English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-04 13:38:38 · 7 answers · asked by Rhoda Ro 2 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

7 answers

Basically, it's a philosophy written by a man named Blaise Pascal that states one has more to gain from believing in God, a theory which he used in attempt to convert people to Christianity. Here's his exact words...

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

2007-01-04 13:43:40 · answer #1 · answered by xxandra 5 · 0 0

Pascal's wager:

"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

2007-01-04 21:44:27 · answer #2 · answered by eldad9 6 · 1 1

That the believer has a better chance than a non-believer of being right about what happens after death.

Nevertheless, a number of non-believers (myself included) would be willing to take that bet. Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument, but it is often used in an attempt to convince a non-believer that he/she has "nothing to lose, and everything to gain" by believing.

2007-01-04 21:41:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Pascal's Wager runs thus: If you believe in God, you will live your life in accordance with that belief, and, therefore, if God exists, you will receive an eternal reward. If God does not exist, you will have lived an ethical life, and will lose nothing by it.

2007-01-04 21:42:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's a fallacy that religious people liked to use.

It uses the following argument:
It claims if you are a Christian, there are two possiblilities:
1) God exists - Big reward
2) God doesn't exist - Nothing happens
It claims if you are an atheist, there are two possibilities:
1) God exists - Big Punishment
2) God doesn't exist - Nothing happens

The problem with the argument is that there are other options.

If you are a Christian:
2) God doesn't exist - Wasting much of your life on a superstition
3) God doesn't exist, but some other god exists and hates Christians - Big Punishment
Or other gods exist that are favorable, neutral or unfavorable towards Christians
If you are an atheist:
2) God exists, but likes atheists anyway - Big reward
3) God doesn't exist, but some other god does exist that loves free thinking people - Big Reward
Or other gods exist that are favorable, neutral or unfavorable towards atheists

Even if you accept the Christian argument and discount the possiblity of other gods existing, there is still one more option:
X) God exists, but is smart enough to realize that you only believe in him because the reward is better - Big Punishment

I doubt if any god really rewards you on a bet.

2007-01-04 21:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2 1

To put it crudely, we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

For detail University level article.

2007-01-04 21:41:39 · answer #6 · answered by onewhosubmits 6 · 0 0

It's the idea of pretending to believe in god "Just in case" he is real. That way you get to avoid going to hell. If there is a hell.

It's a terrible argument. It doesn't take into account all the other may religions that also say if you don't believe in THEM you're going to hell. Besides, who would choose to worship out of fear? That's a horrible reason to have faith in something.

2007-01-04 21:45:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers