A Return To Pascals Wager

[Collector1337]

Pascal's issue was how to minimise risk.

And? I'm not talking about "minimizing risk."

Have you read anything I've said in this thread?

No consequence if you die without believing if there is no god.

Correct. That's a neutral outcome.

Consequence if you die without believing and god exists.

Correct. That's the negative outcome.

What is the consequence?

Hell or something negative.

Why would there be consequences if god is not punitive?

"Consequences" for not believing, not for failing to adhere to a specific religion.

Why is this so hard for you?

[rachelbean]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

[Collector1337]

Can one choose to believe?

Why not? You choose to not believe.

One can certainly choose to adhere to religious tenets and such, but you are suggesting actually choosing to believe based on a philosophical argument that there may be something to gain.

Or to lose.

Can you do that? I doubt I could.

Why not?

[Collector1337]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

You must have gotten a bad grade in Philosophy 101, or most likely never took it at all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Can one choose to believe?

Why not? You choose to not believe.

One can certainly choose to adhere to religious tenets and such, but you are suggesting actually choosing to believe based on a philosophical argument that there may be something to gain.

Or to lose.

Can you do that? I doubt I could.

Why not?

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

[Cormac]

Pascal's issue was how to minimise risk.

And? I'm not talking about "minimizing risk."

Have you read anything I've said in this thread?

No consequence if you die without believing if there is no god.

Correct. That's a neutral outcome.

Consequence if you die without believing and god exists.

Correct. That's the negative outcome.

What is the consequence?

Hell or something negative.

Why would there be consequences if god is not punitive?

"Consequences" for not believing, not for failing to adhere to a specific religion.

Why is this so hard for you?

I never said anything about a specific religion.

But, if the consequence for not believing is some form of damnation, then the god involved is punitive.

[Collector1337]

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

"I simply don't"

If it's the sum of your entire life experience, then I wouldn't call it "simple." In fact, it's the opposite, then it's quite complicated.


Either way, bottom line, the answer to my question is "no" then?

[Collector1337]

I never said anything about a specific religion.

But, if the consequence for not believing is some form of damnation, then the god involved is punitive.

You're still not differentiating between being punished for not believing versus not modifying your behavior.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

"I simply don't"

If it's the sum of your entire life experience, then I wouldn't call it "simple." In fact, it's the opposite, then it's quite complicated.


Either way, bottom line, the answer to my question is "no" then?

It's simple in as much as it's a binary property - a flip/flop mental state. You either believe, or do not believe.

How one comes to that state is incredibly complex. But there was never any point in my life when I chose to either believe or not to believe - in god, or in anything. A single event may be the catalyst for the state flipping but there is no way to tell in advance if that might happen.

[Svartalf]

Can one choose to believe?

Why not? You choose to not believe.

One can certainly choose to adhere to religious tenets and such, but you are suggesting actually choosing to believe based on a philosophical argument that there may be something to gain.

Or to lose.

Can you do that? I doubt I could.

Why not?

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

From all the anecdotal evidence I've been exposed to, I'd say that belief or disbelief is indeed beyond choice, it's something that imposes itself on you, for whatever reason. Paul Claudel did not choose to believe, faith just descended on him, similarly, I didn't choose to disbelieve, there just came a day when I realized that chretinity was just too absurd for me to believe in that heap of absurdities piled on misunderstanding of the basic material.

[Cormac]

I never said anything about a specific religion.

But, if the consequence for not believing is some form of damnation, then the god involved is punitive.

You're still not differentiating between being punished for not believing versus not modifying your behavior.

The point about Pascal's Wager is fundamentally about the idea of eternal punishment for not believing. (He avoided the issue of all the things that one could believe). The risk he tries to manage through the disingenuous subterfuge that he proposes is the risk of eternal damnation for not believing.

If you're talking about something other than this, then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager. You may be talking about a variant on it, and I'll happily engage with that, if you set it out clearly.

In particular, I'd like to understand how eternal damnation is not indicative of a punitive god.

[Cormac]

I never said anything about a specific religion.

But, if the consequence for not believing is some form of damnation, then the god involved is punitive.

You're still not differentiating between being punished for not believing versus not modifying your behavior.

The point about Pascal's Wager is fundamentally about the idea of eternal punishment for not believing. (He avoided the issue of all the things that one could believe). The risk he tries to manage through the disingenuous subterfuge that he proposes is the risk of eternal damnation for not believing.

If you're talking about something other than this, then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager. You may be talking about a variant on it, and I'll happily engage with that, if you set it out clearly.

In particular, I'd like to understand how eternal damnation is not indicative of a punitive god.

Oh, and as for the distinction that damnation arises not for lack of belief, but for transgressive behaviour (which is NOT the subject per se of Pascal's Wager), it is still clear that the god in question is punitive.

That is beside the point though, because Pascal's Wager centres on how to avoid punishment for non-belief.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I never said anything about a specific religion.

But, if the consequence for not believing is some form of damnation, then the god involved is punitive.

You're still not differentiating between being punished for not believing versus not modifying your behavior.

The point about Pascal's Wager is fundamentally about the idea of eternal punishment for not believing. (He avoided the issue of all the things that one could believe). The risk he tries to manage through the disingenuous subterfuge that he proposes is the risk of eternal damnation for not believing.

If you're talking about something other than this, then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager. You may be talking about a variant on it, and I'll happily engage with that, if you set it out clearly.

In particular, I'd like to understand how eternal damnation is not indicative of a punitive god.

Oh, and as for the distinction that damnation arises not for lack of belief, but for transgressive behaviour (which is NOT the subject per se of Pascal's Wager), it is still clear that the god in question is punitive.

That is beside the point though, because Pascal's Wager centres on how to avoid punishment for non-belief.

Pascal himself acknowledged the problem of not being able to control ones belief. His solution (in his pensées, along with the wager) is that we should act as if we believe (following the precepts of the church in other words) and strive to attain belief that way!

[Svartalf]

Drop to your knees, pray and grovel. Pretend believing and soon you actually will. (Georges Brassens on Pascal's attitude)

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Drop to your knees, pray and grovel. Pretend believing and soon you actually will. (Georges Brassens on Pascal's attitude)

In a nutshell, yes. Although he actually recommends copying the actions of the pious that you may become pious too. So, rent boys and cocaine?