You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Centrality of Pascalís Wager to Christian Apologetics [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:38 AM
Original message
The Centrality of Pascalís Wager to Christian Apologetics
Advertisements [?]
Most serious apologists avoid the Pascalís Wager argument for Christianity. My argument here, however, is that this isnít because Pascalís Wager doesnít accurately describe their arguments. Iím arguing that the wager is the essence of their arguments. They avoid it because it clarifies them, and because that clarification exposes their arguments to well deserved ridicule.
First, Iíll assume everyone knows what the wager is, so I wonít repeat it again here. But I will need to establish the premises of the argument, and then establish that those same premises are present, either explicitly or implicitly, in virtually every argument for the Christian deity (and, most likely, for the other similar deities.)

Premise 1: Generally, you can choose whether or not to believe in things. Specifically, you can choose whether to believe in a particular god. There are several versions of this among mainstream Christian dogma. Calvinists can excuse themselves from this one, for reasons obvious to anyone know knows anything about their theological position. Among the rest, some readily embrace the idea that you choose whether or not to believe in their god (and/or believe in the right sort of way such that you voluntary accept, and thereby accrue the beneficial effects of Jesusís sacrifice. Some try to hide this, because it isnít entirely clear whether itís consistent with a ďgraceĒ idea, in that you arenít able to take credit for any act that leads to your salvation. If they arenít Calvinists, however, they typically must still imagine you have the power to at least reject that salvation. That is, Jesus gets all the credit if you believe in him, but if you fail to believe in him itís your fault, such that you are able to merit your reward or punishment based on an act you can take. I reject that difference on the simple basis that there is no practical or logical difference between failure to reject and active acceptance. The essence of non-Calvinist mainstream Christianity, from The Fall to The Final Judgement, is that you have a choice, and so you own the consequences of that choice.
Premise 2: Belief, or unbelief have consequences. Specifically, there will be some sort of differential outcome for believers and unbelievers in a presumed afterlife. I donít think I need to bother arguing about how this is central to mainstream Christian dogma. If you disagree with this premise, then you donít ascribe to mainstream Christian dogma, and this particular series of arguments doesnít apply to you. Yes, of course itís possible to believe in a god that doesnít reward or punish or both based on faith in its existence. That just doesnít describe any sort of god believed in by the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians. So, if that describes you, then you can join the Calvinists over in the ďthis doesnít apply to youĒ corner. Thing is, itís not all about you. This argument is about Christianity. And the judgment of the quick and the dead is central to Christianity.
Premise 3: The Christian god is more likely than all other gods, such that the significant belief choice is to either believe in him, or to fail to believe in him. This one may not be as obvious in some Christian apologetics, but that doesnít mean it isnít there. In fact, itís central to nearly all of it. To establish this, I need something like a list of the main arguments in Christian apologetics, to show how this premise is implicit in most, if not all of them. But before I get there, Iím going to show that these three premises, by themselves, are sufficient to establish the validity of Pascalís wager.

Explicit Pascalís wager, simple version: The proposition (god exists, or not. premise 3), the wager (choosing whether or not to believe. premise 1), and the payout (differential reward/punishment. premise 2).

Longer version: The Christian god, or something sufficiently like him to be called ďthe Christian god,Ē is either real, or is not. Gods that are sufficiently different from this one, such that belief in them doesnít count as belief in the Christian god, are likewise sufficiently unlikely to exist. Under these conditions, the most pertinent question about the deity is whether or not it exists, rather than which one it is. (premise 3). This god will reward or punish you in some way based on whether or not you choose to believe in its existence. That voluntary belief or unbelief may not be sufficient to achieve the reward or punishment, but it is necessary, or at the very least contributory (premises 1 and 2).

So, about the implicit necessity of premise 3 in Christian apologetics, that the Christian god is the only important possibility. Here follows a list of the main apologist arguments for god, with some commentary. Iíd like to see someone make a convincing argument that premise 3 is not, in fact, implicit in most or all of these.

1: Cosmological argument (first cause). This argument attempts to establish that the universe itself, along with everything in it, has a cause, and in order to avoid infinite regress, we must establish something that is different from the universe in that it is able to cause things without itself being caused by anything. Even if one accepts this argument, it only establishes that there must be an uncaused cause. In order for this to be an argument for the Christian god, there must be two further (and huge!) steps. First, that something like a god is the best proposition for the nature of this uncaused cause. Second, that the Christian god is the most likely god. Whenever a Christian argues this argument in favor of her actual belief, those two steps are implicit. And that means that they implicitly accept premise 3, that the Christian god is the most likely god. If they donít, then they arenít arguing for their god. In fact, they arenít arguing for a god at all, theyíre arguing for a ďcause.Ē The rest is typically assumed implicitly.

2: Teleological argument (argument from design). This argument argues that a god is the most likely explanation for apparent complexity/order/etc. In order for this to be a Christian argument, premise 3 is implicit.

3: Ontological argument (logical necessity). This argument tries to establish that there is such thing as a greatest possible being, and if you accept that there could be such a thing then it must, by its nature, exist. Implicitly, the Christian god is the that most perfect possible being. Premise 3. Without it, itís not a Christian argument. When a Christian makes this argument, theyíre arguing that they believe in the Christian god because they believe in the necessary existence of a perfect being. Premise 3 is implicit, and unavoidable.

4: All the rest. Anthropic? Just a special case of the teleological. Check. Objective morality? Same thing. Check. Transcendental argument? Same problem. Check. Will to believe/argument from personal consequences (William James, etc.)? This one gets a pass. But this argument is actually empirical, and fails for lots of other reasons. Not least that the initial hypothesis for the empirical argument proceedes from an almost certain acceptance of premise 3. Still, at least itís not strictly necessary for the argument, so Iíll give this one a pass. Sort of.

Jamesís argument, along with all the other attempted empirical arguments (personal religious experience, i.e. the argument from (my) authority), historical (a.k.a. the argument that the bible says something true, therefore it all is), attempts at eyewitness/historical, etc. and all the rest of the empirical arguments get the same sort of pass. But only in the sense that they arenít necessarily accepting premise 3. But practically? Christian apologists arguing about the wonders of the witnesses to Christís miracles, his resurrection, the motivations of the martyrs, their personal religious experience etc. are implicitly rejecting the likelihood of the witnesses, miracles, martyrs and experiences for all other religions. Practically then, virtually all of them still rely on premise 3, in that they assume, but almost never try to actually establish, that their dubious empirical arguments are sufficiently better than those for any other god.

So, yes. Pascal's Wager fails on many fronts. Unfortunately for the Christian arguments, virtually all of them fail for exactly the same reasons. Those aren't the only ways they fail, of course. Those failures aren't necessary to reject nearly all Christian apologetics out of hand. But they're sufficient to do exactly that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC