Pascal's wager work for you?

Question

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely i

infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man [2], and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.

Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil

Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:


Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable.

Answer 1

I always knew there was a mathematical argument for agnosticism, along with all the other logical, rational ones.

Answer 2

you're right, all those dieties are possible. Pascal's wager is not meant to be taken as a proof of God's existence. it is to be taken for what it is; an over-simplification of theism. that's all.
I do not believe in God becuase I fear hell, nor do i believe becuase I feel it is the "best wager" I believe simply because I have seen God work in the form of miracles and such. And the miracles were done in the name of the God of the bible, so that only leaves one conclusion for me.
Then, after researching more, getting more involved and such, the proof of God's existence only built in my and now is a s strong as ever. and it didn't start by some "wager"

Answer 3

Sorry but you are wrong. There are 2.501 gods. You forgot Eric Clapton.

Plus, the other problem with Pascal's argument is that it assumes that you've lost nothing by being a believer if god doesn't exist. It doesn't factor in the wasted time chanting and financial loss of being part of a religion which gives you nothing back until you die and then reneges on the paradise and eternal life deal.

Answer 4

I like the wager myself, but I dont, and I dont think any Christian thinks of it as the point blank method to find the truth but it is a start.

Granted if you choose in the believers direction you still have questions no doubt but that wasnt the point of the wager Im sure. It was a starting ground... "Why should I believe in God?" "are you better off not believing if He is true?" No one is better off not believing if indeed God is true but thats just a start. If you know and understand that IF God exists then its best to believe then you can start on your search for the Truth of God. I dont think Pascall or any believer believes acknowledging the existance of God will get you to Heaven, but its a start. We know NOT acknowledging God, if he exists, wont get you to Heaven.

Answer 5

I believe Voltaire answered pretty definitively when he responded, What if there were a god and he had a special place in hell for those who said they believed in him based alone on this argument? (A paraphrase of the French, of course.) The rest of Pascal's wager is presupposing God cares whether we believe and say we believe in Him. Exodus 3:14 says of God, I AM that I AM, which would indicate that His movement is somewhat independent of our belief.

Answer 6

A diligent coworker used a similar argument with me. He shared the gospel with me after work and asked me if I wanted to receive Jesus as my Savior. I told him that I did not believe in God and he continued to witness to me anyways. He asked again and after I realized that he would not stop, I told him that I needed to pray about it first. I thought that this would satisfy him and get him off my back. He continued and made me an offer that I could not refuse. He said that if I prayed the salvation prayer with him and if he was right, I would gain eternal life, and he proceeded that if I was right, I only wasted a few minutes of my life. I did have some time and the offer was too irresistible. Only a fool would refuse. I did the prayer even though I did not believe in it. Afterwards, God proved to me that He was real and I am very thankful that Christian did not let me go. We need to give God the authority to manifest Himself in our lives before we can see Him because Satan is the god of this world and he blinds those who are his, to the truth.

Answer 7

Pascal's wager gives me gas.

That is why I read Emanuel Swedenborg instead. I would rather listen to a true servant of God.

http://www.mechanicsburgnewchurch.org

Answer 8

If you do look at Roman Catholicism you will see that they do not condemn other religions. If you accept their interpretation of God, some belief is then better then none at all. Many religions are like this. Perhaps that is the truth you seek.

Answer 9

Nope

Answer 10

Pascal's Wager makes my teeth grind.