Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Pascal's wager
Message-ID: <722@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Dec-83 18:58:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.722
Posted: Thu Dec 29 18:58:39 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Dec-83 00:49:56 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 54

>>      (Dave Norris)
>>	Christianity, whether one accepts it or not, tells us that
>>	in the end we will all end up eternally blessed or forever
>>	damned in hell.  Now, these are serious consequences.  If
>>	any man thought that his life would not be affected IF SUCH
>>	A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN, he would have to be a fool.
>>	Non-Christians would agree with me, I think.

> (John Hobson)
> This sounds to me like a version of Pascal's wager, that one should
> have faith because, if God exists, one shall then be saved, whereas
> if God does not exist, one hasn't really lost anything.  (This
> always reminds me of the then Pope's comment on hearing of the
> death of Cardinal Richelieu:  "If there is a God, the Cardinal will
> have much to answer for.  If there is not a God, then he lived a
> successful life.)  The answer to this is that God knows our
> motivations, and is not going to be fooled.  Anyway, the operative
> statement here is "IF SUCH A PROPOSITION COULD BE PROVEN" to which
> the only real comment is "well, it can't".

(Me again)

I think not (poof! :-).  Pascal's wager is loosely based on the "you don't
have anything to lose" premise, whereas I was trying to point out that
such a proof should cause *some* change in a person.  You are correct in
pointing out the operative statement, in any case; although I have yet to
see a decent argument in reverse.  Russell tried it in his book "Why I am
not a Christian" (someone here recommended it), and didn't do too well
(here we have an unsupported statement that is sure to add more spice to
net.religion!  Any takers?).  My statements were not an attempt to provide
justification for the Christian faith; I was only trying to say that
acceptance of such a proposition would require action of some sort from a
reasonable person (refuting the "if I became a Christian, it wouldn't
change the way I do business" argument).

But I wanted to speak on Pascal's wager.  Some time ago, I was discussing
Christianity with a good friend of mine (witnessing, we call it), and
brought up the wager.  He quickly responded: "But that would be cheating,
Dave.  You are accepting God on your own terms, and only to suit your ends.
Christianity teaches a self-sacrificing love."  This is a loose quote, but
over time his remarks made a lot of sense.  Accepting the wager will
probably make you guilty of an intellectual acknowledgment of God, and at best
can only make you a carnal Christian.  The idea has some merit, and may (for
some) be a starting point for God, but I think that it is a very bad
approach; it is as if you are deciding whether or not God exists.  I do not 
think that one can be a Christian with the attitude "Well, if You don't exist,
I haven't lost anything, right?", because that implies that there is no
personal relationship between the "Christian" and God, and that God is an
impersonal being who lives "up in heaven" as opposed to the hearts of His
believers.  But John is correct; God is not deceived by externals. 

	-- David Norris
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david