Pascal's Wager vs. Atheist's Wager?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Gambit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager

Answer 1

I had never read the atheist's wager (at least not that version), very interesting. Anyways, it's obvious that both are flawed and very poor arguments.

Answer 2

get a life

Answer 3

Atheists Wager

Answer 4

There are a few problems with Pascal's Wager that should be pointed out to Seraph and other answers.

First off -- reality doesn't depend on how you wager. God(s) either exist or they don't, therefore this argument is one of pyschological intimidation, not an actual argument to establish the existence of god.

Secondly, the conclusion of Pascal's wager is wrong, because it creates a false dichotomy between atheism and christianity. This sentence -- "If God exists, then the Christian won the bet and the atheist lost the bet." should really be "If God exists AND IT'S THE CHRISTIAN GOD, then the Christian won the bet and the atheist lost the bet." (emphasis mine).

If God exists and it's the Islamic God, or Satan, or a god of another Christian sect such as Catholocism and Protestantism, then the Christian is in the same boat as the atheist, because all these religions prescribe hell for other religions as well. And what if there are multiple gods, such as the Greek gods (Ares, Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodities...), or Chinese gods, Indian gods (River god, Sun god), or Aboriginie god(s), or any of the ancient egyptian gods...etc. If it's any of those, the Christian is screwed as well.

There are over 3000 gods proposed by humankind in various countries and times, almost all of which claim to hold the universal "Truth." If any single one is right, then all others would be wrong and suffer in some version of hell for not believing "correctly". The chance of your god being right, if all are equally possible, is 1/3000, or roughly a 99.97% chance of being wrong.

It is instructive to recogonize that the Christian doesn't believe in 2999 gods. The atheist doesn't believe in just 1 more.

In summary:
Pascal was wrong -- there is no dichotomy between atheism and Christianity, except for the false one he creates. From an unbiased viewpoint, "wagering" on atheism is essentially no different than wagering on any given god. Finally, and most importantly, the question of what exists is not determined by feelings and wagering, it is determined by observations and extrapolations. The final court of appeals for any particular god's existence must be "What evidence is there for it?" If none is forcoming, then not believing (i.e. atheism) wins by default.

I have yet to see convincing evidence, so I'm sticking with atheism.

Answer 5

WOW!!! Christian and an Atheist agree!!! ( it happens more often then people would like to admit)

I agree with Micheal, The Idea of choosing Christianity or any other religion just because it's a safer bet ( less to loose) then atheism is completely ridiculous.

We're not betting on a track race here, either one religion of the 1,000's has to be correct or a religion or combination that no one has thought of has to be correct. In any case this religion has always been correct and always will be.

So it's much more logical, instead of doing a cost benefit analysis, to make your decision based on what you find to be true about the world around you instead of considering the consequences if you are wrong.

Answer 6

For ease of reading I will reproduce the two wagers from the two links.

Pascal's Wager states that "it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief."

The Atheist's Wager states that "It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him."

Now which is a better wager? There are only two actual possibilities, God exists or He does not.

If God does not exist, then the atheist won the bet and the Christian lost the bet, but both would be dead and none would be around to celebrate the win or grieve over the loss. As far as they are concerned, the outcome matters nothing. Both may be well remembered for their good lives though.

If God exists, then the Christian won the bet and the atheist lost the bet. And both would be around after death to face the outcome of their choice of beliefs. For the Christian he will enter paradise. For the atheist, he will face the wrath of God and an eternity in hell. But what about his good works? Well, they count for nothing because the Bible states clearly that no amount of good works ever save anyone. Entrance to heaven is not based on personal merit but purely by the grace of God where the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer based on his repentance and confession of faith in Christ Jesus.

My conclusion: Go with Pascal.

A response to Michael:

I agree that reality is not determined by our beliefs, or a wager on the truth of our beliefs. Like you said, Pascal's Wager is NOT an argument for God. Rather it is a kind of like decision-making guide for a person to consider which is the better option, considering the consequences. Moreover, you are to rationally weigh the options, so what pyschological intimidation are you referring to?

Secondly, there is NO false dichotomy between atheism and Christianity, they really are to be dichotomised! Let's also be mindful that Pascal's Wager is predicated on God being the Christian God, since Pascal was a Christian. So it is irrelevant to ask "which God" we are talking about nor is it necessary for the Wager to be stated explicitly as referring to the Christian's God.

Thirdly, about the miserable chance of the Christian being 0.03% right, I think you miscalculated on this one. You ASSUMED that all gods being postulated upon by men have equal chances of being real. That's not a fair assumption, because we can easily eliminate a host of them, especially those that are clearly of a mythological nature. I am sure it's not that difficult to sift out the truth. Example, I will immediately eliminate ALL religions that believe we live in an eternal universe. That would very quickly narrow your options, wouldn't it?

Lastly, it is putting Christianity into the wrong category by saying that we don't believe in 2999 gods and the atheist doesn't believe in just 1 more. To lump our God with the other 2999 is to ASSUME that all are equally true, but like I said, we can sift them out and narrow them. Moreover, it is not about one more belief that you reject, it's about the TRUTH that you reject. It's not just a belief you are rejecting, it's TRUTH.

And I like your summary, so I am challenging you on that. Indeed the question of what exists is determined by observations and extrapolations, and the evidence for the existence of God. So as far as the atheist is concerned, it matters not which God. So long as it is more reasonable to believe that there is some supernatural being that exists, the atheist has already lost the wager. All we need to posit is that our universe was created by some supernatural being rather than evolved by purely naturalistic causes. We can leave the identity of this Creator to another discussion once you have ditched atheism. Is there evidence of creation? Heaps! I am convinced that there is evidence that God (or any deity for the sake of our argument) exists and that it makes better sense to believe this than to be an atheist.

Answer 7

They differ on weather god is loving. Atheist wager depends on a loving god. Pascal's wager depends on a god that merely wants to be worshiped.

If pascal's wager is to be excepted then we should all become Musslims, not Christians.

Answer 8

Neither is relevant to life, because you cannot choose to believe in something. You believe, or you do not.

Answer 9

just belive in gods word. my opion?

Answer 10

p