Why do you dislike Pascal's Wager so very much?

Answer 1

Because it's a fallacy. It's like a dog race where you think either a dog will win or a dog won't win. There is more than one dog in the race: why not bet on Hinduism or Buddhism or Paganism? The dichotomy is not between atheism and religion, but atheism and thousands of religions.

Answer 2

If you're talking about the supposed proof of god, then there are several reasons why I find it a very weak and superficial argument.

First off, one can substitute any religion in the wager for Christianity and it doesn't change. The wager doesn't give any evidence that Christianity is more true than, say, Scientology.

Secondly, it's not exactly the most inspirational argument. Why would I give my life to something that I didn't care about for any reason other than I'm hedging my bets? In the bible, there's a verse talking about how god spits out the lukewarm believers; well this "proof" is a recipe for creating exactly that.

Answer 3

My problem with it is that it only includes possible rewards of an afterlife as possible gain.

It does not take into consideration the difference in life for ourselves and for humanity that choosing or not choosing religion. Religion has been very controlling of people and of science. In fact, they still are. I think it is possible that we could be living in a much better world if religion did not meddle in the affairs of the world.

Also, the false dichotomy is a big flaw in the argument. What if you belief in the christian god and upon reaching the afterlife you see Zeus. Ouch. No good. A belief in a god is not necessarily the belief in the correct god.



For those who do not understand what Pascal's Wager is:

You have two possibilities, belief in god or no belief in god. You can choose only one. You look at it from a possible gain scenario.

If you believe in god and you are right you go to heaven and your gain is infinite. I
f you believe in god and you are wrong then you have no afterlife but don't really lose anything.
If you don't believe in god and you are right then you have no afterlife and don't really lose anything.
If you don't believe in god and you are wrong then you go to hell and your loss is infinite.

The idea is that you in the end stand to gain nothing by not believing in god and stand to gain everything by believing in god. The choice should then be that you should hedge your bets and believe in god.

Answer 4

Its fundamentally written for Atheists. Its flawed. My theory about Pascal's wager, believe in them all so that you have a 100% chance of going to some version of an after life.

Answer 5

Pascal's Wager asks one to compromise their beliefs for a different set of beliefs without regard to the individual right for every one to believe as they will. It is rude and invasive and I think people who try to use it are manipulative and insensitive.

Answer 6

Because it's an invalid argument. Why don't you become my slave for life, then when you die you will spend eternity in Heaven. Because see I'm actually God just pretending to be a lowly human being. If you don't you will go to hell, but if your right you get to spend an eternity in paradise. Isn't it worth the wager ? Well why won't you do it ? You see ? That's why.

Answer 7

Because belief or lack thereof is not determined by a consideration of what the desire result might be, but by what your mind and heart tell you. You dont decide to believe something because it's handier, you believe it nor not despite what you may want. Belief is not a choice. Pascal implied that it was. By doing so, he reduces believers to cynical, self-serving, self-deluded imbeciles.

Answer 8

As a Christian, I consider it a very weak argument. Belief must spring from Faith, not fear. A soul that comes to God because He is "better than the alternative" seems to me a timid soul indeed.

We should be offering more than "Get out of Hell Free" cards to people - because those who disbelieve in Hell see no advantage at all to the wager.

Answer 9

Belief isn't about going through the motions or stating that you believe - it's actually believing. To argue that one should abandon logic and evidence to believe, simply to hedge one's bets just in case a particular religious belief might be true, is foolish. Besides, if god does exist, it would know that one's professed beliefs are false and self-serving and condemn one anyway. Such is the fate of the hypocrite - and there sure are a lot of 'em!

Answer 10

Because contrary to the popular- widespread belief, there is proof that god exists.So Pascal's wager is futile and demeening to the concept of god. Yes I know it is hard to fathom, but orthodox Judaism has found an unorthodox method in proving God. There is an approved Web-site of orthodox Judaism that proves and explains numerous religious concepts. It may be hard to follow bec it's very deep and philosophic, but if you put your mind to it and keep an open mind chances will be that you'll be convinced. good luck with your seeking of the truth.

Answer 11

A flawed argument for believing in god, it says that you should believe in god because you have more to lose by not believing in him than if you don't. If you believe in him, and he exists, then you go to heaven. If you believe in him and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. If you don't believe in him, and he exists, you go to hell, but if he doesn't nothing happens. This completely disregards the fact that there are a million different religions with a heaven and hell, and there is no way to know which is the right one. It also assumes that believing in god "just in case" is enough to get you into heaven, when if I was god, I would not let those people in now you tell me if this logic isn't flawed whatsoever