The effect of presuppositions upon judgement

[GodPossessed]

Good stuff guys. I think this is helpful.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Goliath

TAG actually makes Pascal's Wager look like a carefully constructed logical argument.

Goliath, why do you think that Pascal's Wager isn't a carefully constructed logical argument?

Or perhaps a better starting point might be if I asked you to outline Pascal's Wager in your own words?

I ask only because my understanding of Pascal's Wager seems to be at variance with that of nearly everyone at who brings it up.

[Iacchus]

Eh, what can I say? I have dreams with lots of naked women in it. Too much analyzing will only mess it up.

[LadyShea]

Seven of Nine. In my understanding Pascal's Wager amounts to a believer in a religion with some form of eternal punishment saying:

If you're right and I am wrong, I cease to exist-oh well. If I'm right and you're wrong you will burn for eternity. So, isn't it better to believe just in case?

What's wrong with this argument, from my point of view is

1. Belief is not necessarily a conscious choice. It can't be turned on and off like a switch. "You're right. Poof I believe". It's just not that simple.

2. The Wager only works for one specific religion/deity. It fails to mention the possibility that the believer believes in the wrong things, and therefore may also suffer the eternal punishment of some other form of hell that they rejected.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

Eh, what can I say? I have dreams with lots of naked women in it. Too much analyzing will only mess it up.

um, Iacchus, is this a reply to my post or is it a general observation?

[Iacchus]

No, it is not. I had already typed it up and was getting ready to post before I noticed you had posted. But, the other one is forthcoming.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

I ask only because my understanding of Pascal's Wager seems to be at variance with that of nearly everyone at who brings it up.

What's that, that it entails behaving (as opposed to believing) like a Christian as well? Of course I haven't followed the argument that closely, but that's kind of what I thought it might entail, if Pascal was truly educated. If he was just looking for a ticket to get out of hell, thinking it was merely a matter of belief, then it's a pretty crappy argument.

If he was saying, "Where is the harm in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?" then I think it's a reasonable argument.

[GodPossessed]

I think Pascal's Wager has gotten a bad rap. If it was simply a facile appeal to utility for the better part of your worldview, I'd reject it out of hand. I think what the argument has to offer is the common sense assertion that the possible benefit vs. cost warrants considering the evidence for and against with due seriousness. At the end of the day it is nowhere near enough justification for belief but it offers a sober estimation of the question.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seven of Nine. In my understanding Pascal's Wager amount to a believer in religion with some form of eternal punishment saying:

If you're right and I am wrong, I cease to exist-oh well. If I'm right and you're wrong you will burn for eternity. So, isn't it better to just believe in case you're wrong?

What's wrong with this argument, from my point of view is

1. Belief is not necessarily a conscious choice. It can't be turned on and off like a switch. "You're right. Poof I believe". It's just not that simple.

2. The Wager only works for one specific religion/deity. It fails to mention the possibility that the believer believes in the wrong things, and therefore may also suffer the eternal punishment of some other deity than the one they accept.

Thank you, Lady Shea! I think you've helped me see at least part of the problem I've been having.
I've been wanting to ask someone here this question for years, but, because the subject have always inevitably come up during some horribly unpleasant religious debate, I've been loath to ask until now.

What you've so succinctly described isn't actually the argument Pascal himself made, at least not as I understood it from reading Pensees or from my philosophy professor's lecture on it.

First of all, Pascal never once mentions eternal punishment, nor is belief an appropriate starting point; instead action is. Let me see if I can state the basic wager (or gambit) clearly (and please, please let me know if I don't).

Because the existence of God can't be determined through reason, a person who "wagers" that God exists has everything to gain (a better life here, and, supposing God turns out to exist, infinite happiness after death) and nothing to lose because behaving as though one believes by living ones life by Christian principles (such as treating others as one would like to be treated by them, and giving to the needy, rather than making ones primary goal personal enrichment) is desirable and fulfilling in itself.

Pascal was, among many other things, a mathematician who pioneered some of the principles of probability theory and is considered by many to be the first existentialist, so as the section of Pensees comprising the 'Wager argument' increases in complexity, I lose the thread of it.

Now that it's too late, it's obvious that I should have read way more philosophy when I was younger and my intellect (such as it is) was at its sharpest.

[LadyShea]

What you've so succinctly described isn't actually the argument Pascal himself made

What I posted is usually the way the argument is presented by modern-day believers-in my experience at least.

So, when you see people discussing it, it is probably in response to this type of presentation, not the original.

because behaving as though one believes by living ones life by Christian principles (such as treating others as one would like to be treated by them, and giving to the needy, rather than making ones primary goal personal enrichment) is desirable and fulfilling in itself.

I don't see that in Pascal's actual writing though.

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. This is one point settled. But your happiness? 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. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

This is plainly saying that you should wager that God exists...on belief.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is plainly saying that you should wager that God exists...on belief.

One of the snags with Pascal's Wager is that, unlike most arguments for belief, it doesn't refer to the probability of it being truthful.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

What's that, that it entails behaving (as opposed to believing) like a Christian as well?

Exactly.

Of course I haven't followed the argument that closely, but that's kind of what I thought it might entail, if Pascal was truly educated.

Yes, he was, plus he was apparently possessed of a prodigious intellect.

If he was just looking for a ticket to get out of hell, thinking it was merely a matter of belief, then it's a pretty crappy argument.

I agree completely.

If he was saying, "Where is the harm in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?" then I think it's a reasonable argument.

Yes, he appears to me to have been saying that nothing but good can come from behaving in a compassionate manner. It's a wager that can't be lost.

Insofar as I can follow it, right or wrong, the argument seems like a clever one to me. More important, I could see that my non-believing philosophy professor took real pleasure in laying it out for us and she was way, way smart. So very smart!

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What I posted is usually the way the argument is presented by modern-day believers-in my experience at least.

So, when you see people discussing it, it is probably in response to this type of presentation, not the original.

That's what I inferred from reading your post and that was the source of my confusion all along. Thanks again for your patient assistance.

because behaving as though one believes by living ones life by Christian principles (such as treating others as one would like to be treated by them, and giving to the needy, rather than making ones primary goal personal enrichment) is desirable and fulfilling in itself.

I don't see that in Pascal's actual writing though.

This is plainly saying that you should wager that God exists...on belief.

I don't think he's speaking of belief in the sense that the "modern-day believers" who troll proselytizing use it. It seems to me that he's purposely employing a gambling analogy because of the element of chance he saw as intrinsic because he didn't think we could know know if God existed or not. By today's standards, wouldn't that make him an agnostic?

He seems to me to be speaking of something less of faith and more akin to What's His Name's Law (sorry)
"The race isn't always to the fleet or the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."
than the fervent sort of belief that our believer-trolls profess and maintain we can (and must) have to be 'saved'.

Also, I don't own a copy of Pensees and I'm in no shape to pour over it again, anyhow, but Pascal is widely quoted as saying stuff like this:

"If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature
it would reveal Him without ambiguity."

Lady Shea, I'm uncertain as to in what sense you're using the word 'belief', but that sure isn't belief/faith as defined by our friendly neighborhood believer-trolls.
Not only that, but, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Pascal skated right on the thin edge of heresy more than once. They didn't go so far as to attempt to permanently suppress any of his writings (the French people apparently really loved reading Pascal for his elegant style, if nothing else, making suppression futile), but they did shut down the Catholic sect to which his sister belonged.

[LadyShea]

Lady Shea, I'm uncertain as to in what sense you're using the word 'belief'

I am trying to use it in a common, practical way. I will try to define my use of it though.

Belief is accepting the truth/existence of something without actual knowledge of it.

For example, I have no actual knowledge of life on other planets, but I believe life exists elsewhere in the Universe.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

Goliath, why do you think that Pascal's Wager isn't a carefully constructed logical argument?

Because it fails to take into account the possibility that more than one god exists (that's one of many reasons why Pascal's Wager fails).

Or perhaps a better starting point might be if I asked you to outline Pascal's Wager in your own words?

Sure. It basically goes like this: if God doesn't exist, then there is no afterlife, and hence it is irrelevant whether or not one believes that God exists. However, if God exists, then it is much better to believe in him (and end up in heaven) than not (and end up in hell). Therefore, it's best to place one's bet on God's existence, and hence to believe in God.

I ask only because my understanding of Pascal's Wager seems to be at variance with that of nearly everyone at who brings it up.

You don't actually think that Pascal's Wager is a sound argument, do you?!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

...it is nowhere near enough justification for belief but it offers a sober estimation of the question.

I wasn't aware that a "belief" in the "faith" sense required justification. What would be the point? But that aside what estimation does the wager offer? Sober or otherwise? The supernatural in general is pretty much a wild speculation.

I have always thought that the term wager was a misnomer. It is better described as a kind of insurance policy. Perhaps more like a credit default swap.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Seven of Nine

"If I saw no signs..."

That's a good quote. Pretty much sums up my state when I was 16, and trying to find the surety that so many in my community claimed to have.

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to put it in the quote generator.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Kael

That's a good quote. Pretty much sums up my state when I was 16, and trying to find the surety that so many in my community claimed to have.

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to put it in the quote generator.

That's what I've seen in philosophy called "no see 'ums"

Here's a couple of examples of the kind of common sense processing of evidence that we seem to be discussing:

1.
"There is no milk in the fridge."
"How do you know?"
"I opened the door and looked."
Given the relatively small area inside the fridge and the relatively large size of a carton of milk this seems a reasonable conclusion. (notwithstanding the fact that my wife can find something in there that I swear wasn't there when I looked)

2.
"There is no caterpillar on the bush across the field."
"How do you know?"
"I opened the window and looked."
Given the relatively long distance across the field and the relatively small size of a caterpillar this is not as conclusive as example #1. In addition to the normal resolution of the human eye there is the possibility of camoflage with the insect or the fact that it might be on the other side of the bush.

When we invoke "no see 'ums" we need to evaluate what the conditions of observation process are.

thoughts?

[Sock Puppet]

My thought is that you didn't get past the snipped portion of the quote. Pascal was saying that he sees signs that point both to and away from a Creator, and it is the ambiguity that disturbs him.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

My thought is that you didn't get past the snipped portion of the quote. Pascal was saying that he sees signs that point both to and away from a Creator, and it is the ambiguity that disturbs him.

Yeah, you're right - but the larger point I was making critiques his conclusion as well. (I have great sympathy, however, for his quandary.)

[Sock Puppet]

Which conclusion? I see the statement as more of a poignant complaint than any sort of argument.

[GodPossessed]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Which conclusion? I see the statement as more of a poignant complaint than any sort of argument.

It is obviously a poignant complaint. It's emotional content doesn't vitiate the fact that it is also his conclusion about natural theology.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Goliath

You don't actually think that Pascal's Wager is a sound argument, do you?!

Logically sound, or practically sound? Logically I would give a qualified 'yes'. At least, it doesn't commit any glaring fallacies I'm aware of, aside from the fact that it discusses and 'wagers' only on the possibility of the God of the Christian bible being real, and not other gods or interpretations of god(s). Practically? Personally, I think he was being a little bit facetious, poking a little fun at those constantly striving to convince everyone that there is irrefutable proof of god.

Originally Posted by GodPossessed

It is obviously a poignant complaint. It's emotional content doesn't vitiate the fact that it is also his conclusion about natural theology.

I'm not reading a conclusion about theology in the quote either, natural or otherwise. Quite the opposite, he seems to me to be lamenting the lack of a conclusion. Or are you saying that answering the question of gods existance with 'inconclusive' is a conclusion?

Anyway, as to "no see 'ums", it is certainly a valid point. I just don't see how it applies to the question of a god. Since we're obviously not going to actually see god, one must look for signs of god, which opens the door to a great deal of interpretation. Many people see the apparent order and harmony of the universe as a sign of god, but to me an ordered universe requires no divine guidance. Creation is debatable, of course, but once started (whatever way that was), such a universe will do what it does all on its own.

Thus, order to the cosmos is not, to me, evidence of the divine. Coming back to Pascal's quote, there is precious little evidence supporting the reality of the god of the bible, and a great deal against. As for the existance of a god in general, such as espoused by deism, those that wish to see evidence for one will find it, while those that do not will not. There is so much room for personal interpretation and desire that I don't see how anyone approaching it with even an attempt at objectivity can reach any decision other than 'inconclusive'. Thus my lamentation matches Pascal's, that if such a god exists he might reveal himself without ambiguity.

I'm much more resigned to said ambiguity these days, and think it unlikely (to the point that it does not bear serious consideration) that such a god ever will reveal himself. So, it is very much akin to my lamentation that I do not have superpowers or the like. I've learned to live with it.

[Seven of Nine]

Originally Posted by Kael

That's a good quote. Pretty much sums up my state when I was 16, and trying to find the surety that so many in my community claimed to have.

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to put it in the quote generator.

It's from Blaise Pascal's Pensées

Here's the complete text from which it was taken:

Originally Posted by Pensées #229

This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied;
wherefore I have a hundred time wished that if a God maintains nature,
she should testify to Him unequivocally, and that, if the signs she gives are deceptive, she should suppress them altogether; that she should say everything or nothing, that I might see which cause I ought to follow. Whereas in my present state, ignorant of what I am or of what I ought to do, I know neither my condition nor my duty. My heart inclines wholly to know where is the true good, in order to follow it; nothing would be too dear to me for eternity.

I envy those whom I see living in the faith with such carelessness, and
who make such a bad use of a gift of which it seems to me I would make
such a different use.

I first came across it when reading Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sorry it took me so long to verify it and then get back to you. I've been ill, and probably shouldn't be back posting yet.

[Kael]

Thanks, and hope you get feeling better soon.

I think I'll use your first paraphrasing, it's much more quote-friendly, though the full text is interesting.