KB, 480x535, 1382475268238.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662883

>"Why call him god?"
>Because he's the hero our planet deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight.
As you say that lest sentence, nod your head, then turn around and walk away because of how right you are.

>> No.4662889

>>4662883
if god were batman i'd believe

>> No.4662901

>>4662525
>>4662525

I didn't get much of a response for this post.

Was my logic full retard?

>> No.4662944

>>4662860
1) Have you studied, in-depth, every religion practiced in the world? Their scripture, denominations, theological debates?
a) Did you also study atheism?

2) Did you choose your religion based on these studies?
a) Did you choose a religion having only studied a small number?
b) Were you born into your current religion?

3) Did you make your choice based on the threat of eternal damnation?
a) Where does empiricism and rationality figure into your decision?

>> No.4662952

>>4662860
For me I just cannot reconcile any interest in religious teachings with my material rationality. For example the Blessed Sacrament/Eucharist. Every religion has insane mumbo jumbo like this.

>> No.4662995
File: 22 KB, 320x320, 1326400837880.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4662995

>>4662944
>1) Have you studied, in-depth, every religion practiced in the world? Their scripture, denominations, theological debates?
I'm in the process of it right now, yes. I'm going through Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and have a copy of Augustine's Confessions to read after I'm done. I've looked into Protestantism (too syncretic), Bahai'i (same problem but an order of magnitude worse), and Islam (their ideas regarding Heaven being a land of earthly pleasure is dumb, but I don't have enough room to get into it here), Judaism (they accept certain books as "Canonical" despite them being shown as coming after they claim God stopped "speaking" to mankind)

>also study atheism
uhh, I hope you're not implying atheism is actually a religion or philosophical/theological tradition. It's a stance, just like theism is a stance. Traditions and philosophy can spring from that stance, but the stance itself isn't something one can "study" like Christianity. Pls stop.

>2)
I'm an atheist, bro. If you've been reading my post it's clear that my problem isn't with people rejecting Christianity, but people groping for any reason to avoid seriously considering their beliefs or philosophy.

>3)
If I did make a choice, it wouldn't be on the threat of eternal damnation. If God doesn't exist, then there's no threat. If God exists, and I would obviously believe this if I chose religion, then the way to avoid it is clear and there's not much of a threat there either. You have to willfully deny God to be damned.

>empiricism
You cannot empirically prove "God exists" any more than you can empirically prove Justice, "Good", or any other metaphysical thing exists. It's not the right way to approach the subject.

>rationality
Still mulling over the idea of objective morality and virtue ethics, want to get into Kant later since he seems to provide an interesting solution for it. Those are both rational approaches and involve a lot of reasoning.

Kind of a hassle that you're trying to discredit anything I have to say by assuming I am as lazy as the people I insult instead actually engaging with it. Even if I didn't study this stuff, what I have to say would still be correct, I would just be one of the ignorant and intellectually lazy people I mentioned too. That said, laziness is a valid position, just don't act like it's not intellectual laziness or justify it by saying "This shit is complicated, so I'd rather avoid it entirely and never think about it."

>> No.4663025

>>4662952
That's fine, I at least hope the rest of your beliefs and views are in line with this. Most of the materialists I know reject some of the necessary outcomes of a strict materialist philosophy (namely, that reason is the product of random forces and therefore "not reasonable", that morality exists to any extent beyond the immediate group and moral judgments can be made on other groups in the past, etc.). The Eucharist has its metaphysical roots in Aristotle's philosophy, where an object is not synonymous with its accidental properties. That is, a tree is not its color, or the number of leaves it has, or its height; a rock is not its weight, etc. A rock is a rock if it's a gram or a pound, a tree is that tree regardless of whether it's fall or spring, etc. Likewise, the flesh and blood of Christ is not strictly tied to the physical appearance of flesh or blood. It's still kinda tough to swallow, but that's Divine Mystery and miracles for you.

Anyway, this is getting a little off-topic for Pascal's Wager.

>> No.4663140

>>4662860
>You're right, I'll take it back if you've read Aquinas and Augustine, or have any theological experience. No joking here. If you've read the major theological works and have educated reasons for rejecting Christianity, that's cool m8. Second hand experience doesn't actually qualify though, just like being half-awake through a high-school physics class doesn't qualify me to dismiss heliocentrism or any physics theory.

Lies. The wager does not imply studying religion like physics at all. The religions that threaten are your only concern because its an argument from force, not reason. Why would you look at anything theologically? Just go to and see which group has the craziest street preachers. You must discard the most accepting religions anyways. Including atheism.

>Also the only Christian branches worth considering are the Traditional ones, Catholicism and Orthodox. Any serious look into Protestantism shows it's not worth taking as seriously as the main branches.

Now I don't have to look into something because anyone who looks into it seriously decides it not worth taking as serious as the main branches. Despite that just a paragraph ago you were decrying not having theological experience. Okay.

>> No.4663147
File: 50 KB, 329x449, 1315201702885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4663147

>>4663140
>Lies.
Actually, Pascal explicitly states that you should seriously consider religion. I even quoted him and the scholars who study him. That's the point of the wager, and what I've been emphasizing through the thread. Stop being so hostile.

>Now I don't have to look into something because anyone who looks into it seriously decides it not worth taking as serious as the main branches.
No, I have personally decided it's not worth looking into further seriously as an option. You are free to decide otherwise, but I hope it's on a well-educated basis, and apparently it's not.

Anyway, it looks like you're either not actually interested in discussing the wager, not reading what I'm posting, or going out of your way to misunderstand it, so I guess I'll stop posting now. If you are interested in a serious discussion and make a serious response, I'm definitely open to it though. Have a nice day broski, it's been nice talking to you.

>> No.4663171

what if god put a great deal of effort into concealing himself and is actuallly really angry at religious people for ruining his attempt to create a world without religion

>> No.4663188

>>4663147
I can feel the love. Just not the logic.

>> No.4663210

>>4661896
Because those are pagan faiths anon, do you happen to be a pagan? No? I thought so.

>> No.4663239

>>4662026
This. Pascal's wager is the lamest thing he imagined and it's only interesting when you think about his work on probabilities.
>>4662033
Your way of reworking the argument is nice, but I'm not sure at all Pascal would have considered himself a Catholic. He was an adversary of Jesuitism (which is a catholic answer to the Reform) and even wrote that most christians, who go to church and pray only out of habit and upbringing, are no differet from heretics.
>>4662076
> it's the expression of a profound spiriual anxiety over certainty and truth, and one's fate.

This is the core of Pascal's motivation, hence the idea of using the form of a wager. But I find his writings on grace and decadence to be more eloquent in that respect.

But all right, Pascal is really not easy, I can't pretend to have gotten all the subtelties of his arguments. I just strongly suspect that Pascal's wager is essentially an elaborate trick to force you into christianity, and that Pascal was aware of it. He's an illusionist at heart.

I think Rousseau, in his Credo of the savoyan vicar, has an intelligent answer to the Wager.
>>4662578
Interesting. I didn't know he was so open about the flaws of the argument. >>4662700
Again, see Rousseau on that.

>> No.4664240

>>4663239
I think Pascal's Wager has an interesting place, and it's best used not as any sort of serious theological argument or proof for God, and it doesn't seem he intends it that way, but as a rebuttal to that common question of the idle atheist, and it's probably the most common question relating to the subject I've seen, and the idea that atheism is the default position and therefore they don't have to defend their position or think of anything outside of it.
>Why should I even bother considering religion?

>> No.4664282

What if God does the opposite and sends everyone who believes in him to hell? Checkmate, Christians.

>> No.4664356

>>4662578
This.
And the worst thing is that many honestly believe Pascal is all about the wager. They don't even know his philosophical thought at all and that's a pity because it's awesome.
Such an underrated philosopher.

>> No.4664357

>>4664240
And since the wager is pantsu on head retarded, what are we left with? Ease of mind?

>> No.4664394

>>4664282
What is Catholicism?

>> No.4664623

I think succumbing to this is folly. It's like a gang telling you better join them, because when they come into power they'll fucking bust out everyone's kneecaps who didn't join. Because if its not true, and no gang has that power, you're just asking people to be afraid of getting their kneecaps busted and do something out of fear.

By ceding ground to this, you're just making this kind of behaviour more likely. Instead, you should also look at which groups are best at keeping adherents without any form of threats. Then you would be supporting the group the most moral group on earth.

>> No.4664647

>>4663147
Wouldn't it be funny to drop all respect for someone's ideas when you don't have response and just leave a passive aggressive comment instead? Yuk yuk yuk.

>> No.4664911

>>4662033
>because that's the one that says it is infallible and nobody can be saved
thats not true. Just now invented my own church, declared myself infallible leader and I promise that the tortuousness of the afterlife for nonbelievers is twice that the catholic church can provide. Clearly you should believe in my church as the loss for not having believed in mine is greater than that of the catholic church

>> No.4665019

>>4662027
>Revelation
>Anything to do with what jesus actually said or did
>not some zealot in a cave somewhere

I prefer the epistle of james when figuring what jesus wants

>> No.4665166

>I'm an atheist, bro.

Cool story.

>> No.4667267

>>4662218
could you elaborate? im interested in what you have to say.

>> No.4667301

>>4662761
that's pretty convenient. don't you think if God existed He would have revealed Himself? don't you think -one- of the religions so far is true? at least, if there is a God?

>> No.4667350

>>4662995
I admire your search for truth. You've rekindled my own- I've been a Christian for years, but I have been sorely lacking in knowledge of other religions. I believe I've a God to honor, so it's not like I'm going to "restart", but I will certainly entertain any notion. Hope you find the truth, whatever it is.

>> No.4667371

>>4661892
If the cost associated with believing in something ridiculous is greater than the benefit you get from that ridiculous thing possibly being true, then you should not make Pascal's wager.

Anyways, does anybody really believe in hell? I bet most churchgoers don't. (maybe)

>> No.4667374

>>4667371
>the benefit you get from that ridiculous thing possibly being true
to clarify, say the 'value perse' of going to heaven is 100, and the chance of heaven being real is .01, then the actual value of heaven would be 1.

I like economics.

>> No.4667377

>>4667350
That's very nice of you to say! I hope it goes well for you too. Reading about this stuff has been very interesting, so it's never felt too burdensome and I hope it's the same for you too.

>> No.4667391

>>4667377
Ha, it has been. I'm going through C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain, etc. All of those. I can't wait to dive into Pensees, Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc. And all of the secular guys, too, of course. I find myself unable to not believe in a higher moral authority and Creator, who is also divine, and from there Christianity just seems the most logical (of course not without its legitimate counterarguments). At the same time, this is no excuse for ignorance of other religions, or accepting that it still could all be some kind of farce (there's always an element of faith, of course, but is there not with all things?).

It certainly is all very interesting, isn't it?

>> No.4667406

>>4662473
Not all Christian denominations have an eternal hell.

>>4662026
The really sad thing is that the Pensees is full of good stuff but everyone focuses on one of the weakest parts.

>So others sweat in their own rooms to show to the learned that they have solved a problem in algebra, which no one had hitherto been able to solve. Many more expose themselves to extreme perils, in my opinion as foolishly, in order to boast afterwords that they have captured a town. Lastly, others wear themselves out in studying all these things, not in order to become wiser, but only in order to prove that they know them; and these are the most senseless of the band, since they are so, knowingly, whereas one may suppose of the others, that if they knew it, they would no longer be foolish.

>> No.4667418

>>4667267
Not him, but it doesn't look like he's actually looked into Christian theology. It's a synthesis of Aristotelian metaphysics and virtue ethics, the Logos of Heraclitus, and builds a lot of Greek philosophy in general, and while I don't have the same knowledge of Jewish philosophy/theology, from what I hear it draws a lot from that too. I don't know how developed Egyptian theology is, but I do know that at "higher levels" (i.e., beyond your local Presbyterian Church) Christian theology can get complex. Christianity, as far as I know, was the first religion to actually develop theology as far as it did, through the early Church Doctors and people like Augustine and Aquinas who were both incredibly well-read and well-educated people.

Egyptian theology might be complex, I haven't looked into it much, but Christian theology isn't as simplistic or stunted as it looks like he's implying.

>> No.4667434

>>4667418
This is what I thought, I was going to say it seems like he doesn't know much about Christianity if he's saying things like that, I've found it to be complex as well. I did not know it is possibly considered the first to develop theology so far.

Yes, the early theologians were very intelligent. It's tragic, the corrupt route the Catholic Church took at times. Though I've also not studied that as in-depth as I should, but it seems as though the Renaissance proved the Church to be the opposite of what their Creeds said they should be. But I ramble.

On the other hand, I myself am also ignorant of Egyptian theology.

>> No.4667469

>>4667434
Ignore Egyptian theology and religion, it is all abominable.
Egypt is said to be one of the places that is spiritually called where Christ was crucified.

Egypt is probably the most disgusting society to have ever existed, and that is saying a lot.

>> No.4667478

>>4667418
Remember that India had a long philosophical tradition at that time, part of which was concerned with the divine. Judaic exegesis was also very sophisticated - in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the opponent is a knowledgeable Jew who had studied philosophy.

Of course for every Christian like Clement of Alexandria who appreciated Greek philosophy there was someone like Tertullian who wanted nothing to do with it.

>> No.4667492

>>4667418
Egyptian theology is much more complex. It impacted every part of their belief system, as their gods were not just a distant creator, but also what stuff was.

>> No.4667524

>>4667492
Any surviving Egyptian theological writings? There's the Book of the Dead but that's descriptive, not analytic.

>> No.4667525

>>4667492
>It impacted every part of their belief system
Was it influential or complex? They're two different things.

>but also what stuff was.
That sounds a lot like Spinoza's Christian panentheism, not sure if that could really be put forward to show that they were more complicated than Christianity.

>> No.4667531

>>4667492
The Christian God is not distant. Read Aquinas.
God is active in all secondary causes, I.e. nothing ever happens without God being involved in some way.

>>4667478
Tertullian wasn't wrong to condemn Greek philosophy. For every 1 healthy fruit that Greek philosophy bore, it bore 10 poisonous fruits. You need somebody on the level of Aquinas to be able to judge what of Greek philosophy is useful and what is useless.

>> No.4667538

>>4667478
Yeah, I haven't read Indian theology at all, I'm interested in it since it seems to be a tradition that matured almost entirely without Abrahamic/Christian influence until the Muslims started taking over. Although pantheism seems to present its own set of problems. As for Judaic exegesis, that's what I was referring to when I said the Christians drew from Jewish philosophy/theology.

>>4667434
>I did not know it is possibly considered the first to develop theology so far.
It looks like it from what I've seen, at least from the Greeks and Romans and most other pagan groups in general. The Greeks were willing to question their religion, but most of them not in any serious or lasting manner, and the Romans weren't too interested in it at all. Both of them were very syncretic, and began adopting any belief system that they found under their own pantheon. Rome eventually began even voting various emperors into their pantheon as Gods, for example. While it was serious business, the theology wasn't very stable or well-thought. What theology there was wasn't as serious or as deeply thought out as the Jews (who didn't spread far, being an almost exclusive ethnic group) or the Christians.

>> No.4667539

Islamic Occasionalists don't even try to give space to science or philosophy. It even finishes most of theology. Christianity among religions in particular tries to accept other forms of knowledge as legitimate, and as a result erodes belief in itself. God of the gaps trap. But there's no arguing with Occasionalists.