Why do unbelievers rely on refuting the truth of Pascal's wager?

Question

Because they rely on circular reasoning, that's why.
The most powerful part of Pascal's argument is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.

Suppose Romeo proposes to Juliet and Juliet says, "Give me some time to make up my mind." Suppose Romeo keeps coming back day after day, and Juliet keeps saying the same thing day after day: "Perhaps tomorrow." In the words of a small, female, red-haired American philosopher, "Tomorrow is always a day away. And there comes a time when there are no more tomorrows. Then "maybe" becomes "no". Romeo will die. Corpses do not marry. Christianity is God's marriage proposal to the soul. Saying "maybe" and "perhaps tomorrow" cannot continue indefinitely because life does not continue indefinitely. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or false just by looking at it through binoculars from a distance. He has to take a chance, on this port or some other, or he will never get home.

Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way:

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 avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.

If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.

the word 'IF' is huge in the atheists vocabulary. Is it worth it to you 'IF' you are wrong?

Scott: wikipedia ..nice source (rolls eyes) ...where anyone can change the answers. Sorry, but I'll stick with God's Word .
:D

So far 7-3 in favor of thumbs down. I predict the final ratio will run about 9-1, once again proving the Words of Jesus ; ' Wide is the path to hell and narrow is the gate to Heaven, that so few choose'

Answer 1

Thumbs up to you friend.

I had never heard this before and it just proves what I very simply put That there are no true ATHEISTS.
If there is no GOD then there is no RIGHT OR WRONG IN THIS LIFE.

Who decides what is right?
Who decides what is wrong?

GOD DOES!
Thou shalt not KILL---Murder is crime
Thou shalt not STEAL----Robbery is a crime
Thou shalt not bear false witness-----perjury is a crime
etc.etc.,etc Our MORALS are Based on the Inspired Word of God



thank-you for sharing this

Christian and faithful member of the Church of Christ in PA

Answer 2

Because Pascal is incorrect. Being an agnostic can simply be the statement of believing that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.

Pascal believes that only the options he gives are possible, and does not allow for any other answers. His proposal, to use the example given, assumes you actually want or need a port. The concept of being perfectly happy to be sailing indefinitely is disregarded for no other reason than he doesn't like it.

A verbose opinionated idiot is still an opinionated idiot.

EDIT:
The use of the link to Wikipedia above was entirely valid and sensible. The information there covers every argument we want to say, but lack the energy to retype - it'd be pearls before swine if we did.

Answer 3

You obviously don't understand pascal's wager at all.

So you deserve no better than my standard reply:
"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.

* The assumption that people can believe in something simply because it benefits them. Would you believe goblins exist for twenty bucks? Why not?

* The assumption that any god won't see through the "believing just to get into heaven" ploy.

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

Answer 4

First of all, your "committed" argument only applies to agnostics, of which there are very few on this site.

Second of all, the flaw in Pascal's Wager is that there is not just Atheism and Christianity, there are hundreds of mutually exclusive religions. Since you have to pick one, and since they are all equally likely to be truly or false, it's Russian roulette anyway and you might as well believe the one that makes the most sense to you.

Third, being a Christian is more than just a statement of belief and then go about your business. A true Christian lives his/her life by very cumbersome rules about what is sin and how their life must be lived. Why should an atheist give up sex with his girlfriend or lose the right to rest on the weekends because of a religion that might possibly be true? Why should they have to change their stances on politics, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality just to satisfy an angry God who will send them to hell if they don't?

Fourthly, I have the power to send you to hell if you don't send me five dollars. Sure, I might be lying, but how can you ever KNOW? It's just five dollars, and isn't it worth it to be safe and secure in the knowledge that I won't send you to hell? What's five dollars against the merest possibility that I might be right? Are you willing to take that chance? Address your check to "Aeryn Whitley" care of ......

Answer 5

That's a lot of words to defend a bad argument.

Sorry you wasted your time. You made the same mistake that everyone else posting Pascal's Wager makes, but used so many more words to miss the point.

The bottom line is that what you've written here assumes that some particular religion is correct, then relies on that assumption to argue in favor of following that particular religion. So let's show why that's wrong:

1. Let's assume that god will reward only atheists with eternity in heaven, and that people who believe in gods will spend eternity in hell.

2. You don't know whether or not there is a god, and you have to decide whether or not to believe.

3. If you choose to believe in god, and you're wrong, there is nothing to win after death. If you choose to believe in god and you're right, you lose your chance at eternal happiness.

4. If you choose not to believe in god, and you're right, there is nothing to win after death. If you choose not to believe in god, and you're wrong, you win eternal happiness.

Conclusion: Believing in god is too big a risk.

Now of course you're thinking "that's ridiculous", and of course it is. It's exactly as ridiculous as what you've typed.

Now, we already pointed this out mere minutes ago, the last time someone made this mistake. Yet you came right back and repeated the same error. Sometime later today, or maybe tomorrow, someone is going to post something about how arrogant it is of atheists to think that we're smarter than believers. But when you do the kind of thing you just did, what else are we to believe? How could a reasonable, honest person deny that atheists simply know more about this, that we are better at thinking about it, that we're simply outright smarter than people like you are?

Answer 6

We have reasonable logical and scientific evidence that god does not exist. you're propping up your overused argument. The question is: which god? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus? Thor? Allah? Brahman? Ameratsu? Re?
So which god (or goddess) do I pledge my allegiance to? can you disprove any of them right away? If I pledge my allegiance to the wrong one, am I still punished?

Answer 7

If you were to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you'd want to go with as many gods as possible. So any that require you to worship them exclusively (such as the Christian, Muslim, Jewish god) would be very poor choices.

Answer 8

how about this wager. after it's all said and done, if I was wrong, then I'll lose nothing either. I'm not stressing myself out on this nonsense. I have too many other important things to worry about.

Answer 9

So I am supposed to pick our god out of tens of thousands? Why? They all have consequences.

So you think your god is gullible enough to buy it even if I were to publicly say that I was a believer? I couldn't make myself actually believe even if I wanted.

The argument doesn't even make sense.

Answer 10

Eldad has it right. Besides, if the God I have to chose is the angry child in the Bible, I'll take my chances elsewhere.