Pascal’s Wager And The 2008 Election
And why the American bishops need to apply the same logic
Anyone remember Blaise Pascal? He was the French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher who used reason and mathematics to prove the existence of God. For Pascal, God either exists or does not exist.
This is what's better known as Pascal's Wager. One must bet on one or the other. This wager is unavoidable. Simply ignoring it carries the same consequence as betting that God does not exist.
~ If I wager for and God is -- infinite gain (Salvation).
~ If I wager for and God is not -- no loss, but gain (Due to living a virtuous life).
~ If I wager against and God is -- infinite loss (Damnation).
~ If I wager against and God is not -- neither loss nor gain (no hell, but a meaningless life). Now we're treated to this bit of obvious from the Washington Post; (Emphasis mine)
Religion's Big and Unprecedented Role in '08 Politics
The unprecedented and extraordinary prominence of religion in the 2008 election was easily the year's top religion story. Both parties battled hard for religious voters, and both were forced to distance themselves from outspoken clergy whose fiery rhetoric threatened to become a political liability.
In the end, the top prize went to Obama, the son of a Muslim-born father and an atheist mother, who spent much of the campaign fighting off persistent -- and untrue -- rumors that he was a closet Muslim. His party, after years of consistently losing churchgoers to Republicans, decisively won Catholics, Jews and black Protestants, and made small but significant inroads among some evangelicals.
Obama and Biden faced strong opposition from Catholic leaders over their support of abortion rights. One American cardinal, James Stafford, called Obama's election "apocalyptic,"... And in droves, Catholics ignored their shepherds. And what's even worse, in the case of most bishops, there was nothing but cowardly silence. Or even more despicable, pathetic attempts at verbal gymnastics as to why they weren't staunchly defending Church Teachings.
But now it's time for Caveman's Wager - either the USCCB is effective/needed or not.
~ If I wager that the USCCB is effective/needed and they actually are -- I win.
~ If I wager that the USCCB is effective/needed and they actually are not -- I lose.
~ If I wager against the USCCB being effective/needed and they actually are -- I lose.
~ If I wager against the USCCB being effective/needed and they actually are not -- I win. Keep in mind, since the founding of the USCCB in 1966, the fidelity of American Catholics has plummeted (click here for "The Incredible Shrinking Catholic Church"), the majority of members of the USCCB protected rapists, and not one single pro-abortion "Catholic" politician has been excommunicated to date.
Face it, laying money in favor of the USCCB is a sucker's bet. Care to bet on it?
And why the American bishops need to apply the same logic
Anyone remember Blaise Pascal? He was the French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher who used reason and mathematics to prove the existence of God. For Pascal, God either exists or does not exist.
This is what's better known as Pascal's Wager. One must bet on one or the other. This wager is unavoidable. Simply ignoring it carries the same consequence as betting that God does not exist.
~ If I wager for and God is not -- no loss, but gain (Due to living a virtuous life).
~ If I wager against and God is -- infinite loss (Damnation).
~ If I wager against and God is not -- neither loss nor gain (no hell, but a meaningless life).
The unprecedented and extraordinary prominence of religion in the 2008 election was easily the year's top religion story. Both parties battled hard for religious voters, and both were forced to distance themselves from outspoken clergy whose fiery rhetoric threatened to become a political liability.
In the end, the top prize went to Obama, the son of a Muslim-born father and an atheist mother, who spent much of the campaign fighting off persistent -- and untrue -- rumors that he was a closet Muslim. His party, after years of consistently losing churchgoers to Republicans, decisively won Catholics, Jews and black Protestants, and made small but significant inroads among some evangelicals.
Obama and Biden faced strong opposition from Catholic leaders over their support of abortion rights. One American cardinal, James Stafford, called Obama's election "apocalyptic,"...
But now it's time for Caveman's Wager - either the USCCB is effective/needed or not.
~ If I wager that the USCCB is effective/needed and they actually are not -- I lose.
~ If I wager against the USCCB being effective/needed and they actually are -- I lose.
~ If I wager against the USCCB being effective/needed and they actually are not -- I win.
Face it, laying money in favor of the USCCB is a sucker's bet. Care to bet on it?
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
6:36 AM
7 Comments:
Well the good news is that INSPITE of the USCCB's best efforts the Catholic Church seems to be in an ever so slight upswing.
I know from here on out I'll be doing my part.
ARE YOU? ;-)
I do try, LF! *evil grin*
Stupid little Simplex Vir did not know or realize that the USCCB was begun in 1966. Enough said, not much good came out of anything organized in and around that time.
I should have known!
Not willing to wager for the USCCB, but is willing to wager that one or more Bishops' will "secede" in a few years.
The 1st predecessor of the USCCB was formed in 1917 as the National Catholic War Council (NCWC), formed to enable U.S. Catholics to contribute funds for the spiritual care of Catholic servicemen during World War I. In 1919 they organized the National Catholic Welfare Council & formed the Administrative Committee of seven members to manage daily affairs between plenary meetings. Then things ran well, & orthodox.
Now they have over 300 people screwing things up.
If we go back to 7 people maybe it will once again be effective. Or at least not do as much damage.
I don't think my take on the USCCB is fit to print, not even in a cave. They are at least as useless as the US Congress, and probably more damaging in the long run. I know I would rather lose my investments than heaven.
That said, they really have zero power until the faithful give their assent to their "teachings." We need to educate folk on the wrongs wrought by these parasites. I'm quite sure B16 knows the situation, and we can trust he has our best interests at heart, but we need to be the shock troops on the ground, so to speak.
Ladies, get out your veils. Men, wear your suits and pack your rosaries at all times. You know the rest. ;)
TCN, despite their delusions to the contrarym, what they say does not automaticly require assent, unless approved specificly by the Vatican, something Rome has made clear & they have ignored.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home