_______'s Wager?

Question

What is the term for the argument that it's best to believe in god so that even if you're wrong you are safe from hell? It's called someone's wager.

Answer 1

Pascal

A pretty dumb argument and it gets asked here frequently.

Answer 2

Pascal's Wager

Answer 3

Pascal's Wager!

Answer 4

Pascal's Wager. And it is an excellent argument.

My Qualifications in Answering Your Question:
B.A.from an Ivy League University in 3 Majors- International Relations, Political Science, Economics
J.D. in Training from a Top Tier Law School
Extensive Theological Reading and Detailed Study of Great Works of Christian Literature including: the Holy Scripture, John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, On Holy Christian Living, Commentaries on the Scripture; Jonathan Edwards; John Knox; the Puritans; Catholic Doctors inc Bellarmino, Aquinas, and Alphonsus Ligouri

I do dedicate my time to training of individuals in the Christian Faith, whether you believe or not. If you would like to study the faith of the Protestant Reformation (also known as Calvinism and Biblical Christianity) in detail please send me an email at the address provided and I will see how I can help you.

Answer 5

It is called Pascal's Wager.

The problem with it is that one must compare any theology with whatever one already believes in. So, for example, the theology of Scientology, or LDS, or Buddhism, or Islam, or whatever, could also be held to Pascal's Wager. What if they are right?

Answer 6

Pascal's Wager. (But I don't think that he was arguing for a belief in God as a means of avoiding Hell; and I doubt that many Christians (at least, on here) would agree that believing in God will save one from damnation.)

From Wikipedia:

Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues 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. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. Applications of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism, and especially Buddhism. A well known example is the C.S. Lewis quote: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

The incompleteness of his argument is the origin of the term Pascal's Flaw. He argued against atheism simply by stating that it would be better to believe in a non-existent God than to offend one that did exist, while avoiding entirely the questions of whether or not God actually existed, whether or not the Christian concept of a faith-rewarding God existed, and whether belief could actually be chosen.

Answer 7

Pascal's wager

Answer 8

Pascal's Wager or Pascal's Gambit.

Answer 9

Pascal

Answer 10

Pascal's really pointless sucking up wager. 'Believe in god just in case because he might be mad at you otherwise.'
How that is even an argument is beyond me.

Answer 11

I think knowing how to spell "pascal" qualifies anyone to answer. It is a flawed argument. Look it up on wiki and save you time with the zealot.