At 05:15 PM 12/3/00 -0600, Chris wrote:
>>Pascal's point was that we *are* all wagering that we are right, against
>>*all* other religions and philosophies, whether we realise it or not:
>>
>> "Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already
>> committed. Which will you choose then? ... You would have to
>> play (since you must necessarily play) ..." (Pascal B., "Pensees,"
>> Penguin, 1966, p.123)
>
>Chris
>If one is already committed, then there is no room for choice. The choice,
>if any, has already been made. Thus, saying ,"Which will you choose then?"
>becomes rather silly, because it assumes that one is *not* committed.
>Pascal should make up his mind.
When he says a person is already committed he means
committed to wager.
Chris:==
>Further, though it's true that in a very narrow sense we may all be said
>to be "betting" that we are right, this is really only meaningful if
>"live" alternatives are in fact available. Christianity is too full of
>nonsense to be a meaningful alternative to many of us. In such a case.
>Besides, a God who would have us try to brainwash ourselves into believing
>in him would be too stupid to blow his own nose without help.
>
>Thus, in another sense, no wager at all is involved, or, indeed, even
>possible. We believe what we believe, for whatever reasons we believe it,
>whether they are good or bad. We cannot *believe* on the basis of a
>betting situation. If I thought there was a significant chance that the
>Christian God existed, and that the rewards of *betting* on him were
>sufficient, etc., and *if* there was some way to bet on him, I might do
>so. But that would not change the cognitive basis of my belief, and it
>would not enable me to *believe* in him. The best I could do would be to
>try to hypnotize myself into believing in him, or something of that sort.
>But, until I succeeded, I would not be believing in him. I might be either
>*pretending* to believe in him or simply worrying that he might exist and
>I might lose out because I was not lucky enough to be *stupid* enough to
>fail to see the flaws in the arguments for his existence, etc., but I
>would not be actually believing in him until the hypnosis or brainwashing
>actually took sufficient effect.
You make some good points above. Interestingly enough,
Pascal would have agreed with a lot of what you say. Its
a real shame that the wager is so often interpreted without
consideration of consistency with the rest of the Pensees.
Let me just outline here a few thoughts (pun intended) from
other parts of the Pensees which might help in interpreting
the wager. I'll give a few quotes along the way, all are from
the A J Krailsheimer translation published as a Penguin
Classic in 1966. The best translation, BTW. To avoid getting
too choppy, I'll put the longer quotes at the end and refer to
them as quote #1 etc.
Also, I would like to encourage anyone who has not already
done so to read this great work. I have read it 4 or 5 times
myself and never tire of it. I read parts of it again this afternoon
as I was giving my Dynamics final.
First, Pascal believed that (a) philosophical arguments or "proofs"
of the existence of God were ineffectual at best and detrimental
at worst, (b) God is not clearly revealed in nature and (c) reason
alone is insufficient for finding God.
Here are a few short quotes dealing with these points. Lengthier
quotes on this are in quote #'s 1-4 below.
"There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and
enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition."
-- Pascal, Pensees
"We have an incapacity for proving anything which no amount of
dogmatism can overcome. We have an idea of truth which no
amount of skepticism can overcome." -- Pascal, Pensees
"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."
-- Pascal, Pensees
Sorry about the length and number of quotes. I wanted to
clearly establish that these ideas are central to Pascal's
thought. See quotes 5 and 6 for Pascal's thoughts as to
why God should be partially hidden.
One of the motivations for the wager is to counter a natural
reaction of some skeptics to these points. Given this lack
of clarity isn't agnosticism the best course?
But the wager is not the only example where Pascal
makes an appeal to the indifferent. One finds all through
the Pensees an attempt to (a) get those who are
indifferent to seek God, (b) help those who are seeking
to find God and (c) encourage believers to a deeper faith.
This brings me finally to your points above, to what is
probably the most serious criticism of the wager. Indeed
I have seen many Christians criticize the wager for this
reason, namely, that it trivializes genuine faith. Can a
person really find God by a process analogous to a
gambler picking horses in a race? Do we serve God
purely for selfish reasons? Can we force ourselves to
believe simply because we feel this is in our best
interest?
I have to say at this point that this interpretation of the
wager never occurred to me until I read it elsewhere.
This is why I said context is so important. This interpretation
is out of keeping with Pascal's conversion experience,
his life afterward and what he wrote in the Pensees.
I could give so many examples. Look for example at
the last part of quote #4. Clearly from this Pascal does
not consider intellectual belief in God to be sufficient
for conversion. But the best quote I could find along these
lines is the following:
"That is why those to whom God has given religious
faith by moving their hearts are very fortunate,
and feel quite legitimately convinced, but to
those who do not have it we can only give such
faith through reasoning, until God gives it by
moving their heart, without which faith is only
human and useless for salvation." -- Pascal, Pensees
From this I think we may gain the best insight into
what Pascal was trying to do with the wager. Pascal
believes that true conversion is a gift given by God
to those who genuinely seek. He knows that nothing
he can do or say will convert someone. He might,
however, at least encourage them to seek,
not as an end in itself but as a beginning.
===quotes===============================
[1]====
This is what I see and what troubles me. I look around
in every direction and all I see is darkness. Nature
has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt
and anxiety. If I saw no sign there of a Divinity I
should decide on a negative solution: if I saw signs of
a Creator everywhere I should peacefully settle down in
the faith. But, seeing too much to deny and not enough
to affirm, I am in a pitiful state, where I have wished
a hundred times over that, if there is a God supporting
nature, she should unequivocally proclaim him, and that,
if the signs in nature are deceptive, they should he
completely erased; that nature should say all or nothing
so that I could see what course I ought to follow. Instead
of that, in the state in which I am, not knowing what I
am nor what I ought to do, I know neither my condition
nor my duty. My whole heart strains to know what the true
good is in order to pursue it: no price would be too high
to pay for eternity.
-- Pascal, Pensees
[2]======
"The metaphysical proofs for the existence of God
are so remote from human reasoning and so involved
that they make little impact, and, even if they did
help some people, it would only be for the moment
during which they watched the demonstration, because
an hour later they would be afraid they had made a
mistake."
-- Pascal <Pensees>
[3]========
I marvel at the audacity with which some people presume to
speak of God. In giving their evidence to unbelievers,
usually their first chapter is to prove the existence of
God from the works of nature. [...] If such an argument
were to be presented to them, no wonder they would react
and say that the proofs of our religion are feeble indeed,
and reason and expedience tell me that nothing is more
likely to bring it into contempt in their sight.
-- Pascal <Pensees>
[4]=========
And that is why I shall not undertake here to prove by
reasons from nature either the existence of God, or the
Trinity or the immortality of the soul, or anything of
that kind: not just because I should not feel confident
to find in nature arguments which would convince hardened
atheists, but also because such knowledge, without Christ,
is useless and sterile. Even if someone were convinced that
the proportions between numbers are immaterial, eternal truths,
depending on a first truth in which they subsist, called God,
I should not consider that he had made much progress towards
his salvation. [ ... ]
All those who seek God apart from Christ, and who go no further
than nature, either find no light to satisfy them or come to
devise a means of knowing and serving God without a mediator,
thus falling into either atheism or deism, two things almost
equally abhorrent to Christianity. -- Pascal, <Pensees>
[5]======
If there were no obscurity man would not feel his corruption:
if there were no light man could not hope for a cure. Thus it
is not only right but useful for us that God should be partly
concealed and partly revealed, since it is equally dangerous
for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness as
to know his wretchedness without knowing God.
-- Pascal, Pensees
[6]=======
God wishes to move the will rather than the mind. Perfect clarity
would help the mind and harm the will.
-- Pascal, Pensees
[...]
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 08 2000 - 17:13:08 EST