Anyone else tired of the Pascal's Wager questions? Why do these people think it's sooooo easy to just believe? I mean, you can't make yourself believe in something. You CAN'T fake your believe in God, because it would do NO GOOD! If he's there he KNOWS your heart. So, who else agrees that Pascal's Wager is ridiculous?
2007-01-03 11:09:40 · 12 answers · asked by Amanda D 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Exactly! EXACTLY!!! I was just reading about this in The God Delusion. The argument is flawed in oh so many ways.
First of all, we don't KNOW that this "God" will punish people who don't believe. That's what one book says. Perhaps the Bible has it all wrong... perhaps this "God" values honest skepticism much more than self-serving, phoney declarations of belief.
Secondly, if this "God" really DOES want people to believe, would it really value belief born of fear? If people are going to worship this thing strictly as a means to avoid Hell, what good is that? Is that genuine belief or merely "a back-up plan"?
Thirdly, this Wager assumes a LOT. Why are we faced with only two choices? The Judeo-Christian god and atheism? Aren't there hundreds (if not thousands) of other beliefs out there that we should believe in "just in case" if that's the logic by which we're living our life? To imply that there are ONLY two options when in fact there are many more is to argue a "false dichotomy" (which is a LOGICAL FALLACY).
2007-01-03 11:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
You see, some people (Fundamentalist Christians) have a hard time accepting that other people believe in different gods than they do - they assume that the only god that can exist is theirs. Therefore, Pascal's Wager makes perfect sense in the minds of Christian Fundamentalists. For anybody with a sense of reasoning, Pascal's Wager is the most flawed argument in favor of theism in the history of questioning God's existence.
2007-01-03 11:15:32 · answer #2 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
That's just one of many, many things wrong with the argument.
"If god exists, it's infinitely better to believe, since you get heaven instead of hell for eternity. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter since you're dead anyway. So overall it's better to believe"
This is, of course, false.
Some of the problems with the argument:
* The implied assumption that god may exist (with a 50% probability, no less!)
* The assumption that there is an afterlife with a heaven and hell
* The assumption that the god cares about belief in him/her above all else
* The assumption that if you believe in a god, it will definitely be the same god that actually exists.
* The assumption that you lose nothing if it's false. You have lost a great deal, from time praying to a nonexistent entity (somebody mentioned just today praying several hours a day!!!) to morality (your god may ask you to hurt other people) and much more besides.
For more:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
2007-01-03 11:20:01 · answer #3 · answered by eldad9 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I prefer the Atheist's Gambit.
Vorsorgeprinzip. That's the original German word for pascal's wager when used by social scientists. It's translated roughly to the "precautionary principle". Of course, they weren't talking about god at the time- rather about social reform. It's used all the time when it comes to things like new drugs entering the marketplace. It assures that potentially harmful changes to our lives must be proven to have an ultimately positive effect before they can be introduced.
Of course, if the precautionary principle were applied to a proposal like... say... the total abolition of theist religion, there could be no resistance. Pascal was a fool to think that beleif in god carries no cost. Consider how many hours of devotion, how much money for the lavish churches, how many lives lost defending them, how many new technologies overlooked...
SURELY positive belief in god has been the most costly venture ever undertaken by modern man!
Of course, Blaise Pascal also invented the roulette wheel, so to him I'm grateful. Praised be Blaise.
2007-01-03 11:33:45 · answer #4 · answered by B SIDE 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
People who are in a religion because of Pascal's wager aren't truly believers. They're hypocrites that are hedging their bets just in case. As a believing Christian I hate Pascal's wager.
2007-01-03 11:19:19 · answer #5 · answered by Victoria W 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's foolish, anyway. WHICH religion are you supposed to believe? Pascal's wager only makes sense in the light of only one possible religion to choose.
2007-01-03 11:15:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
I do.
Betting on the existence of God makes no sense. You either believe or you don't. If you believe you reap the benefit; if you don't believe then you lose the benefit. You can't win your place in Heaven; you must work for it.
Reminds me of the cost to benefit calculations involved in whether or not the auto manufacturer recalls a an automobile to fix a dangerous defect. Will it cost more to recall or more to pay the court awards for injury and death to the drivers?
2007-01-03 11:20:27 · answer #7 · answered by Donald C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager is probably THE worst argument for god there is.
2007-01-03 11:12:19 · answer #8 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 8⤊ 0⤋
It is ridiculous. Why not Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism? Why not wager that maybe Poseidon is the one to worship?
And wouldn't any all powerful God see through such a blatant deception?
2007-01-03 11:12:24 · answer #9 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 11⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager ranks one slot above the terroristic threats of eternal damnation, in my opinion.
2007-01-03 11:13:23 · answer #10 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 9⤊ 0⤋