#61260 - God's existence and Pascal's Wager

[wired]

https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/61260/

Let me start by saying I really love IW's answer, especially since it incorporates Pascal's Wager. I have been thinking about Pascal's Wager recently and I was trying to decide if it has any spiritual ramifications. I think Pascal's Wager is a good starting point and an okay ending point, but if individuals rely on it as the entire basis for their allegiance to any set of religious principles, they will miss out on the growth that comes from building a relationship with Deity and revelation.

Another thing I ought to point out is that despite my love of IW's answer, I think werf is answering the wrong question. The questioner's premise is, "We know there is no God," while Pascal's Wager's premise is, "We can't be absolutely sure that God exists or doesn't exist." If you know for certain there is no God (while unknowable, it's what the questioner premised) then Pascal's Wager is irrelevant.

For me to answer that question, I would have to know some other information. Am I the only one who knows God doesn't exist, or is there general knowledge that God doesn't exist? Is this information that has been promulgated from the beginning of time or is there a helicopter drop of information that is fully trustworthy? I think all of this matters because it would affect the institutions around me, primarily my family and friends. As much as I love truth, if I, and I alone, suddenly became totally aware of God's non-existence, I don't think I would leave the Church. (However, it would make me more prone to try to "change" things in the Church, then I already am.) My relationship with my wife is the single most important thing to me; I would fill perfectly fine ignoring that knowledge and continuing on as normal in order to have the best relationship possible with her.

[Marduk]

I disagree with your reading of the premise; it does not infer knowledge anywhere, it simply asks us to "imagine if there were no God."

That little equivocation aside, I disagree with Pascal. Humanity has everything to gain from increasing in truth, whatever that truth may be. I'm reminded of the insinuation that the majority of the populace need not know what the government does, as it is always working for "the greater good." That sort of suggestion is an obvious slap in the face. Truth builds on itself; as we gain any piece of knowledge it is used to further extrapolate knowledge. When we refuse to acknowledge any piece of knowledge that exists, we damn ourselves in that particular line of understanding, with far, far reaching effects.

[wired]

Marduk, you're right. I misread the question. My apologies to IW. I read and re-read the main paragraph a bunch of times, but failed to read the actual question. Critique accepted.

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm just going to say it: I think Pascal's Wager is lame. There isn't anything to fear in acting exactly as you believe. Non-theists are not doomed to immorality and despair due to their lack of answers, and I don't really think that morality is morality if one is just doing it in case there's a God and a heaven. I also agree with Marduk in that we really do have everything to gain in seeking truth, whatever it is.

[Dr. Smeed]

... [If] I suddenly became totally aware of God's non-existence, I don't think I would leave the Church. (However, it would make me more prone to try to "change" things in the Church, then I already am.) ...

What would be the point in trying to "change" things? Why would you care? Would you try to change the sacrament prayers to exclude God's name? Would you try to change the scriptures to excise testament to the existence of God? What would you change? Why not get out? This may be a facetious example, but if I suddenly grew to hate Weird Al's music (or, more along the lines of the discussion, if it were revealed to me that Weird Al didn't exist) I wouldn't try to change anything in the Weird Al fan club, I would be out of there!

What is the point in trying to change something you don't, or can't, believe in?

[Marduk]

In an attempt to reduce how caustic it is to its members.

This church, for good or for ill (depending on your vantage point) has a very defining characteristic on its members. In other words, it is one of the first attributes one may think of when identifying oneself, and tends to color almost all other aspects of life. If it were built on a farce, it would have a very damning and destructive influence over those who professed belief in it. But were it possible to make it less singular in its influence, one could dilute the effects it would have.

Which I think is all tangential to the larger point, that being that I find it disingenious and immoral to behave in a way incongruous with my beliefs.

[wired]

... [If] I suddenly became totally aware of God's non-existence, I don't think I would leave the Church. (However, it would make me more prone to try to "change" things in the Church, then I already am.) ...

What would be the point in trying to "change" things? Why would you care? Would you try to change the sacrament prayers to exclude God's name? Would you try to change the scriptures to excise testament to the existence of God? What would you change? Why not get out? This may be a facetious example, but if I suddenly grew to hate Weird Al's music (or, more along the lines of the discussion, if it were revealed to me that Weird Al didn't exist) I wouldn't try to change anything in the Weird Al fan club, I would be out of there!

What is the point in trying to change something you don't, or can't, believe in?

(Note: None of this should be read as a reflection of my current life. I have a strong belief in God and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a divinely inspired and led institution.)

The answer to most of your questions is related back to this: even if God doesn't exist, the Church participates in many worthwhile and laudable endeavors. I would continue to pay 10% tithing, I would continue to read the scriptures with my family, and, frankly, I would live a lie and continue to profess a belief in God. Why? Because if I am the only one who has absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist, I will not be able to convince very many people, and my absolute knowledge would only create tension with those I love most.

What would I try to change? I think I would actively work to change the Church's stance on homosexuality and DEFINITELY work for a 2-hour time block instead of 3. I half kid on the second part, only because I think that's a trivial matter. (Note this does reveal how I feel about treatment of homosexuals - I personally wish the Church's stance was never against homosexuality, but at the same time, I know that eternal marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.) How would I do this? Not through protests or rallies, but by being an active member of the Church who rationally tries to change people's opinions on a small scale with the hopes that it would cause a change "upward" in the Church. If I know there's no God, then I would presume the leaders of the Church were good-intentioned individuals with self-delusions. I would try to mold their perception of the world so that their delusions would be more in line with my own perception of right and wrong.

For the record, I think your Weird Al example is an apples to oranges comparison. It doesn't capture any of the nuisances about truth or the positive role the institution plays in its people's lives, despite its failings.

Does that make more sense?

[Tao]

... [If] I suddenly became totally aware of God's non-existence, I don't think I would leave the Church. (However, it would make me more prone to try to "change" things in the Church, then I already am.) ...

What would be the point in trying to "change" things? Why would you care?

...

What is the point in trying to change something you don't, or can't, believe in?

I agree with wired in that I'd be more likely to want to change things without leaving as well. If I knew there were no God, then the benefits I've experienced are tied entirely to the actions I've taken and the company I've kept, and I would like that to continue. That being said, knowing that there wasn't a divine head of the church would imply that it is run by man and my opinion may hold some weight at some point. I would feel entitled to stick to my own personal biases when they conflict with doctrine handed down the line, as I would know that it really is my opinions vs. theirs as opposed to the opinion of someone who knows very very little vs. the decree of an omniscient, omnipotent, caring being.

[Katya]

This church, for good or for ill (depending on your vantage point) has a very defining characteristic on its members. In other words, it is one of the first attributes one may think of when identifying oneself, and tends to color almost all other aspects of life.

In terms of how other people think of an individual, or in terms of how that individual defines him or herself? (Or both?)

[Marduk]

Both. Obviously, if true, it is the most important thing in the world, and while I think many who profess allegiance to this church and its gospel do so lackadaisically, there are many who do not. This is also something that is fairly obvious to the outside world, who even if they don't profess belief, can recognize the fervor with which the faithful do.

[Katya]

Both. Obviously, if true, it is the most important thing in the world, and while I think many who profess allegiance to this church and its gospel do so lackadaisically, there are many who do not. This is also something that is fairly obvious to the outside world, who even if they don't profess belief, can recognize the fervor with which the faithful do.

Hmm. If someone didn't consider being Mormon one of their "first attributes," would you assume that they are either lackadaisical (great word, btw) about their faith or that they don't really believe the gospel is true?

[Marduk]

Yes, absolutely. Or as a third possibility, they simply don't understand the gospel. If true, it is the greatest and most important thing in the world, and all other aspects of this world are just novelties in comparison. Incidentally, I self-identify as Christian before Mormon, but that's splitting hairs.

[Katya]

Interesting.

[Dragon Lady]

How many attributes do I get in my "first attributes" category?

[Marduk]

Only one. That's what makes it so hard.

[Dragon Lady]

So wait. You identify as a Christian before a Mormon, but yet Mormon is your first attribute, of which you only get one?

[krebscout]

one of the first