Pascal's Wager...
Our blogger friend jack* has a post titled "Pascal's wager" in which he sets up an argument that is just too damned complicated for my limited mental faculties to grasp in it's entirety.
It concerns the theories of a 17th Century French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, and the ways in which they relate to the Bush administration's rationales for such matters as waging war and ignoring global warming warnings are rooted in those theories and essentially pose the question "which is the greater danger"?
I urge you to go to jack*'s post if you want to dig further into the subject; it really is an interesting one. But be warned that it's going to require a large ration of your remaining time- for the day at least-and a reliable supply stream of mental stimulants if you expect to survive the exercise with your mental acuity in tact. 3 or 4 White Horses might do it. (*http://jackasterisk.typepad.com/j_a_c_k_/)
"Pascal's wager....."
Pascal argues that since reason cannot decide the matter we should look at the trade offs. Christianity (specifically Catholicism) offers eternal happiness for believers and eternal misery for non-believers, while atheism offers only the satisfaction of being rational and free time on Sunday mornings. Since Christ promises a better payout, we should play His game. "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is," Pascal instructs us. "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is...."
jack*'s post brought to mind my encounter with a person who had essentially based his entire life on Pascal's wager although I didn't know what to call it at the time.
It's really not very pleasant to recall the incident since I was definitely committed to my questioning, probing, challenging "smartass" position concerning religion at the time.
One of the people I admired and respected greatly in my home town was a gentleman named Bob Herlong, a highly successful businessman and, as I learned that day, a committed Christian.
Everyone in our little luncheon group knew that Bob was dying of leukemia and only had a year or so to live. Everyone, that is, but me.
I'd never thought of Bob as sickly. He was energetic, almost effervescent, with a permanent smile and a quick grin. He was also highly intelligent and I guess this fact this had something to do with my little smart assed statement to him that day as he spoke quietly to me of his commitment to Christ.
I said something like, "Bob, you're an intelligent man, a lot smarter than me-how can you possibly believe some of the things you read in the Bible"? I had no idea that I might be undermining the faith of a dying man and it bothers me every time I think about it.
But I needn't have worried. Bob smiled and said "John we all have choices to make in life. And one of them is whether or not to believe in God and the personal redemption of Christ.
Whether I'm right or wrong, my belief has given me peace of mind and my life and my family's life have been the better for it.
It's going to be leukemia that kills me, John-not ulcers."
Were those the words the result of some kind of battlefield conversion in the face of death?
I found out later that Bob's father had been a Methodist minister and that Bob himself had been a leader in his own church for many years.
Almost as long as I'd been a smart ass...............
posted by bedrocktruth @ 5:20 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
"This doesn't make it any less valid for affluent Westerners. Suffering is relative. The disenfranchised don't have the monopoly on sorry or despair."
Thanks, LA. I've come to realize that the key is respect for others' beliefs whether you agree with them or not. I wouldn't want to undermine anyone's faith any more than I would want to try and convert an atheist.
Karl Marx's "religion is the opiate of the masses" statement is true of course. That's why Russia tried to get rid of it.
Merely a "coping mechanism"? Most of my Christian friends would disagree with that. But even if that were the case, faith beats drugs and other escape methods by a long way. The people I know who truly have that faith are not just "coping". They are a lot better adjusted psychologically and emotionally than the rest of us, mainly because they see life on earth as only temporary.
I offered a good example in Bob Herlong's life. There's no doubt in my mind that a person who truly has faith in Christ leads a richer, fuller life on earth regardless of economic circumstance.
just sticking in my five cents ...
LA says: "Pascal's Wager is an intellectual game and not to be taken literally. It discounts the very real benefit of peace of mind that believers receive."
i disagree that the theory discounts ... benefits. i see it as opening the door to examine the bases for choosing to believe or not believe. the wager doesn't make a value judgment about whether choice A is "better" than choice B, or vice versa.
i personally embrace philosophy, from whatever source, including religious, to guide my life and attempt to wrench some meaning from said life.
Bedrock says: "... a person who truly has faith in Christ leads a richer, fuller life ..."
i believe that this is a mistaken assumption and, if i may be so bold, dangerous. if Bob Herlong was not a "believer," he would have had his rich, full life (assuming, again, that he actually did) one way or another. i think perhaps you were feeling bad about kicking a dog when it was down, as it were, when you wrote that, which is certainly understandable -- we're all haunted by those uglier moments from the past.
the reason i take issue with the statement is that, imho, it reflects a value judgment about the ultimate "choice," to believe or not believe. it presumes that his life would not have been equally rich and full if he had not believed in god. it is that value judgment which is at the root of much of our current troubles -- people who do believe making a value judgment that those who don't are "evil" and people who don't making a value judgment that people who do are morons. obviously, neither of these positions is moral, much less honest.
i understand from further remarks of both LA and bedrock that ultimately you agree that, as bedrock so eloquently says, "the key is respect for others' beliefs whether you agree with them or not." bingo. that is indeed the key.
my bet is that those who find pascal's wager an amusing intellectual exercise probably don't "believe in god" and that most people who do, at the very least, reject pascal's wager as silly.
isn't it nice how that works out -- we all get a laugh! who zez ther's no god?
cheers,
karen.
Bedrock: "faith beats drugs and other escape methods by a long way." LA: "I dunno... Have you ever tried drugs?"
methinks bedrock has bought into the concept that the believers have something the rest of us don't -- don't believe it for a second. that belief is what makes your life seem less than full and rich. don't buy into that nonsense. your life feeling less than full and rich has nothing to do with lack of "faith." that is kool-aid drinking. embrace your life, try to forgive yourself for choices resulting in bad outcomes, try to give yourself credit for choices resulting in good outcomes, and -- here's where the religious philosophy is sometimes helpful -- remember that coveting your neighbor's perceived full, rich life is going to get you nowhere fast.
cocktail anyone?
Post a Comment
<< Home