What is "Pascal's Wager"?

Question

ALthough I've been in R&S section since June, I had never heard of this concept until tonight. What exactly is Pascal's wager and what is this theory about?

Answer 1

Pascal's Wager is the French philosopher Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. (It is also occasionally known as Pascal's Gambit.) It appears in the Pensées, a posthumous collection of Pascal's notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Indeed, he claimed that the expected value is infinite. With this, he sought to convert those, to Christianity, who were uninterested in religion and unimpressed by previous theological arguments for it.

Variations of this argument may be found in other religious philosophies, such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Buddhism . Pascal's Wager is also similar in structure to the precautionary principle

Answer 2

The following is a shameless cut and paste. The entire article can be found at the link at bottom of my post.

Pascals Sucker Bet
In essence, you are asked to analyze the question of God's existence in terms of a bet, that is to say, in terms of the odds of winning and the payoff. If there is no God, it doesn't matter what you bet: you are worm food either way. If there is a God, and you believe, then you go to heaven; and you don't believe, you go to hell.

In a normal betting situation, you need to compare what it costs to play to the odds of winning and the payoff. This is not a normal betting situation. The payoff is infinite and the cost is finite. As long as there is any chance at all, no matter how small, it is best to bet for God. You have nothing to lose, and infinitely much to gain. Or so the reasoning goes.

Bait and Switch
Let me begin by making it clear that Pascal's wager is not really about believing in God, it's about accepting religion. It might be an old religion with lots of cathedrals and a globe-spanning ministry, or a tiny little cult that meets in someone's front room. At the very least it will be a definition of God that you must accept, along with the infrastructure needed to propagate that definition.

Don't believe me? Next time some Mighty Zombie asks if you believe in God tell them this: "Sure: I believe God is sex, and I definitely believe in sex." If they're cute and you're available, wink.

Choices
Suppose I decided that Pascal is right, that I should "get religion" just in case. Which one should I choose? On a worldwide basis, roughly equal numbers of people are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Hindu, each having roughly one billion adherents. Another billion have some religion other than one of the big four. The remaining billion or so have no religion. None of the religions call to me. I have no basis for choosing one over the other. When I knelt and prayed for guidance God told me he didn't exist.

All-Powerful = All-Stupid?
If God does exist, presumably He'll know I don't really believe in Him, that I'm pretending to believe in him on the off chance that He might really exist. If He's willing to accept me if I just "Go through the motions" then I suspect just being a good person will also be enough. Pascal's own answer to this point was that this is why we have churches, to help us grow in faith. In other words, if I submit to a church-approved brainwashing program, they can make me believe. I do not find this comforting.

Hidden Costs
The cost to "place the bet" is not as low as some would claim. Tithes and other contributions are just the beginning. People are dying, now, as I type, because of their religion, or because of somebody else's religion. There are people refusing medical treatment because it's "against their religion". There are people killing other people over religion. The "ethnic cleansing" in Eastern Europe was very much a religious war between Christians and Muslims. Similar conflicts are taking place in Indonesia. And let's not forget 9/11.

If You Bet, Bet Responsibly
Let's suppose someone offers you the following wager: Roll a single die. If it comes up a six, they will give you ten thousand dollars. If it comes up 1 through 5, you give them one thousand dollars. Should you take the bet? The odds of winning are 1:6 and the payoff is 10:1. If you've got a thousand bucks to spare, it's a good bet. But if that money is supposed to go towards rent and utilities, then it would be irresponsible of you to make the bet.

If we atheists are right, this is the only life you have. Using it to place a risky bet is irresponsible.

-SD-

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

Pascal's idea was a shallow attempt to persuade the less erudite to the biased side of belief in a Deity through false promise much like politicians that fail to come through. It fails to recognize that a real god would not harshly judge disbelief as the heart of the intellectual did not compromise the "god given " gift of a brain . and it also fails to recognize the base of supreme judgment as possibly being more than the paltry attempts to sell the idea of paradise and death is eternal life in a bums rush as established by early precursors to today's preach and punish sales approach.
the logical recourse is that man is held accountable by principle of logic and reason not by threat that opposes the other tenets of the man made concept of the supreme creator and being that is supernatural in a natural world despite the laws of nature that a god is not supposed to be able to change . Also the idea of free will held as an excuse for god's limitations is jeopardized by this hindering principle as well . Needless to say there is much more and Pascal's Wager has subsequently been torn a new intellectual azzhole or to shambles for the more faint of heart . Old idea; tried and found inadequate.
peace

Answer 5

Pascal's Wager is a really idiotic argument attributed to Pascal that says "If you believe in God and you're right you go to heaven, and if you're wrong nothing happens. If you don't believe in God and you're right nothing happens, and if you're wrong you go to hell. So the best bet is to believe in God to get the maximum payout for every possible scenario."

~ Lib

Answer 6

Pascal's Wager:

Why don't you just believe in god because if you do you get to go to heaven, but it you don't you may burn in hell or at least you'll just die so you should just believe in god.

Answer 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_wager

Basically, it says "worchip in God just in case he exists"