Is Pascal's Wager selfish?

Question

I'm sure you know the wager, but I'll restate for illustrative purposes :

(1) Believe in God + God exists = Heaven
(2) Believe in God + God doesn't exist = Nothing
(3) No belief in God + God exists = Hell
(4) No belief in God + God doesn't exist = Nothing

From a juvenile approach, this would seem reasonable ... and it appeals to those who fail to consider other alternatives (other religions being "right") in their Christianity-centric view of the world. But let's disregard this aspect for now.

In case (2), belief without God, the implied gain / loss is "nothing" ... our personal outcome is not changed.

But isn't this rather selfish in nature? What of the outcome to others? Could we not have spent our lives helping the human condition ... not discriminating against homosexuals ... not flinging missles at countries whose religious beliefs are different? Personal immortality may not exist ... but through our actions we can achieve immortality in the survival of man.

The aspect of the wager I'm trying to address is its focus on what's better for "you" ... rather than what's better for humanity. I'm not asking about the overall nature of the wager itself.

Answer 1

Those who choose to live for the Lord is automatically making the choice to help others. That is part of our duties as Christians. When we see people who are addicted to alcohol or drugs it is not our duty to discriminate against them but to help them. Liberals and homosexuals always confuse our trying to help them as discrimination. Homosexuality is and abomination which goes against the laws of both God and nature. Simple as that. It is not selfish to want to help others learn the error of their ways. Peace and God bless.

Answer 2

Most people misunderstand the intent of Pascal's Wager. It is not that the point of believing in God is to hedge one's bet. Rather it is that, faced with the fact that God's existence is unprovable, either in the positive or the negative, that having devoted one's life to God has as its benefit a possibility of a positive eternal outcome, whereas atheism has, at best, a neutral eternal outcome, that of annihilation. That does not make the point of the wager the object of Christianity. Rather it demonstrates the possible danger of ignoring the implications of a possible eternity beyond this life.

The interesting part is your assertion, and the assertion of another in a similar thread, that somehow devotion to Christianity is tantamount to a life wasted on the self rather than on helping the world around us. You might take a look at many of the major charities in the world. You will find their foundation motivated by the love of Christ for those in need. You will find Christians working the world over to alleviate hunger, provide health care to the impoverished, bring hope to the inner cities, even minister to AIDS patients, despite your blatant generalization. The human condition and aiding the unfortunate is a core concern for Christians all over the world.

Answer 3

You are trying to focus on whether it's better for me. Well, you didn't exactly state the arguement as it actually is, and you want to focus on current events as reveleant to the argument, but nevertheless it's the basic gist. From a decision-theory standpoint, it makes sense to do so. Gain all, or lose everything. You have to make the decision of maximum expected utility from a rational standpoint, it's too "ivory tower" and not practical enough for daily life. From a personal perspective, and a Christain perspective, people aren't going to be motivated in the long-term by fear and reward. They are motivated by a change in heart, becoming a new person, a daily relationship with Jesus.

You seem to think salvation depends on others, you just ask a bunch of questions at the end so I am not sure. Salvation is a one on one thing between a person and God, not directly related to other's outcomes (Obviously our decisions affect others). And since Jesus was our example and he spent his life ministering to others (basic human needs: food, shelter, health, comfort) we should be doing the same.

Throwing all Christianity into one camp with firing missles is ignorant and not representitive of the majority of Christians.

One of the things that made America great was separation of chruch and state. The fact that right wing conservative Christians want the government to regulate morality, reflects poorly on Christianity, but the majority of Christians don't feel that way. It's usually the squeeky wheel that gets the grease. And the fact that our political system is divided into two parties (the rich republicans, who want to control the population through fear and regulation, and the democrats, who are like paper in the wind and get blown every which way) where religion is wrongly tied into the political process, polarizes our country.

You touch on a lot of issues that have nothing to do with pascal's wager. Christians should not even get involved in politics, they should be letting their light shine in the world, and be examples through the lives they lead. If God is really as powerful as I believe he is, he doens't need our meddling.

Answer 4

"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a notion posed through the French thinker Blaise Pascal that although the lifestyles of God can't be observed via motive, a character must guess as regardless that God exists, due to the fact that residing lifestyles hence has the whole thing to attain, and not anything to lose." It is egocentric due to the fact that it shows that you just must are living your lifestyles as God wishes, so you'll attain (heaven). It is cowardly due to the fact that Pascal does not wish you to be robust and rise up in your ideals. Instead, he shows you bow all the way down to a potentially non-existent god. In my opinion Pascal's Wager IS improper and ridiculous!

Answer 5

There are so many things wrong with Pascals wager from a logic point of view that it's a wonder he ever mastered simple arithmetic. First of all, a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him simply to hedge his bets. Further, the same wager would apply to a belief in Zeus or Rama as applies to Pascals Christian God, so a believer in a particular God is not necessarily in a better position. It's also ridiculous to posit that God rewards someone for placing a cynical hedge on their bets.

Answer 6

Yes, it is selfish, if taking the wager means that you will leave your wife (who may not be the same religion) or forsake your children (who may not be the same religion). It certainly can be.

To make this even more evident, the odds of the wager are very long, for to win your specific theology must be correct. Given there are roughly 30,000 versions of Christianity alone, those are some pretty long odds.

It seems rather selfish to wager your family and friends (let alone your freedom of life) away on odds no better than the lottery.

Answer 7

Pascalls Wager was never meant to be the end all to religious questions. It merely explains in a nutshell..you're worse off not believing. It wasnt meant to be someones foundation of faith but more "What do I have to lose?" if you dont believe and there really IS a God, you lost everything. Even if you end up believing the wrong God, you are no worse off than when you didnt believe in anything.

Answer 8

The whole concept of Pascal's wager is completely asinine. It's amazing a man who was otherwise so brilliant could have come up with something as stupid as this. Eh, I guess Einstein had his "god doesn't play dice with the universe" crap too, so maybe every genius is allotted one major boneheaded public sentiment.

Are we really to believe god is going to bless people who believe as the result of some wager?

Answer 9

To profess a belief in the Christian God, and then advocate discrimination or missile flinging, well, that would be a useless wager. You would essentially not be putting your money where your mouth is.
On the other hand, when believers stand up for what they believe in, they are guaranteed a good return on their investment.

Answer 10

It wouldn't be fair to say that Pascal's Wager is a selfish one because the wager is predicated on a personal response in the first place. It is for you to count the cost for yourself, not to count the outcome for others. It is a personal decision matrix, not a group decision matrix. It would not be correct to expect the wager to address issues it was never intended to.

Answer 11

The main premise is to show people their consequences. In doing this you might be able to show or convince someone that there is a good chance that there indeed is a God. Then the person would begin seeking on these principles that were mentioned. In return, there is a good chance of the individual developing a relationhip of their own with Jesus Christ.