Sort of. I never actually read Pascal and therefore don't know the context and tone of his original quote. However, I always got the sense that Pascal's wager involved an implicit fear of divine punishment for unbelief. The reason I don't name-drop Pascal when I say what I said is because fear of punishment doesn't enter into it for me. It's purely a matter of personal motivation. Unlike some people who are fans of Pascal's wager, I have no problem with the atheist's [counter]wager. I can't imagine a loving God being much offended, or an omniscient God having trouble understanding, someone who chooses not to believe. As a matter of fact, I think these two wagers are compatible, and add up to the sensible position that it's up to us each individually to decide what worldview is most consistent with what we know and live.
Its pretty straightforward actually. He argues that God either exists or doesn't and that reason alone cannot defend either of these propositions. Therefore you have to wager either way. To put it more in context here are some more quotes by him.
This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet.
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either.
There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason.
There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.
We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others.
It is not certain that everything is uncertain.
Personally I wouldn't take Pascals wager being that I think its kind of self deceiving in that you are quite possibly convincing yourself to believe in something you are not quite sure of.
Not necessarily. I'm willing to entertain a higher power that has us as an integral part of his plan. But again, our whole concept of 'take an interest' comes entirely from our interpersonal experience. It's quite possible that God's way of taking an interest, or the sort of interest he takes, doesn't closely resemble the ways in which people show an interest in each other, nor the motivations for doing so.
Its hard for me to agree with you on this being that so much of existence and all that has existed is wasted. Again the fact that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on this planet have been wiped out points out to me meaninglessness and eventual nothingness. Seeing a ultimate plan or goal in all that death and destruction is all but impossible for me. I can't possibly see a divine plan in which the holocaust or Rwanda were essential to this Gods goals. I can't see the need to have people like Jack the Ripper and Jeffery Dahmer or the Zodiac killer. I just can't resign myself into believing that there is an ultimate purpose to mankind and that all its infinite goods and ills are somehow in furtherance of some unknowable goal/plan. You can sum all this up to our imperfect understanding of God but to me if God does indeed have a plan or goal then he's a sadistic little kid looking on an ant hill occasionally stomping on us poor ants just to see what happens and just because he can. Either that or he's some kind of scientist/observer who created all this just to see how it all plays out in the end.
However if we simply see God as nature then IMO we can avoid the above two options. We can see God and everything else that exists as simply existing. That all this is simply here to run its course and that we are here to observe and enjoy this sometimes beautiful existence while we can. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to me its more comforting to think that God doesn't have a plan. Because if he did then all the terrible things in life are also part of it and that terrifies and depresses me.
I find it intriguing how taken with transhumanism many of the New Atheists / Brights are. It's almost like it takes the place of an afterlife for them, in a similar way that evolutionary psychology often takes the place of creation myths.
Personally, I find rebirth or reincarnation of some sort pretty sensible.
I think transhumanism makes sense. It is a way of overcoming the limits of this world and empowers mankind to go beyond what nature has given us. (One day I hope sooner rather than later it will drive us to colonize the stars.) I think transhumanism is similar to the idea of being our own gods in that we hold the power to change the world and ourselves. Its far more comforting to have technology and empiricism IMO than it is to have faith in something admittedly unknowable and mysterious. Who knows maybe one day rebirth and reincarnation could be made physically possible through science and technology.
Good debating with you, dude. My angle in all this was to cut through the either-or, black-and-white thinking that tends to dominate this topic. Just because call something into question doesn't mean I intend to reject it, and just because I reject something doesn't mean I categorically reject all things remotely similar. I also intend to illustrate that to extend the rubric of scientific inquiry beyond what science is capable of assessing (i.e. metaphysics) is as much a value choice as choosing not to. It's a choice I understand and respect, so long as this understanding and respect is reciprocated. Because in the end, none of us really know what all of this is all about. We can only hope, speculate, and if we choose, pray.
I have also enjoyed debating this topic with you. I'm really glad our discussion so far has avoided being black and white as (as you said) it is so common with discussions of this type. Often times I find myself extremely frustrated arguing this topic with less respectful and less open minded individuals. It is refreshing to talk to someone who isn't dead set on believing one thing and saying to hell with everything else that doesn't agree with their particular worldview. For in the end what you say is true. We can never truly know beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or another. And it is so much better to agree to disagree and to discuss and argue our points amiably then it is to argue with our emotions rather than our reason.
And I say one can transcend drudgery far easier without meaninglessness, so why make it harder?
I guess my question was in the context of the Sisyphus myth in that his task was eternally meaningless. So IMO its better to find happiness in the meaningless and to be passionate about it. As I said earlier after the stone has rolled downed for the millionth time we have to be able to smile and say "I can't wait to get to the top again."
Last edited: