philechat

Another problem would be that what humans decide to call "the greatest good" may actually contradict what the God (even if omnibenevolent) to hold as His greatest good. More than say which God must one choose, only this God has the criterion of good and evil, which humans can only guess at. The "holy books" of different religions obviously command different and even contradictory sets of morality, and therefore we cannot decide which action is good to the god or what not.

As for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Who is to decide these attributes to a god if not a human? But, based on the tendency to error in human beings, how can we trust their aspirations to perfection? God may call himself omnibenevolent, but how could he decide that he indeed is omnibenevolent? Is self-judgment of goodness possible without subjectivity?

Keith Russell

Phile:

Even if an objective good were established, what is demonstrably, objectively 'good' for such a 'God' as you describe, might NOT be the same as that which is objectively 'good' for human beings.

Keith.

philechat

Hi Keith:

Objective good means good regardless of perspective. There is no such thing as an objective good with respect to a given perspective (whether God or men).

Neilium

Considering when Pascal was alive (mid 17th century), I think his argument does hinge on a single god, namely capital-G-God. His association with the Jansenists and his letters mocking the lax codes of the Jesuit confessors says to me Pascal wasn't too open-minded on such matters. The Jansenists argued exhaustively on nature of grace and original sin and fought a brutal decades-long war of words with church authorities as a result. In that light, the idea of a universal God that appeared as Jehovah to some and as a pantheon of gods to others would probably been thought of as lunacy by Pascal.

Also, if you factor in an omnibenevolent God, that changes the bet. If your god is omnibenevolent, the wager doesn't matter. Heaven is yours if you ask for it or not.

As far as the intent of the wagerer, I'm going to go out on a limb here. All y'all let me know where I screw up. Here's my hunch on it: The Jansenists believed piety was only possible through grace, which was bestowed only on those chosen by God. If you have grace, the wager is a moot point. Your intentions are to lead a pious life, then what's to bet on? If your intentions are to get into heaven via a truth function table and a bit of sophistry, then maybe this bet's not a cinch after all. (I realize I've got some loose ends flapping in the breeze here, such is the game.)

The point is, you can place your bets either with intent or with the flip of a coin (heads - theist; tails - not) and the results will be the same.

I'm still convinced that Pascal never intended his wager to be the cornerstone of anyone's faith, or the central theme of anyone's proselytizing (sp?) To use it as such is, to me, missing the point. Pascal's own faith certainly didn't come from reason or a prudent choice based on a cost/benefit analysis.

Once again, have at it. Enjoying this thread very much.

-neil(ium)

gunkel

I don't think that any being is worthy of worship that wants to be worshipped or rewards anybody for worshipping it. One might decide to worship such a being (or to pretend to worship it) out of fear, but not out of respect. This whole concept of worship and praise seems to me a very human concept, and rather a primitive one, too.

stretch

Neil,

I think you're right there. I vaguely remember that the context in which things are worded in the Pensées is much different from the 'stylized' versions that we see today. The whole work is a quite a disjointed set of thoughts .... one of these days I'll go to the bookshelf and try to find the phrases actually used by Pascal ...

fwh

Pascal was a passionate truth seeker and an intellect of the highest order. To take "the wager " out of context-- like many of us do-- is like quoting Darwin out of context to make a point vs RMNS.

For example and I quote: Pensees 154

"Choices. Our life in the world must vary according to these different assumptions:
1. (if it is certain that we shall always be here)....
2. (if it is uncertain whether we shall always be here or not)
3. (if it is certain that we shall not always be here, but if we are sure of being here for a long time)....
4. if it is certain that we shall not be here for long, and uncertain whether we shall be here even one hour.
This last assumption is ours"

The Pensees were isolated notes that he had accumulated to one day write a cohesive philosophical/theological book. He died before that could be accomplished. I would urge anyone truly interested to read Pascal thoroughly before indicting his logic. He was a logician and mathematician of the highest order and due care should be taken of his logic.

FWIW I was never required to read Pascal during my undergraduate or graduate school life, nor was I ever encouraged do to so. It would have been a great contrast to Bertrand Russell, also an intellect of the highest order, for they had very similar minds but came to remarkably dissimilar conclusions!!

Sorry! I'm now officially off my soap box.

stretch

Hi fwh,

When I said that Pascal's Pensées are a disjointed set of thoughts, I didn't mean to imply anything about his intellect. They are a set of notes that were never reworked into a nice, clean polished package.


I was introduced to Pascal (and Leibniz for that matter) in terms of their mathematical contributions long before I delved into their philosophical writings. In terms of probability theory, there are some problematic points in terms of the wager, but heck, you can say that about a lot of problems in probability/statistics ....

ex-xian

I'm still working my way thru the above link, but I think the bit about which God to worship seems to be the best critique.

Neilium

I very much like that. thanks for reminding me of it.

-neil(ium)