Rebecca’s comment > Likes and Comments
2 likes · Like
Pascal´s wager seems to make the same assumption that both stories are equally valid and you should make a choice between which one you prefer. Then there is an argument about which one you SHOULD prefer, that´s the difference.
The problem most people have with Pascal´s Wager and the problem the two people questioning Pi had is that both stories do not seem equally valid.
I have heard a lot of people argue that there is a penalty for not believing in God, aside from the afterlife. Looking at the cold reality is considered an unhappy existence by a lot of people, and you could say that here about the other story.
I can probably simplify my point.
Pascal's wager is a wager. Its reasoning is based on the idea that there is a chance God exists and a chance that he doesn't. However, choosing to believe in God means "betting" a finite amount of hassle (following commandments, going to Church) against a potentially infinite reward/punishment (Heaven or Hell). It does not require there to be a 50% chance that God exists (though Pascal did seem to make that assumption).
The situation presented in Life of Pi is not a wager. Believing the happy story because it will make you happy does not require you to gamble on an outcome. You'll see the benefits of believing whether or not the story is true. With Pascal's wager, you would see the benefits only if God exists (but he the potential gains outweigh the cost).
Essentially, they are similar situations (though I don't recall Life of Pi favouring the happy story), but with a crucial difference.
Did you think that I did not understand you?
I already made the point that the Life of Pi didn't favor either story. I know that there are differences, but for me it is the same in all the important aspects, as I feel have already said.
I cannot continue this discussion
without repeating myself. I'm sorry I was not clear, thank you for sharing your perspective :)
Sorry--it's not that I thought you didn't understand so much as that I realised that I'd completely neglected the main issue. There's not much point considering the two in terms of whether or not there are penalties involved when, quite simply, one involves a wager and the other doesn't.
You really don't think it involves a wager? Heaven is not the only benefit that faith is supposed to have. If you prefer the story with the tiger you are picking a happier story. Okay there is no way to win or lose, but with one way you are choosing something you think will make you feel better just because you think it will make you feel better and make life nicer. It's instrumental, purposeful so to speak. Believing doesn't hurt and not believing might so you might as well.
Damon is right, you choose, but you don't gain or lose anything by choosing either story, so it's not a wager.
Ok, I should have said it is almost identical to Pascal's wager instead of saying it was the same thing.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Pascal´s wager seems to make the same assumption that both stories are equally valid and you should make a choice between which one you prefer. Then there is an argument about which one you SHOULD prefer, that´s the difference.The problem most people have with Pascal´s Wager and the problem the two people questioning Pi had is that both stories do not seem equally valid.
I have heard a lot of people argue that there is a penalty for not believing in God, aside from the afterlife. Looking at the cold reality is considered an unhappy existence by a lot of people, and you could say that here about the other story.
I can probably simplify my point.Pascal's wager is a wager. Its reasoning is based on the idea that there is a chance God exists and a chance that he doesn't. However, choosing to believe in God means "betting" a finite amount of hassle (following commandments, going to Church) against a potentially infinite reward/punishment (Heaven or Hell). It does not require there to be a 50% chance that God exists (though Pascal did seem to make that assumption).
The situation presented in Life of Pi is not a wager. Believing the happy story because it will make you happy does not require you to gamble on an outcome. You'll see the benefits of believing whether or not the story is true. With Pascal's wager, you would see the benefits only if God exists (but he the potential gains outweigh the cost).
Essentially, they are similar situations (though I don't recall Life of Pi favouring the happy story), but with a crucial difference.
Did you think that I did not understand you? I already made the point that the Life of Pi didn't favor either story. I know that there are differences, but for me it is the same in all the important aspects, as I feel have already said.
I cannot continue this discussion
without repeating myself. I'm sorry I was not clear, thank you for sharing your perspective :)
Sorry--it's not that I thought you didn't understand so much as that I realised that I'd completely neglected the main issue. There's not much point considering the two in terms of whether or not there are penalties involved when, quite simply, one involves a wager and the other doesn't.
You really don't think it involves a wager? Heaven is not the only benefit that faith is supposed to have. If you prefer the story with the tiger you are picking a happier story. Okay there is no way to win or lose, but with one way you are choosing something you think will make you feel better just because you think it will make you feel better and make life nicer. It's instrumental, purposeful so to speak. Believing doesn't hurt and not believing might so you might as well.
Damon is right, you choose, but you don't gain or lose anything by choosing either story, so it's not a wager.
Ok, I should have said it is almost identical to Pascal's wager instead of saying it was the same thing.
Even if Life of Pi was specifically/exclusively about religion (which I don't think is the case), it doesn't say this. It simply says that you can believe the happy but unlikely story, or the unhappy but plausible one, and it doesn't make a lot of difference either way. It can't possibly be Pascal's wager because there's no penalty for choosing the unhappy story.