God and obligations

[John A. Broussard]

Given the question of god's existence (and, presumably a concommitant afterlife) certain obligations are imposed on the believer if there is a differential reward based on behavior in this life.

Obviously, what I'm dealing with here is Pascal's Wager. For those of you not thoroughly familiar with it, here is the core of the Wager in Pascal's own words.

"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... 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... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

The point to this OP is that Pascal's Wager states, unequivocally, that there is nothing to lose by believing in god.

I wish to point out that there's a great deal to lose, and that the losses are self-evident though I've discovered they don't appear to be so to others.

As pointed out by a theist in this forum, that flaw in the Wager is not self-evident to him since he said, "Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life)."

But that is exactly the point. Sin, as envisioned by a believer, may be--and very likely is--a necessary part of enjoyment of life.

Let me cite just one example. In this instance, let's assume that a married Catholic couple wish to limit the number of children in their family to how many they can support. To do so, the only really effective birth control methods are contraceptives. They can use them, but if they believe in an afterlife and they follow the teachings of their church, then they have committed a mortal sin and will be punished for it with eternal torments in hell.

In other words, a belief in an afterlife imposes an obligation upon them--the refraining from the use of artificial birth control methods.

Not believing, for them, would allow the effective control of their family size without causing pangs of guilt and fear of hell by doing so.

I leave it to others to bring up similar "sinful" situations in other cults.

I hope this OP will stimulate some thought, and I also hope we can limit the discussion to just this point--that there is a great deal to lose if one wagers that god exists.

As has been claimed, Pascal's Wager is a form of fire insurance. Like fire insurance, it may be a good idea to have it, but the overwhelming majority of insurers never have a fire, and so never come out ahead on all the premiums they've paid.

On the other hand, the fire insurance companies reap enormous benefits from those who pay for fire insurance. The payers lose. The insurance company wins.

That fires do happen is besides the point.

The odds that the payer will come out ahead are very, very slim--and that's the point.

[steamer]

One odd thing I've noticed is that atheists are not obliged to think of the god concept as a justice-handicapped evil tormentor. Although I'm just imagining a god, I find that the one I imagine is better than the one most religions claim. How can my imagined god be more loving and more just than their god? If my imagined god is better in any way, then the real god must be better still if he is indeed perfect. I think these religious folk need our help to define their gods. Their gods seem like losers in comparisson to what I can imagine.

Their gods are less loving than most mothers.

[Squirrel]

I hope this OP will stimulate some thought, and I also hope we can limit the discussion to just this point--that there is a great deal to lose if one wagers that god exists.


Thank you for bringing up this issue, I think it is a very important one. First, I am a Christian but I do not agree with the position of the Catholic church on birth control, so that issue is virtually eliminated for me. However, many people who do not believe in Christ seem to have this idea that if they were a Christian life would become unbearably miserable, that there are all these arbitrary rules that God calls us to follow that lead to a miserable life. Morality seems to be the enemy. The idea is that Christians are following all these rules hoping for eternal bliss in Heaven while living miserable lives on earth.

But I will argue the completely opposite position that the beauty and greatness of life is only known in a relationship with Christ. That you lose far more if one wagers that God does not exist. For instance, without God there is no truth or meaning, no ultimate purpose to life. All reality either boils down to the personal or the impersonal. Life is really either all about chemicals or all about a Personal God. Without God, we must posit that life is ultimately about hydrogen and oxygen and dirt, but with God life is really about love and relationships and truth, in the sense that personality is more ultimate than impersonality. Without God what hope can you give to people who are suffering, or in poverty, or dying? Christians can say that though you struggle now through Christ all the wrong will in the end be made right. Without God there will be no final justice. The wrong will never be made right. As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on? It seems to me that if one wagers that there is no God, joy would ultimately be destroyed. Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.

[IgnorantBliss]

Pascal's wager assumes there is only one God on which to place your bets. When, in fact, there is an infinite number of gods and religions... I'm reminded of a south park where a devout catholic (or something) gets into heaven and is sent to hell for believing in the wrong religion. Outraged, the catholic demands to know the "right" religion to which the angel replies, "Uh, yup... Mormonism. Mormonism was the correct answer. Sorry."

So, its not just one or the other, its one of infinity or the other that is to be chosen and because religions are mutually exclusive you cant do them all at once. Period - you only get one, or you're not really practicing that religion in the first place.

My dad gave me the best advice I've ever heard regarding this puzzle, "Well, I figure if I just lead a good life I'll be ok. Because, if there is a heaven, hopefully I'll get in for leading a good life. And if there isn't, well, at least I had a good life in the first place."

[John A. Broussard]

As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on? It seems to me that if one wagers that there is no God, joy would ultimately be destroyed. Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.
What you are dealing with here is an old, old dilemma which has little to do with Pascal's Wager.

Let me point to an ancient story from far back into the remote past of Hindu philosophy.

A respected wise man, while pondering the mysteries of life, is walking along with a companion when they see an old woman, smiling and happy, who is worshipping at a shrine.

The companion asks, "See that old woman? She doesn't have a problem in the world. She's happy. She believes blindly. You question all this. You doubt the existence of god and keep pondering these matters, while she has no doubts at all. Wouldn't you exchange places with her if you could?"

The wise man, unhesitatingly, said, "No."

So, I would say, there is no Wager for you. You believe. It makes you feel comfortable. It gives "meaning" to your life. Fine.

Pascal's Wager is for those who don't believe. It offers them a choice. All choices have pluses and minuses. What Pascal's Wager does not consider is that a conscious choice to believe does in fact have minuses. At the very least it means forcing oneself to believe something one doesn't "believe."

So, if you believe, without having to weigh alternatives--if you are comfortable with your belief--no problem. Also, no Wager.

[Stephen T-B]

A flaw in Pascal's Wager is the assumption that god-belief is open to calculation; that somehow one can decide by sheer will power to believe the unbelievable. Which is, of course, nonsense.
A person can only believe that which he considers believable.

Having said that, I wonder if the Wager wasn't in fact intended for people who already believed in a god of one sort or another.

If you can believe in Zeus, why not believe in Thor?

If you can believe in the god specified by your own culture, why not believe in the god specified by that of the Roman Catholics? And especially why not if, by believing in it you will avoid the possibility of proking it into punishing you for all eternity.
Blaise Pascal lived 1623-1662, and when he wrote his Penses, atheisim, I dare say, was less of an issue than the other sects into which Christianity was dissolving.

[AZSuperman]

One of the problems I see with Pascals Wager is what goes along with believing in God. (The Roman Catholic God in particular, since Pascal was a Roman Catholic.)


Believing in the RC God means believing in the Bible.
Believing in the Bible means believing in a 6000 year old Earth.
Believing in a 6000 year old Earth means believing all scientific methods used to date the Earth and the universe beyond 6000 years are faulty and misleading.
Believing in the Bible means believing illness is caused by demonic possession.
Believing in supernatural causes for illness means you also need to believe medicines and vaccines are useless, and medical explanations for illnesses are faulty.
Believing in the Bible means disbelieving in all other holy books.
Disbelieving all other holy books, while believing the Bible, means other religions who report miracles are being lead by Satan.
Believing in the RC God means believing all non-Catholic family members are buring in Hell.

Unless you're talking to a deist, there is usually a plenthora of accompanying beliefs which go along with believing in God. For another religion the list may be different, but it's most likely going to have more than one absurb required belief on the list.

[Barefoot Bree]

I think it's time once again for the Wildernesse Lecture.

AZSuperman, your list of beliefs are required for fundamentalism. However, fundamentalists make up only a part, and I believe it's a small part, of Christians as a whole. The vast majority of Christians are liberal, open-minded (and regretably quiet these days) individuals who, if you must, "cherry-pick" which the parts of the bible they take literally, and which parts are alegorical or other. Anyone can take them to task for this cherry-picking on moral grounds, but to insist that all Christians believe your list, and therefore are fundamentalists, is factually wrong.

[mdarus]

AZSuperman's list is an amazing compilation of non sequiturs, and a ton of other logical fallacies . Not even the most rigid fundamentalist would follow it all the way down.

[mdarus]

The part I don't like about Pascal's Wager is it seems all about the advantages that belief can have for me. It seems that true religious belief and devotion should be willing to endure at least a little discomfort for the sake of the cause.

[wyzaard]

For instance, without God there is no truth or meaning, no ultimate purpose to life.

Whew! Thank goodness that's not hanging over my head then... imagine, some alien purpose subverting my own chosen pruposes. Give's me the creeps!


All reality either boils down to the personal or the impersonal. Life is really either all about chemicals or all about a Personal God.

Or about some other supernatural schema... or about our human wants and needs, beliefs and convictions, likes and loves... lots of possibilities here.


Without God, we must posit that life is ultimately about hydrogen and oxygen and dirt,

Sounds great! Why don't you like this?


but with God life is really about love and relationships and truth, in the sense that personality is more ultimate than impersonality. Without God what hope can you give to people who are suffering, or in poverty, or dying?

That I will do everything in my power to help them... and at the very least, share their time here with them as a brother.

Human relationships and hope eclipse any such given by unknown ephemera.


Christians can say that though you struggle now through Christ all the wrong will in the end be made right. Without God there will be no final justice. The wrong will never be made right.

Unless WE do it here and now... what motivates a Christian to be a warrior for social justice on this world if they bank on some illusionary justice in another? Your religion sounds terrible!


As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on?

Appreciating the world and it's people as it is, rather than looking away towards a fake one where you'd rather be.


It seems to me that if one wagers that there is no God, joy would ultimately be destroyed. Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.

And so... cherishing the time you have here means more than anything, doesn't it?

And come to think of it... who says we go into nothingness? It would seem that we actually pass into everything instead. Matter, energy, memory... all recycled, all unified.

You're puzzling. :p

[jackrabbit]

As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on?

A lot of stuff I like doing. Look, maybe the life you lead is fine for you, but I was absolutely miserable growing up in a family of fundamentalist biblebangers. Leaving home was like making parole.

So you do your thing I will try to do mine. Unless you have restricted it by supporting the introduction of legislation to make it illegal. I.e., legislating morality according to your standards.

[John A. Broussard]

The part I don't like about Pascal's Wager is it seems all about the advantages that belief can have for me. It seems that true religious belief and devotion should be willing to endure at least a little discomfort for the sake of the cause.
Exactly.

And that's the point to the OP. There are some losses accompanying the acceptance of the Wager--contrary to what Pascal claimed.

The losses may be minimal, but they are still losses.

[John A. Broussard]

A lot of stuff I like doing. Look, maybe the life you lead is fine for you, but I was absolutely miserable growing up in a family of fundamentalist biblebangers. Leaving home was like making parole.

So you do your thing I will try to do mine. Unless you have restricted it by supporting the introduction of legislation to make it illegal. I.e., legislating morality according to your standards.

That's the point I was trying to put across, but you have said it more clearly and more succinctly.

Thanks.

[north]

Thank you for bringing up this issue, I think it is a very important one. First, I am a Christian but I do not agree with the position of the Catholic church on birth control, so that issue is virtually eliminated for me. However, many people who do not believe in Christ seem to have this idea that if they were a Christian life would become unbearably miserable, that there are all these arbitrary rules that God calls us to follow that lead to a miserable life. Morality seems to be the enemy. The idea is that Christians are following all these rules hoping for eternal bliss in Heaven while living miserable lives on earth.

actually i find that Morality is not the enemy. god and the devil is.

But I will argue the completely opposite position that the beauty and greatness of life is only known in a relationship with Christ. That you lose far more if one wagers that God does not exist. For instance, without God there is no truth or meaning, no ultimate purpose to life.

this a load of non-sense. the truth, meaning and ultimate purpose of our Human life is to relise, that as much as survival on this planet is important, the biggest challenge too the Human Race is the Universe its self.

and the challenge by the Universe too ourselves will only be met by the Human Race's ability to BELIEVE in its self. PERIOD.

no being will care as much about us Humans as ourselves. end of story.

All reality either boils down to the personal or the impersonal. Life is really either all about chemicals or all about a Personal God. Without God, we must posit that life is ultimately about hydrogen and oxygen and dirt

life is not all about , chemicals, hydrogen , oxygen and dirt.

life is about fundamentally believing in your own being, that should be any Beings fundamental Reason for life. thats why all life forms fight to survive. what of any life form, no matter how simple, does not struggle to the End to survive? for without this fundamental belief in your own being you will surely die out sooner than your own being should.

it is NOT Natural to believe in another being more than your own.

that is what we have lost. HUMANITY FIRST and ABOVE ALL ELSE. and in Harmony with our Planet.




but with God life is really about love and relationships and truth, in the sense that personality is more ultimate than impersonality. Without God what hope can you give to people who are suffering, or in poverty, or dying?

perhaps without god and this illusion of hope, we can all Humanity relise what we are Actually doing to each other. we face the reality of the situation.


Christians can say that though you struggle now through Christ all the wrong will in the end be made right. Without God there will be no final justice. The wrong will never be made right. As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on?

ultimately the most important attitude you are missing, for the rest of us Humans and yourself. a belief in your own being.


It seems to me that if one wagers that there is no God, joy would ultimately be destroyed. Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.


and you have just quoted the BIGGEST CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY THERE IS. PERIOD. it is shameful and disgusting.

[AZSuperman]

AZSuperman's list is an amazing compilation of non sequiturs, and a ton of other logical fallacies . Not even the most rigid fundamentalist would follow it all the way down.
I don't believe they're non sequiturs, each of the assertions can be backed up with Bible verses... the interpretation of the verses may have changed over time but at one point everything on my list was believed, it's been the advance of scientific knowledge (from those who questioned the ultimate authority of the Bible) which has caused even fundimentalists to "cherry pick" the parts of the Bible they believe.

Yet none seem to have a problem with this... I find that strange.

[Barbarian]

But I will argue the completely opposite position that the beauty and greatness of life is only known in a relationship with Christ. That you lose far more if one wagers that God does not exist. For instance, without God there is no truth or meaning, no ultimate purpose to life.
Having to have a purpose to life is a huge burden. It is literally crippling the mind. How does that help in appreciating beauty at all? Your finite life is a continuous test to gain admittance to heaven or fall to hell - arguably infinite stakes here, which mean every minute, every action in your life is infinitely important for your otherworldly life. How could you have the time and energy to appreciate anything? It is like claiming you are completing an extremely important written test in a tourist bus and still being able to appreciate the scenery.

I suspect theists can only shoulder this burden by repressing thoughts about it completely. To have an example, think about the last time you thought "Hmm, maybe I am going to hell and not to heaven; maybe I will not make it!"
All reality either boils down to the personal or the impersonal. Life is really either all about chemicals or all about a Personal God.Or about three thousand personal gods, or about Buddhism. The implication that Christianity and strong atheism are the only alternatives is the sort of parochialism which alone can take down Pascal's wager.
Without God what hope can you give to people who are suffering, or in poverty, or dying?
Exactly the same as with god, except the "lying to them about a bountiful afterlife" part. That may be some extra consolation, but it is not possible without indoctrinating the whole society and ultimately fighting those who dare to think otherwise, or just dare to think. Do you really imply here that the usefulness of a lie makes it somehow true?
Without God there will be no final justice. The wrong will never be made right.
You make it sound like it was unthinkable for that to be the case. Why don't you spell it out then? We would immediately point it out to you that it is unthinkable only in the sense of you not being able to think about it, not in the sense of it being impossible.

Apart from that, I find this kind of thinking very damaging, since it destroys motivation to ameliorate the consequences of injustices and all bad things in this life. At the very least, it gives believers a blanket cheque to not care.
As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ?
We would happily give the list of what you are missing out if we knew exactly which strain of Christianity you belong to, since as you have undoubtedly noticed, Christianity branched into many different sects with mutually incompatible lists of "things to be missed out in life because they are sinful". Your particular version of this list is bound to contain entries which are enjoyable, would not hurt anyone and yet you miss out on them. Just post the list and we point out those to you.
Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.
A general hint: you appear to be fond of a rhetoric form closely resembling unfinished reductio ad absurdum proofs. You seem to think that you disprove certain ideas by spelling out some of their imagined consequences and leave at that. The issue is that those consequences are far from unthinkable for us, and the only thing they are in contradiction with are your opinions. It would be better if you owned up and spelled out the contradictions explicitly. Like, what is the problem with (or indeed the meaning of) humanity going to nothingness?

[John A. Broussard]

Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.
I'm assuming that you believe that you will live forever and ever and ever for all of eternity in the afterlife.

If that assumption is correct, please explain to me why you feel that is more desirable than simply ceasing to exist.

I look forward to your answer.

[Fudokan]

I'm assuming that you believe that you will live forever and ever and ever for all of eternity in the afterlife.

If that assumption is correct, please explain to me why you feel that is more desirable than simply ceasing to exist.

I look forward to your answer.

Well, I'm not a person who is disposed to a rigid afterlife belief - and I think there in lies the issues with your OP. Pascals wager, as it stands is moral choice. By adopting a doctrine of faith, your morals are provided to you, and a teleological reason for it. But adopting a belief away from doctrine- the wager can provide you with (if required) a starting point for deciding how best to ground your self in this belief.

Monotheisic/ Pantheistic view points provide an ontological frame or reference- which whilst can be found deductively in materalist/ empirical understanding - can be found elsewhere... the Wager for example. Afterlife is a reward (as I understand it), for a life lived well - it is bliss for eternity. Where is the harm then in this type of wager?

[John A. Broussard]

Afterlife is a reward (as I understand it), for a life lived well - it is bliss for eternity. Where is the harm then in this type of wager?
It depends on what you mean by "living well."

If it means depriving yourself of things you want, then that's the price you pay for betting that a god exists.

Deprivation means loss of some kind.

On the other hand, if living well means not depriving yourself of things you want, then I agree with you. You then have nothing to lose by betting god exists, since your behavior doesnt differ whether you believe or not.

I do think the latter instance is rather unlikely, however.

Don't you agree?

[Fudokan]

It depends on what you mean by "living well."

If it means depriving yourself of things you want, then that's the price you pay for betting that a god exists.

Deprivation means loss of some kind.

On the other hand, if living well means not depriving yourself of things you want, then I agree with you. You then have nothing to lose by betting god exists, since your behavior doesnt differ whether you believe or not.

I do think the latter instance is rather unlikely, however.

Don't you agree?

Hmmm, yes I do agree. But I think that the living well bit is where things you deprive yourself from must originate. I guess it is only in examples that one finds out how you and I define our living well.

I find alcohol acceptable - hence depriving yourself of it (as through Islam) unnessecary. However, to be able to deprive yourself - I hae admiration and respect for that, and the reason it is done - is no bad thing. I need my vices of a wiskey or a beer now and then, but I do moderate. I would never practice my faith under alcoholic influence, out of respect for myself and for my 'IT'.

I would like to drink more - from a very base instinct, drunkeness is fun. Other than the health effects. But my faith does not restrict me, it is my own common sense. So I am not sure what restrictions that your are talking about are nessecerily a bad thing - most of them I know have a postivie health (mental and physical) effect.

[jackrabbit]

It's not just giving up things. It's also the tiresome rigamarole that you are required to do, with the praying and the churchgoing and the revivals and the door-to-door harrassing of non-believers. With some denominations, it's not sufficient to just say you believe. You have to go to church and participate in "the lord's work" as well in order to get your ticket to heaven.

That shit takes a lot of time, and if you are not really into it is boring as hell. I know, I wasted a lot of childhood hours that way against my will.

[Fudokan]

It's not just giving up things. It's also the tiresome rigamarole that you are required to do, with the praying and the churchgoing and the revivals and the door-to-door harrassing of non-believers. With some denominations, it's not sufficient to just say you believe. You have to go to church and participate in "the lord's work" as well in order to get your ticket to heaven.

That shit takes a lot of time, and if you are not really into it is boring as hell. I know, I wasted a lot of childhood hours that way against my will.


But you are free to practice how you wish. I certaily know of Christian churches (if that's your choice of faith) where none of those things you mention are practiced (except prayer). The acceptance of restrictions are thougth to enhance your relationship to god. If your interested, look at the Benedictine Order - they have a lot to say on the benifits of deprivation/ restriction.

And also, at no point in any religion aer you required to pray! That is something that you should do completely voluntarily. Forced prayer is ..erm.. well, what kind of church did you belong to?

[John A. Broussard]

It's not just giving up things. It's also the tiresome rigamarole that you are required to do, with the praying and the churchgoing and the revivals and the door-to-door harrassing of non-believers. With some denominations, it's not sufficient to just say you believe. You have to go to church and participate in "the lord's work" as well in order to get your ticket to heaven.

That shit takes a lot of time, and if you are not really into it is boring as hell. I know, I wasted a lot of childhood hours that way against my will.
Exactly.

Very few cults, if any, simply say, "All you got to do is to believe." They usually add the rigmarole you mention above. Also, don't forget tithing and the collection plate.

The money spent on religion, one way or another, could go far toward helping other human beings. Even the churches that support various worthwhile charities waste a good share of their revenue on religious goodies such as bibles, psalm singing, vestments for the clergy and the like.

And, of course, I'm not even considering the outright scams that supply Jimmies Bakker, Swaggert and their ilk with marble-floored, walk-in closets.

Belief in god not only costs individuals, it costs society as well.

[jackrabbit]

But you are free to practice how you wish. I certaily know of Christian churches (if that's your choice of faith) where none of those things you mention are practiced (except prayer). The acceptance of restrictions are thougth to enhance your relationship to god. If your interested, look at the Benedictine Order - they have a lot to say on the benifits of deprivation/ restriction.


But we are talking about Pascal's wager, which is a binary proposition: god or not. If there is god you go to heaven, if there is not, no harm done.

As has been mentioned in the forum many times, it's not that simple, given that there are other major religions, also with billions of followers. Some of these also have hell for those who do not believe their dogma.

These religions are contradictory, so they can't all be right and you have to choose. What if you choose wrong? Say you choose the x-ian view of god and then go to muslim hell because they were right?

I submit that it's even more complicated than that, because different denominations/sects of the same major religion have radically different views. True, there are laid back versions of x-ianity where it's just believe and you're in. Others have a much more complicated set of requirements and in fact believe anyone who is not a member of their particular denomination is going to hell, including all other x-ians. I know this for a fact, because I had the misfortune of growing up in such a church.

So what if they are right and you picked one of the laid-back denominations? Fucked again, "satan, please save me a seat by the fire."


And also, at no point in any religion aer you required to pray! That is something that you should do completely voluntarily. Forced prayer is ..erm.. well, what kind of church did you belong to?
But standing there while somebody else prays is just as boring, though admittedly not as much effort. The whole church gag bores me to tears. It is a cost to the wager.

True, in some religions you don't have to do it. In some, you do or there's no point in belonging because you will go to hell if you do not follow every last required step, including church attendance.

For pascal's wager, you can't pick any old church. You have to clairvoyantly pick the right one, i.e. you must have magical powers yourself.

[John A. Broussard]

But you are free to practice how you wish. I certaily know of Christian churches (if that's your choice of faith) where none of those things you mention are practiced (except prayer). The acceptance of restrictions are thougth to enhance your relationship to god. If your interested, look at the Benedictine Order - they have a lot to say on the benifits of deprivation/ restriction.

Yup. Some cults may very well require you to do what you want to do anyway.

So, in that instance, the Wager is totally unnecessary. A person can impose restrictions on themselves ad infinitum if they so wish, and thus derive the benefits of deprivation/restriction without any need for assuming the existence of an after life.

Case in point. One can fast for health reasons or to get a front row seat in heaven.

[Fudokan]

So, in that instance, the Wager is totally unnecessary. A person can impose restrictions on themselves ad infinitum if they so wish, and thus derive the benefits of deprivation/restriction without any need for assuming the existence of an after life.

Case in point. One can fast for health reasons or to get a front row seat in heaven.


I agree, and yes, the deprivation/restriction involved where no deity is around to watch is equally as benifcial to you (emotionally, mentally, physically).

With respect to the Wager. Can you really argue a case for or against? The purpose of Catholic tradition is that the austerity is part of the sense that this life you have now is the only chance you have to make right Adam's 'first' sin. The prospect of damnation is literally interpreted my most Catholics, as is equally that of eternal bliss. For the atheistic thought surrounded by this climate or social norm (Pascal's time) - wouldn't the imposed austerity of this life seem simple when compared to a (wagered) damnation? But as it stands, I would find few Catholics then or now, who follow Papal autority to the letter. As such a few hours on Sunday, and good will to your neighbour seems not such a bad bet to take if thats the key to wiping away your forefather's sin (Adam).

I'm not sure that I see this great hideouness that people seem to comment on here, that is within (for the sake of Pascal) Catholic tradition? OK, the Popes tend to be mad, on the whole, and the doctrine of faith is a bit freakish, oh, and daily transmutation of bread into the flesh of a 2000yr old man is a little weird - but.. if you are in any doubt about damnation.. 52hrs of your life a year, and good will to all.. not so much to ask for the keys to paradise :angel:

[John A. Broussard]

I'm not sure that I see this great hideouness that people seem to comment on here, that is within (for the sake of Pascal) Catholic tradition? OK, the Popes tend to be mad, on the whole, and the doctrine of faith is a bit freakish, oh, and daily transmutation of bread into the flesh of a 2000yr old man is a little weird - but.. if you are in any doubt about damnation.. 52hrs of your life a year, and good will to all.. not so much to ask for the keys to paradise :angel:
Agreed.

Pascal was wrong about no loss being incurred by believing, but the loss is trivial compared to the possible gain.

To put it into modern wagering context, betting a dollar on the super-duper powerbowl is a small price indeed to be paid for the possible win of 75 million dollars.

Pascal would say, "Bet, you have nothing to lose."

I would say that you do have something to lose, though the loss may be trifling.

[Fudokan]

Agreed.

I would say that you do have something to lose, though the loss may be trifling.

So, this leaves the possibilty of damnation.

If you are 100% completely positive that no damnation exists - no need to bet.

A good life; respect toward yourself (a lesser sense of restrictions commented on previously) and others - that seems to hold all the tools for heaven - no faith required (I think most moderate religious folks would argue that the life you lead is more relevant to heaven than belief). Therefore, no wager needed.

Where as . . if you have even 1% of an inkling that damnation may well exist - a full-on doctrine of faith is a very small loss to endure.

[sbaii]

Belief in a supernatural being that most churches preach about requires me to turn off my reason which keeps telling me that nature doesn't work that way. "God" is far too secretive these days, and the people he "calls" to represent him are the worst hypocrites if televangelists are any indication of God's choice.

[jackrabbit]

52hrs of your life a year

I sure wish I could have spent that little time on it. Let's see: sunday morning (plus another hour for bible school), sunday evening, wednesday night, every summer a week of vacation bible school (wasting some of my summer vacation) and a "gospel meeting" (AKA "revival") which consisted of going to church every night for two fucking weeks. :(