Topic: Pascal's REAL Wager (Read 2104 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** March 08, 2006, 08:57:13 AM »

Pascal's Wager has come up a number of times in a really inaccurate way. I've been too lazy to do anything about it. Actually, I'm still too lazy. The key to understanding Pascal's Wager is reading it for yourself, preferably in the context of the whole work (the Penses). In search of the actual text, I found this comment:

"I think there are serious problems with the main page. There's almost no attempt to outline the wager as Pascal presents it, and some of the refutations seem to be written about an abbreviated and inaccurate version of the wager."

and

"Beyond that, I think very few people think that Pascal intended for the Wager to be separated from the wider context of the Penses. This means that we should mention something about it's context."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pascals_wager

Well said.

I could not find the whole text of the 'wager' so I'll manually type it in later on if I have to.

Here are the key features of the wager that are often ignored or forgotten:

1. Pascal isn't even trying to make a syllogistic mathematical argument.

"Let us now speak according to natural lights."

2. Pascal assumes the person has arrived at a position where the evidence is such that there is EQUAL chance, and so no justification for EITHER CLAIM.

"A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up."

3. Pascal is operating within the Christian context.

#3 is important. Complaints that you don't know 'which God' fall, because #2 has the assumption that you are in a position where the evidence has already led you to the place you are- neither claim is enough to push you. So, since #2 means you've boiled yourself down to two equal possibilities, it only follows that the wager can only be used once you've got it narrowed down to equal possibilities.

Another flaw in most conceptions is in emphasizing the wager odds rather than the the reward 'odds.' The wager only works where 'heads or tails will turn up.'

The wager odds is 50%. Its the reward that is off the wall. Pascal has spent some 233 Penses building up to the part where he thinks one ought to believe in God in Christ.

So, to put his wager in modern day terms, let's imagine you have a card game. A nice, simple card game like 'War,' perhaps ( http://www.pagat.com/war/war.html ) The rules of this card game is that you must bet. Let's say, the wager amount is $1.00

There are two cards left over, and you know from the way the game has gone that one is the winner and one is the loser (no ties). You have no way of knowing which one is the highest card (#2). On the left is a reward for $100,000 and on the right is a reward of $1.00.

You've only got $1 to bet, a 50/50 chance of being right, but the reward for one choice is $100,000 and the reward for the other is only $1.00

If you would not place your $1 bet on the one with a $100,000 reward under these circumstances, you'd be an idiot. If you are as such, I should like to play cards with you.

So, now the atheist might say that this isn't really the circumstance. FINE, but Pascal isn't talking about any other circumstance, though. If you happened to fit in the above circumstance, his 'natural light' argument might have merit. If you don't fit in that circumstance, it doesn't apply to you.

If you've got a handful of cards and the probabilities are all jumbled up and you haven't sorted it out down to equal probabilities, then you aren't talking about his wager. And if you do think you are talking about his wager, I think you must not understand even coin flipping.

That is another good way of looking at it.

Given:
You must bet your $1
There are equal odds for both heads or tails.
The reward for heads is $100,000
The reward for tails is $1

What will YOU call?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2006, 11:06:10 AM »

I found it online, and slapped it onto my server. Here you go:

http://www.sntjohnny.com/original_texts/pascals_wager233.htm

Cogito · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2006, 12:49:43 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Given:
You must bet your $1
There are equal odds for both heads or tails.
The reward for heads is $100,000
The reward for tails is $1

What will YOU call?

That's a real toughie.

You know, when you put Pascal's Wager in these terms it makes Pascal's genius almost tangible, doesn't it?

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2006, 04:26:10 PM »

Thanks for the references, sntjohnny. Here is my take on the issues you raised.

Quote from: sntjohnny

Pascal's Wager has come up a number of times in a really inaccurate way...In search of the actual text, I found this comment:

"I think there are serious problems with the main page. There's almost no attempt to outline the wager as Pascal presents it, and some of the refutations seem to be written about an abbreviated and inaccurate version of the wager...Beyond that, I think very few people think that Pascal intended for the Wager to be separated from the wider context of the Penses. This means that we should mention something about it's context."

That comment was just the first on a commentary page for the Wikipedia article. It is worth quoting the rejoinder that immediately followed:

Quote

But the term "Pascal's wager" refers to the idea, not just to Pascal's particular use of it. It's a term of art, like "Epiminedes paradox". The source of the name is interesting and should be mentioned, but that is merely one aspect of the idea, and there are other aspects of the idea that should be covered as well, whether or not Pascal originated or was even aware of them. Hence the reference to Hinuism, etc. Perhaps the comment could be better worded, for example: In addition to the false dichotomy problem, many arguments along these lines also fail because they totally ignore the costs of belief or actions required to reach the reward; Pascal himself understood this, and argued that the costs of belief during one's life were more than balanced by benefits apart from the final reward.

Quote from: sntjohnny

Here are the key features of the wager that are often ignored or forgotten:

1. Pascal isn't even trying to make a syllogistic mathematical argument.

Indeed, he even advocated rejecting the benefits of rejecting reason at one point. I thought the entire passage rather impassioned but disorganized ramble (well--"Pensees") from someone who was clearly troubled by the arguments of a hypothetical "happy agnostic". But you yourself have tried to reduce his argument to a kind of syllogism, so I don't see Pascal's critics as doing anything wrong by their efforts to clarify the argument. The question is whether or not they've created a straw man. Generally speaking, I think not.

Quote

2. Pascal assumes the person has arrived at a position where the evidence is such that there is EQUAL chance, and so no justification for EITHER CLAIM.

"A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up."

Yes, he does, and he clearly believed that this reflected the reality confronting a real nonbeliever in his era. Let's not forget that he was constructing a polemic. So it is legitimate to attack that premise as being too narrow for his intended purpose--to convince a skeptic to want to believe in his deity.

Quote

3. Pascal is operating within the Christian context.

#3 is important. Complaints that you don't know 'which God' fall, because #2 has the assumption that you are in a position where the evidence has already led you to the place you are- neither claim is enough to push you. So, since #2 means you've boiled yourself down to two equal possibilities, it only follows that the wager can only be used once you've got it narrowed down to equal possibilities.

I disagree. Pascal is addressing the nonbeliever, who is not operating in a Christian context. It is legitimate to attack his polemic on the grounds that it ignores non-Christian religions. This vitiates his claim that atheists and agnostics are facing anything like the "wager" that he offers up in order to convince them to buy his argument. To say that the argument must be limited to the "Christian context" is to engage in pure presuppositionalism.

Quote

Another flaw in most conceptions is in emphasizing the wager odds rather than the the reward 'odds.' The wager only works where 'heads or tails will turn up.'

The wager odds is 50%. Its the reward that is off the wall. Pascal has spent some 233 Penses building up to the part where he thinks one ought to believe in God in Christ.

He does call it a "wager", and he has gotten the "50%" odds wrong from the perspective of a nonbeliever. The reward is also miscalculated, since he completely discounts the wasted time and sacrifice devoting one's only existence to the worship of a nonexistent being. He ends up talking himself into the belief that there is only one god at issue--false from the nonbeliever's perspective--and that there is no penalty for false belief itself--a question that he does not try to examine. Pascal's critics are entirely correct to point out that there are some huge flaws in his reasoning.

Quote

Given:
You must bet your $1
There are equal odds for both heads or tails.
The reward for heads is $100,000
The reward for tails is $1

What will YOU call?

This is probably a fair analogy for what Pascal believed. It is the premises that his critics have gone after. The Wikipedia article does an excellent job of bringing those out, and the lone critic of the article that you cite doesn't really address the reasonableness of attacking Pascal's argument. All he does is say that the paraphrases don't always match up literally with what Pascal said. What he needed to do was show that Pascal's actual argument had been unfairly or unreasonably paraphrased. He did not do that.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2006, 05:27:52 PM »

"That comment was just the first on a commentary page for the Wikipedia article. It is worth quoting the rejoinder that immediately followed"

But I disagree with the rejoinder. To me, that is just a sloppy way to get around from dealing with the man's real argument. In other contexts we call that creating a strawman. If one wanted to deal with the 'idea,' it seems to me to be wise first to grasp the 'idea.' If another person comes later and elaborates on it, don't continue to call it "Pascal's Wager," but call it "Jimbob's Elaboration of Pascal's Wager."

"Indeed, he even advocated rejecting the benefits of rejecting reason at one point."

Historical context would help on that. Luther called reason Satan's whore, I think. There were philosophers out there who thought you could derive 'God' based on logic and reason alone. I know that with Luther this is what he was referencing. I'd have to do a full study of Pascal to know for sure.

"The question is whether or not they've created a straw man. Generally speaking, I think not."

Well, that depends. If you are attacking Pascal and his particular formulation, then yea, these things are strawmen. If you are attacking some nebulous 'idea,' than perhaps not. But that is changing the terms of the argument: Its no longer PASCAL'S wager, but someone else's thoughts on it.

"So it is legitimate to attack that premise as being too narrow for his intended purpose--to convince a skeptic to want to believe in his deity."

But that is separate from the validity of the argument. The argument, according to the terms he described, is valid. You may never think that the situation is such that there is a 50/50 chance- that doesn't make his argument invalid, it just means it won't apply to you.

"I disagree. Pascal is addressing the nonbeliever, who is not operating in a Christian context."

In the 1600s he would have been.

"It is legitimate to attack his polemic on the grounds that it ignores non-Christian religions."

Quote

Given:
You must bet your $1
There are equal odds for both heads or tails.
The reward for heads is $100,000
The reward for tails is $1

What will YOU call?

"This is probably a fair analogy for what Pascal believed. It is the premises that his critics have gone after."

I think this pretty well covers all your other objections. If you think I've fairly analogized Pascal here you've pretty well made my point. He makes his argument based on these premises. If you are in a position where those premises fit, then the wager holds. If you aren't, it doesn't. Its really as simple as that. The most common area of abuse is in regards to the 'equal odds.' If you don't think the situation is 50/50, the wager isn't speaking to you.

If anything, the argument is best directed towards the agnostic, isn't it?

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2006, 10:35:56 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

But I disagree with the rejoinder...

That's your prerogative. I agreed with it. There is nothing in Pascal's original formulation that was significantly different from later refinements by his defenders.

Quote

Historical context would help on that. Luther called reason Satan's whore, I think. There were philosophers out there who thought you could derive 'God' based on logic and reason alone. I know that with Luther this is what he was referencing. I'd have to do a full study of Pascal to know for sure.

You might start with the fact that Pascal's Roman Catholicism might have made him just a little wary of Luther's religious opinions.

Quote

"So it is legitimate to attack that premise as being too narrow for his intended purpose--to convince a skeptic to want to believe in his deity."

But that is separate from the validity of the argument. The argument, according to the terms he described, is valid. You may never think that the situation is such that there is a 50/50 chance- that doesn't make his argument invalid, it just means it won't apply to you.

The problem is that you ignore the context in which Pascal was writing. He was writing his polemic for atheists and agnostics, who rejected belief in all gods. In his time (as indeed now), there were plenty of religious people in the world who accepted the existence of gods but disbelieved in Pascal's Christian god. You insist on a false dichotomy--that it comes down to belief or disbelief in a Christian god. In fact, during Pascal's time, people were aware of other religions, especially including islam.

Quote

"I disagree. Pascal is addressing the nonbeliever, who is not operating in a Christian context."

In the 1600s he would have been.

Not true. In the 1600s, Christians were well aware of the existence of Jews and Muslims, not to mention Hinduism, Buddhism, and various other religions.

Quote

"This is probably a fair analogy for what Pascal believed. It is the premises that his critics have gone after."

I think this pretty well covers all your other objections. If you think I've fairly analogized Pascal here you've pretty well made my point. He makes his argument based on these premises. If you are in a position where those premises fit, then the wager holds. If you aren't, it doesn't. Its really as simple as that. The most common area of abuse is in regards to the 'equal odds.' If you don't think the situation is 50/50, the wager isn't speaking to you.

I have bolded the part of my reply that you ignored.

Quote

If anything, the argument is best directed towards the agnostic, isn't it?

It would seem so, except that Pascal did use the word "atheist".

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:43:09 AM »

"There is nothing in Pascal's original formulation that was significantly different from later refinements by his defenders."

That is inconsistent with your statement that I have anologized Pascal's argument well. There are some obvious differences in later refinements. I might note game theory, which is one reason why I pointed out that he is not laying out a syllogism. Its, as you said, a polemic, and there were 232 pensees leading up to this argument.

"You might start with the fact that Pascal's Roman Catholicism might have made him just a little wary of Luther's religious opinions."

Uh, I don't think you understood me. 'Reason' was a catch phrase for a route to God apart from revelation. Luther used the term similarly. It is my hunch Pascal did as well.

"Not true. In the 1600s, Christians were well aware of the existence of Jews and Muslims, not to mention Hinduism, Buddhism, and various other religions."

There wasn't a time when Christians weren't aware of rivals, as is clear by any cursory reading of Christian history. However, the point is that Pascal was speaking within a certain context with the expectation of people from his own culture engaging him. It is a cheap shot to say, "Well, he didn't include the buddhists!" if only because its not relevant. If you would have asked Pascal "What about Allah?" he would have stared at you in dumb disbelief and said, "Well, if you don't think you can narrow down things to TWO EQUAL POSSIBILITIES I'm NOT TALKING TO YOU, AM I?"

"I have bolded the part of my reply that you ignored."

I didn't ignore it. It was the bolded part I was responding to. Its pretty cut and dried: Its silly to go after the man's argument. The man's argument is valid. If you don't accept the premises, move along, he's not talking to you. If there have been Christians who have suggested Pascal's Wager to people who did not accept those premises, they acted in error. Its not for use unless you've got someone in front of you who has BOILED THINGS DOWN ALREADY TO TWO EQUAL CHANCE POSSIBILITIES.

So its positively daft to go after the man on the premies. Someone might say, "I don't agree with this premise" and Pascal would say "Great, my argument doesn't apply to you."

"It would seem so, except that Pascal did use the word "atheist"."

"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

That's how d--ned stupid Pascal is. He didn't use a word that hadn't even been invented yet in making his argument.

So, I submit to you again, he really seems to be speaking toward the agnostic, doesn't he?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2006, 07:45:28 AM »

I hate it when I have to censor myself. :)

Stathei · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2006, 12:44:31 PM »

Quote

You may never think that the situation is such that there is a 50/50 chance- that doesn't make his argument invalid, it just means it won't apply to you.

To me, it's more like doing the lottery than tossing a coin. I don't do the lottery.

Ragnar · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2006, 12:58:47 PM »

who would win in a fight, pascal or russell?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2006, 01:44:12 PM »

Chuck Norris.

Copernicus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:24:12 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"There is nothing in Pascal's original formulation that was significantly different from later refinements by his defenders."

That is inconsistent with your statement that I have anologized Pascal's argument well. There are some obvious differences in later refinements. I might note game theory, which is one reason why I pointed out that he is not laying out a syllogism. Its, as you said, a polemic, and there were 232 pensees leading up to this argument.

Your analogy had a syllogistic format because you, like Pascal's critics, have felt it necessary to clarify his rambling prose. The problem I've tried to point out to you (with little or no success) is that the criticisms have focused almost entirely on his premises, not the logic of the metaphorical "wager". If you cook the books in order to make a sum come out in your favor, then it is proper for people to point out that you have cooked the books.

Quote

"You might start with the fact that Pascal's Roman Catholicism might have made him just a little wary of Luther's religious opinions."

Uh, I don't think you understood me. 'Reason' was a catch phrase for a route to God apart from revelation. Luther used the term similarly. It is my hunch Pascal did as well.

So what are you saying? That the Roman Catholic Pascal was a secret admirer of Luther? It's a good thing that his king didn't get wind of that. French Catholics were not exactly expounding the virtues of Christian love to their Huguenot compatriots at the time.

Quote

There wasn't a time when Christians weren't aware of rivals, as is clear by any cursory reading of Christian history. However, the point is that Pascal was speaking within a certain context with the expectation of people from his own culture engaging him. It is a cheap shot to say, "Well, he didn't include the buddhists!" if only because its not relevant. If you would have asked Pascal "What about Allah?" he would have stared at you in dumb disbelief and said, "Well, if you don't think you can narrow down things to TWO EQUAL POSSIBILITIES I'm NOT TALKING TO YOU, AM I?"

I wasn't really talking about Buddhists, but Muslims, who were very much on the mind of Europeans in that era. Pascal did not address rival religions, but he was certainly aware of them. He may have wished to avoid reference to the competition, but his critics quite legitimately brought this point up from the very beginning. The argument could be made by any religious group. Hence, there is not "50%" chance.

Pascal intended his argument to apply to the real world, but he steadfastly ignored actual conditions in that real world. This tunnel vision made it easy to reduce his argument to absurdity, and his contemporaries saw this immediately. It was just that Christians of his era were even more accustomed to use threats of eternal d--nation and torture against those who rejected their nonsense than they are in the modern era. So the argument form was popular among Christians, and it still has its supporters today. However, the enthusiasm for Pascal's fuzzy-headed logic has waned considerably in modern times.

Quote

...If you don't accept the premises, move along, he's not talking to you. If there have been Christians who have suggested Pascal's Wager to people who did not accept those premises, they acted in error. Its not for use unless you've got someone in front of you who has BOILED THINGS DOWN ALREADY TO TWO EQUAL CHANCE POSSIBILITIES.

Sntjohnny, you can't ignore the fact that Pascal was making his argument to people who lacked faith in his god. He actually thought that his premises should be accepted. It was and is perfectly legitimate for those he was addressing to reject weak premises and to explain why they were weak. You just can't stand the fact that the criticisms were right on target. Nobody cares about valid arguments that are based on unsound premises, and Pascal clearly thought his argument to be sound (when he wasn't railing against reason and logic, that is

).

Quote

So its positively daft to go after the man on the premies. Someone might say, "I don't agree with this premise" and Pascal would say "Great, my argument doesn't apply to you."

There is absolutely nothing in the Pensees to support your view that Pascal was only interested in winning debate points. His premises were defended passionately, and he clearly expected them to be accepted. Premises are a legitimate target in any real world argument.

Quote

"It would seem so, except that Pascal did use the word "atheist"."

"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

That's how d-mn-d stupid Pascal is. He didn't use a word that hadn't even been invented yet in making his argument.

So, I submit to you again, he really seems to be speaking toward the agnostic, doesn't he?

Well, we can clear up this confusion on your part immediately. The word "agnostic" was coined by Huxley in the 19th century--long after Pascal had died and gone to his heavenly reward (or not

). The term "atheist" (French atheiste) came from Greek via Latin and always existed in the French language. It was borrowed into English from French, with the earliest English reference being 1568, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines the word as "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God". That almost certainly was Pascal's concept of the people he was addressing. (Really, sntjohnny, do you want to argue etymology with a linguist?

)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2006, 02:53:32 PM »

"Your analogy had a syllogistic format because you, like Pascal's critics, have felt it necessary to clarify his rambling prose."

You didn't disagree with my representation of his argument. It is not all that difficult to discern if you sit down and read it without imposing one's own views on it. That is why I always direct people to primary sources when possible.

"If you cook the books in order to make a sum come out in your favor, then it is proper for people to point out that you have cooked the books."

As I have repeatedly explained to you, he's got 232 thoughts that lead up to this point, and he is speaking to a unique case. Its the hypothetical person who has been challenged up to this point and does not have a proper reply. He's been in the kitchen for quite awhile at this point, and it is not honest to pretend he hasn't.

"So what are you saying? That the Roman Catholic Pascal was a secret admirer of Luther."

Not at all. What I would like to say now would not be decent, so I'm moving on.

"Sntjohnny, you can't ignore the fact that Pascal was making his argument to people who lacked faith in his god."

It doesn't matter. You can beat up on a strawman all day long, but the text is in front of you. You've already conceded that I represented his argument well. You can't argue with what you think the man said or meant, you can only go with what he actually did say.

"He actually thought that his premises should be accepted."

After 232 other Pensees.

You've descended into absurdity. You're fighting me on what you've already conceded. The argument is valid if you accept the premises. That some people aren't in a position to accept those premises isn't exactly brain surgery or a very insightful point on your part.

Quote

Quote:
"It would seem so, except that Pascal did use the word "atheist"."

"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

That's how d-mn-d stupid Pascal is. He didn't use a word that hadn't even been invented yet in making his argument.

So, I submit to you again, he really seems to be speaking toward the agnostic, doesn't he?

Well, we can clear up this confusion on your part immediately. The word "agnostic" was coined by Huxley in the 19th century--long after Pascal had died and gone to his heavenly reward (or not ). The term "atheist" (French atheiste) came from Greek via Latin and always existed in the French language. It was borrowed into English from French, with the earliest English reference being 1568, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED defines the word as "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God". That almost certainly was Pascal's concept of the people he was addressing. (Really, sntjohnny, do you want to argue etymology with a linguist? )

I can't read the above passage I quoted without concluding...[edited] I'm hoping that you just didn't read it carefully. I'm begging you- literally pleading with you- to look at what I said and then what YOU said, and see if you can make out what my point was and why your own response was completely incongruent with it. You are straining my faith in humanity, and I didn't even have that much to begin with.

Copernicus · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:38:41 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

You didn't disagree with my representation of his argument. It is not all that difficult to discern if you sit down and read it without imposing one's own views on it. That is why I always direct people to primary sources when possible.

I have disagreed with your representation of his argument, not the analogy. You construe the argument too narrowly--as directed only at people who reject belief in the Christian god. However, the argument was directed at atheists--nonbelievers in any god. It was not directed at Muslims and other followers of religious heresies.

Quote

"If you cook the books in order to make a sum come out in your favor, then it is proper for people to point out that you have cooked the books."

As I have repeatedly explained to you, he's got 232 thoughts that lead up to this point, and he is speaking to a unique case. Its the hypothetical person who has been challenged up to this point and does not have a proper reply. He's been in the kitchen for quite awhile at this point, and it is not honest to pretend he hasn't.

This is mere handwaving. You have not shown that those 232 "pensees" make any difference at all to the discussion. Argumentum ad nauseam.

Quote

"Sntjohnny, you can't ignore the fact that Pascal was making his argument to people who lacked faith in his god."

It doesn't matter. You can beat up on a strawman all day long, but the text is in front of you. You've already conceded that I represented his argument well. You can't argue with what you think the man said or meant, you can only go with what he actually did say.

No, I conceded that your analogy was apt but irrelevant. I have vigorously disagreed with your analysis of his argument. Instead of repeating the mantra that I have "conceded" your argument, you should actually address the points where I do not agree with you.

Quote

I can't read the above passage I quoted without concluding...[edited] I'm hoping that you just didn't read it carefully. I'm begging you- literally pleading with you- to look at what I said and then what YOU said, and see if you can make out what my point was and why your own response was completely incongruent with it. You are straining my faith in humanity, and I didn't even have that much to begin with.

Here's an even better alternative. YOU reread what I said and actually address the points where I disagreed with you. Pascal addressed his remarks to a class of intellectual atheists that existed in Europe during a period when there were serious questions about religious faith. His argument was rambling but fairly clarified and restated by those who came to debate it later. The context in which the "wager" was discussed in no way invalidates the criticisms of his premises. If you think that they do, then state clearly and precisely where you think they do. In other words, stop waving your hands at the "232 thoughts" and construct a coherent argument to defend your claim that Pascal's Wager has been misrepresented. The discrepancies between Pascal's actual words and the later versions of his argument are not sufficient to sustain your argument.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:51:30 PM »

"You construe the argument too narrowly--as directed only at people who reject belief in the Christian god."

I construed it as Pascal construed it, which is I think the man of integrity ought to do.

"This is mere handwaving. You have not shown that those 232 "pensees" make any difference at all to the discussion."

You are welcome to read them on your own. However, if you think it is honest of you to form an opinion on a man's argument plucked regardless of the context, that's you I guess.

"No, I conceded that your analogy was apt but irrelevant. I have vigorously disagreed with your analysis of his argument."

I have not analyzed it. I merely presented it. The problem is that this presentation is inconsistent with the presentation others should like to have of it, ignorant that the actual wager was itself much more narrowly constrained.

"Here's an even better alternative. YOU reread what I said and actually address the points where I disagreed with you."

You're really trying my patience. If you didn't notice, you only cited what I already said. For you to raise it as your own point is ludicrous. What you deserve from me are heaps of insults. As the term 'agnostic' wasn't invented for a long while after Pascal wrote, it only makes plain common sense that he would not have used the word.

"Pascal addressed his remarks to a class of intellectual atheists that existed in Europe during a period when there were serious questions about religious faith."

And the word commonly used was atheist, not agnostic, because it had not been coined yet. You're the linguist, you ought to know the implications of that.

And since it had not been coined yet, when I ask if Pascal is actually addressing himself to someone who is an agnostic, it can't be held against him that he didn't use it. In fact, when you read the context, especially of the wager itself, he seems to be describing someone who is an agnostic.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2006, 03:59:47 PM »

Cop, who said this? Was it me or you?

Quote

"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2006, 04:54:34 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Cop, who said this? Was it me or you?

Quote
"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

You quoted this passage out of context from the Wikipedia article. The antecedent of the expression "the term" was 'agnosticism' not 'atheism'. the way you presented it suggested to me that you thought both 'atheist' and 'agnostic' were later terms for Pascal, who explicity addressed his argument to the "atheist" of his time. I have to confess that I have very little idea why you raised the atheist/agnostic issue at all in this thread. It seems entirely irrelevant to how we should construe Pascal's argument. He was speaking to unbelievers in general. Would you care to clarify what point you intend to make with the atheist/agnostic distinction?

As for your other comments, you seem to be stuck on the "232 pensees" track, which does nothing to suport the claim in the OP. I don't like your constant attempts to question my intellectual honesty, but you don't seem able to control that aspect of your argument style. It is an ad hominem tactic that contributes nothing at all to the discussion. If you've got nothing new to add, then we can move on to other issues. You still haven't addressed the specifics of my argument, but I didn't really expect you to engage me at that level.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2006, 05:10:05 PM »

"You quoted this passage out of context from the Wikipedia article."

I did no such thing. Here is what I quoted:

"The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion."

Here is what you responded with:

"The word "agnostic" was coined by Huxley in the 19th century--long after Pascal had died and gone to his heavenly reward (or not )."

The content of these statements are nearly identical and the part you added was MY POINT.

You totally condescended to me even though you were completely in error. I think my reaction was just right for such a scenario. Why not just admit that you blundered? Why still try to pin it off on me... "out of context" ? Whatever, man, whatever.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2006, 05:44:51 PM »

Dang it. I have to censor myself again.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2006, 05:45:25 PM »

Strike that, I guess I can't. It has too many legitimate uses.

Author Topic: Pascal's REAL Wager (Read 2104 times)

Stathei