"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.
Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on evidence, with some amount of intuition. It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
One does not know whether God exists.
Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.
Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist.
Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God.
2006-07-21 14:02:04 · 9 answers · asked by You really_believe_that_shit? 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The thing that gets me is that if God is omniscient, then he'd know that you're hedging your bets. He'd know you were believing just as a means of insurance that you won't go to a hypothetical hell.
2006-07-21 14:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there is not a God, the atheist loses nothing.
If there is a loving and compassionate God, and a person does good works, simply because he knows that it is right, not because he is building points with the spirit upstairs then he will be accepted into heaven and receive the shock of his afterlife.
IMHO - God does not care what you do in temple, church or mosque or whether you ever set foot in any of them, it is what you do the other 99% of your life that matters.
2006-07-21 14:19:40 · answer #2 · answered by Ed M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why are you trying to argue yourself out of God's existence? Pascal's wager is still better than, "I don't believe in God because I don't see the evidence."
And really, there is only one God, the God of Jesus, who promises eternal hellfire if one does not follow. Q'uran threats with earthly pain, Buddhists rely on re-incarnation.
And I don't see the flaw in your third argument. Of course they are equally likely! That's the point of this whole wager! It's not trying to prove God's existence, but get you to choose that idea as the wisest one. That's why it's called "Pascal's wager" and not "Pascal's theorum."
2006-07-21 14:12:45 · answer #3 · answered by Chris K 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You don't know that religion has two things in common because you didn't read Divine Providence by Swedenborg.
Those are saved who believe in God and live rightly.
Yes - there is a common ground with religions!
2006-07-21 14:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok wow have you never heard of Occam's Razor? Stop trying to make things so darn complicated. Yeah there are some flaws to Pascal's Wager, but then again most philosophies and theories have at least one flaw. Stop trying to make things more complicated than they need to be and just accept the simplicity of Pascal's statement. That's kind of the point of faith.
2006-07-21 14:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by lemonlimeemt 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
And Tutor, what God do you believe in? The god of wisdom that makes you wise?
The god of arrogance that allows you to proclaim, 'there is no god?'
The god of self that makes you god?
Actually, it was Pascal who was wise. His logic is flawless. It is your 'logic' that is warped.
There is but one God, whatever we call Him. You either believe, or not. The choice is yours, God does not force us to believe in Him.
It is only those who believe themselves to be brilliant who want to place God on the same level as Man.
God is not a man that He should allow Himself to be analyzed in a test tube or scrutinized with a microscope. Get over yourself Tutor, God will not stoop to prove Himself to you. He is the Great I Am, the First Cause, the Author of all things.
Believe or not, it costs God nothing. Man is the only one who has anything to lose and therein is the wisdom of Pascal's wager.
H
2006-07-21 14:32:51 · answer #6 · answered by H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Correct.
Pascal's wager is not a valid argument.
You probably should have put that last paragraph at the top of the post.
2006-07-21 14:07:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I don't agree with your conclusion, good argument.
2006-07-21 14:06:58 · answer #8 · answered by MTSU history student 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you have a question?
2006-07-21 14:10:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋