Is Pascal's wager being doctined into the churches today?

Question

i ask this because i'm noticing a trend around yahoo answers where christians are using forms of pascal's wager all are entitled to answer this question although if you are a religious leader it would be greatly appreciated if you answer as well anyway for those of you who don't know what pascal's wager is here's the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

okay so far i noticed that somebody said that they are a religious leader who disagrees with pascal's wager which leads me to another point wouldn't pascal' wager be considere blasphemous to your religion and religious document such as the bible per se and if so then why is it being used

Answer 1

I hope not.

Pascal's Wager is flawed in several ways. First of all, we don't KNOW that this "God" will punish people who don't believe. That's what one book says. Not everyone believes this. Just because Christians do doesn't mean we should ALL believe out of fear of being punished for non-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).

Answer 2

I use a stock reply - see if you can help me improve it, and feel free to copy it for posting when I'm not here.


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.

* 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 3

I've heard similar arguments.

If Athiesm is right, and there is no afterlife, no God, no reincarnation, etc., then I won't be out anything by being a Christian, because in that case, it won't matter if I'm wrong, now will it? The end result would still be the same. I can't think of what I'd be missing out on by being one, anyway.

However, if they're wrong, then I better choose well.

If the true reigion is a religion that believe in reincarnation, then I'll get more chances. I can cross all those off.

If it's Judaism, they believe everyone goes to Heaven, so I can't go worng there.

If it's Wicca..I'm doomed to the "Hell of the Christians" according to their writings. LOL! But I think I can safely rule that one out. (Before you email me, even Wiccans have posted the quote from the Gardnerian Book of Shadows about Wiccans who leave to become Christians going to Hell on Yahoo Answers. It's in there, look for it online).

I can also rule Islam out because there's enough evidence to show it's origins are dubious.

Zoroastrians are born into the religion, so no chance to join anyway. Besides, there's enough evidence to show it dubious too. Zoroaster's origins are murky. He was probably Zara mentioned in Genesis, and Zoroastrian was probably derived from an ancient from of Judiasm (even though many people think it the other way around).

Sikhism, derived from Islam, which is a hoax, and Hinduism, which has reincarnation.

Scientology? I think not. Besides, they also believe in reincarnation.

Besides, if it's good enough for C.S. Lewis, it's good enough for me.

Answer 4

I think many Christians are coming up with this on their own. They don't know that Pascal's wager even exists and some present the idea as though it is a new one.

Personally, I think Pascal's wager is a good stance. I know it has been "refuted", however I don't see why you would argue with it.

If I am wrong then there is no harm to anyone else and I have lived my life trying to be a good person.

Answer 5

I have read quite a bit of Christian apologetics over the years and never seen Pascal's Wager used. I doubt any churches are teaching it to youth. It probably just happens to be the easiest formula to offer as a default answer to skeptics, despite all its faults.

Answer 6

is it being "doctined"? No
On the surface, Pascal's wager seems like a no-brainer. One should believe because in believing you either lose nothing or gain everything. However, the unstated assumption in the wager is that belief in God guarantees one a place in heaven. With regard to Christianity, the assumption is false. Belief in God, in and of itself, is not sufficient to ensure entry into heaven, since the demons also believe, but are condemned:

You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. (James 2:19)

The reasons that the demons shudder at the thought of God is that they know that they are destined for hell.Why don't they repent and come back to God? God has set different criteria for salvation for angels (including the demons, who are fallen angels).

An intellectual belief that God exists is not enough, since judgment is based upon what is in one's heart. Pretending to believe or going through the motions of some church service is not going to be looked upon very favorably by God. In fact, Jesus said that many would do all those religious things, but still be condemned.

Answer 7

type of, a minimum of from the playing element. playing probably has various roots, i.e. attempting to kill a prey at the same time as they're interior of questionable distance, attempting a sparkling nutrients, operating at the same time as there will be threat. although, conception and needing others to position self belief probably has a foundation as well as this may have helped ability a small social crew. Then too, our ability to administration symbols also contributes to the blend.

Answer 8

Next to the threat with 'hell and eternal fire', Pascal's wager is the most silly way to try and convert people.

I honestly don't mind how many time they use it, it always makes me laugh.

Answer 9

As a leader, i would be ashamed to claim converts in this matter. This "belief" is a verbal with out life changing effect. God looks at the heart,...if we confess with our mouth and BELIEVE IN OUR HEART that Jesus Christ is Lord we shall be save. Its the Heart change that causes the vocal confession. Not the other way around.

Answer 10

yeah ive seen it an awful lot around here also but no i dont think its being preached about in churches at all. it could be that some christians are making another pathetic attempt to convert us over the internet