What's so bad about Pascal's wager?

Question

I knew I could get your attention...

I mean, what's so bad about it? It was never intended to prove God exists, nor does it present evidence to do so. It just provides a different way of seeing things. Why do you mock it so much for being a 'poor arguement'?

It's not supposed to be an arguement.

"It's illogical."
----------------------

Describing supernatural events can't be limited by human logic.

"Because we're constantly hounded with them."
------------------------

That's a reasonable answer, I see it a lot too.

Answer 1

It just gets beat to death around here. THAT'S the joke.

Answer 2

i replaced into questioning approximately posting a similar question once I examine some responses from previously as we communicate (one Atheist listed P.W. as an "Epic Fail")... My preliminary concept replaced into 'do those responders understand that Pascal's wager isn't meant to be a "evidence" of a few thing'? The wager's good judgment is centred on the actuality that all of us might desire to make a determination/determination bearing directly to despite if we've self belief in the life of a deity. there is not any longer something approximately that determination that could regard as a "fail". it relatively is an common actuality. Now the consequent factors on loss/income are patently open for debate, yet there remains no longer a real "good judgment fail" to be derived. on a similar time as some Atheists might have "ignored the factor", it is likewise basically as possibly that they are purely responding to the incorrect utilization of the wager (which you alluded to on the top of your comments). I too have heard some Christians use P.W. as some form of "evidence" for God's life. From that perspective, what's their factor? Does attempting to instill this way of a "perception" have any benefit? James 2:19 "you suspect that there is one God. stable! Even the demons have self belief that--and shudder." Human reason will by no potential be able to coach, or disprove, the life of God. yet, for some reason, this question is unceasingly debated interior of Y.A. The Christian faith is purpose, and all the way down to earth in historic previous. we are able to apply good judgment/reason to income those information....why do no longer Christians basically persist with that?

Answer 3

The problem IMO leading from the conclusion reached in the wager lies in the expectation that Christians (and by extension all human beings) according to doctrine, should forgo certain human activities of the here and now e.g. fornication, fine wine etc. (the real world) for gifts in a hypothetical afterlife. The wager was loaded with conjecture, it is not a simple equation. By implication, accepting the wager meant accepting the Christian way of life with all the restrictions inherent therein.

Answer 4

You summed it up in your last line -- it's not supposed to be an argument.

And discussing it coherently is fine, the first 539 times. That 540th though starts to get dicey.

Especially when it's very earnest Christians who are so sure that they've finally found a 'logical' way to save us all. It's not the wager itself, it's how it's used in the forum.

The recent round of jokes was because it came up three or four times in a few hours. So someone proposed making a drinking game out of it. Just some good fun.

Answer 5

The problem with Pascal's Wager.
Suppose I told you that God demanded human sacrifices in order to obtain a blessed afterlife. According to Pascal's Wager, the logical choice is for you to go ahead and start killing people "just in case," even if there is no evidence that I am right.

Answer 6

It's logically bad because it creates a false dichotomy: "God exists as described" vs "God does not exist". God could exist but not as described, in which case both positions could be in trouble. It's like taking out flood insurance, then finding out that earthquakes are the real hazard.

It's morally bad because it uses a threat to influence decision.

Answer 7

The use of Pascal's Wager is intolerant, rude and inconsiderate. When it is used you are asking someone to compromise their beliefs for your own. Now, I'd say the chances are very very good that the person asking would never compromise their beliefs so you are asking someone to do that in which you yourself would not. Christians just need to accept that not everyone wants to believe in their belief system.

Answer 8

It's supposed to get you to believe in god by demonstrating the benefits and losses of believe and non-belief when god does and does not exist.

However, it's seriously flawed.

Firstly, it assumes the choice is between god or not god. How about all the other gods? Zeus? Allah? Invisible Pink Unicorn?

Secondly, it assumes that the potential rewards are enough for a genuine belief in a god.

Answer 9

I am an atheist but I am not going to mock it. Don't you think that if someone just decides to play it safe and believe, your God would know that they are just saying that to gain his favor? So what point is there to it? You want me to lie to your God? I can't even lie to myself. So how could I lie to anybody else? Who appreciates hypocrisy? Do you think God would? See what I mean? You have a great evening, Dave.

Answer 10

Ask yourself this: Could you force yourself to believe in the proverbial flying pink unicorn? Could you repress your natural inclinations because the FPU says they're wrong? Could you live your entire life based on what was allegedly written by the FPU?

And you can't answer "but I KNOW the FPU doesn't exist." You'll have to take it on faith, and fear.

Answer 11

It is a silly and overused argument. It doesn't take into account the power of rational thought. I can't believe simply to err on the side of caution, what kind of small mind could?