Oh, and Entirely Possible...
Hee hee hee hee!!!
IS GOD REAL? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
by still thinking 778 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
panhandlegirl
The Argument from Pascal's Wager
Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.
Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize.
To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?
Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."
Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.
Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?"
We are like ships
that need to get home.The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.
Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way:
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 avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.
If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Regarding Pascal's wager...
-
panhandlegirl
panhandlegirl...welcome, I don't think I have read any of your posts before.
I have a question for you though...is that enough for you to believe? Or do you have other reasons that confirm to you that god is indeed real?
Thanks for the welome. I have not really discussed the WBTS or read any wt mags in years. I was df'd sometime in early 80s, before CoC was released. I read the book and loaned it out (mistake). Never got it back but I did buy it again. I found this site at another JW site who provided a link to this site. I like this site because of the different opinions and ideas put forth. They make me think and cringe (at times). I don't mind my mind being challanged.It helps me expand my mind. My three brother, all XJW, no longer believe the Bible; I am not sure if they believe in God. That's what the wbts does for you.
I guess the reasons I posted are reason enough for me to believe that God exists. I don't think He is involved in my/our everyday life. He has never spoken to me, I am not sure that he has ever answered my prayers. I believe He did protect me on one occassion when I was stranded on a lonely road when my SUV broke down, but am not sure.
I read about Pascel's Wager years ago and it made sense to me.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Mr.Quik, you suggest we should consider science and common sense but I'd like to point out that Einstein said common sense is simply the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18. The watch analogy is a perfect example of such a prejudice - a faulty analogy - as is that ridiculous Boeing 747 & tornado illustration that creationists love to use.
Among other problems, you have a predefined result at which you expect us to arrive - a watch. Evolution has no predefined result it must reach.
Secondly, if the claim is being made as a rule that complex things are obviously designed by something more complex than themselves, then a complex designer must also have been designed by something more complex as well. You can't play the teleological argument card for a watch and the universe but then pick it up off the table for your god. That would be a double standard.
There are other arguments against the watch analogy (ie, the Mandelbrot set demonstrates complexity evolving from simple, elegant systems) but that has sufficed for me.
PHGirl: I read about Pascel's Wager years ago and it made sense to me.
Did you read the arguments against his wager? (EDIT: or watch the video?)
-
panhandlegirl
SweetBabyCheezits. Good Points!! Need to watch it again I don't think any religion is completly correct. I don't believe a loving and just God would destroy me because I did not know or understand everything about Him. If He does, I cannot do anything about it so I choose not to worry about what I cannot control. I live my life as best I can.
When my life ends, it ends. When/if Armaggadon comes, it comes. Do I sound like a fatalist? I'm not.
-
Knowsnothing
Secondly, if the claim is being made as a rule that complex things are obviously designed by something more complex than themselves, then a complex designer must also have been designed by something more complex as well. You can't play the teleological argument card for a watch and the universe but then pick it up off the table for your god. That would be a double standard.
Hey SBC, just for the sake of argument, can there ever be exceptions to the rule? We use this rule to determine that complex things have a complex designer, but what if the complex designer is self-contained?
In other words, we arrive at design due to complexity because things in the universe had a start. If the universe had always been, there would be no need for this argument.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
PHGirl: When my life ends, it ends. When/if Armaggadon comes, it comes. Do I sound like a fatalist? I'm not.
Haha, no, more like a realist. I like your take, and while I'm not worried about the Biblical Armageddon, I do worry about a man-made version. But like you said, when my life ends, it ends. In the meantime, I feel fortunate to have ever lived in the first place.
So much that man attributes to god, I believe would be an insult to a truly benevolent, loving, intelligent designer (if one existed). I think such a deity would be more appreciative of the non-believers, the ones who refuse to accept the idea that a perfect being could be so incompetent, illogical, and capricious as the gods man has invented throughout history.
Knowsnothing: Hey SBC, just for the sake of argument, can there ever be exceptions to the rule? We use this rule to determine that complex things have a complex designer, but what if the complex designer is self-contained?
Well, to my mind, an exception would mean that it's not much of a rule. If there exists a self-contained entity that transcends space and time and had no creator, then it must follow that everything that is complex doesn't always require a more complex designer. That single violation would undermine the "rule" as a valid argument, wouldn't it?
Knowsnothing: In other words, we arrive at design due to complexity because things in the universe had a start. If the universe had always been, there would be no need for this argument.
That's a legit thought, IMO. We know that the universe is expanding, even accelerating, and had a start at a single point. But there are also theories regarding cyclical universes, continuously exploding/expanding into existence and then collapsing back to a single point, and starting the cycle over again. Perhaps ours wasn't the first and won't be the last. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model)
I'm not completely against deistic and panetheistic ideas but a cyclical universe model creates less of a mental conflict for me than thinking some intelligent, all-powerful designer sat out there in a great void before deciding to create our ginormous universe, install puny specs of life on one planet, and now watches with indifference from the sidelines while we suffer.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
EP: Everyone wondering about The Supreme Being when I am right here to talk to.
Ay whassup, God? Big plans for the weekend? Making wine at parties and knockin up virgins I suspect? Unless you're too busy spitting in blind guys' eyes, cursing unlucky trees, and sending pigs to their death...
-
Knowsnothing
Hey SBC, I agree with what you're saying about god. What does it for me is parasites and predation.
However, if god existed and there was definitive proof, then I would just have to admit it, even if I didn't particularly like the answer.
Also, since we are throwing speculative theories out the, which can't be proven, god is just as good a theory, IMO.
Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. 