What are your views on Pascal's Wager?

Question

Please explain why also.

Why are all of you guys presuming that I'm a Christian. I'm a Deist.

Answer 1

Full of holes? The usual answer from someone with little or no proof. I, personally, find it to be quite logical. But at the same time you can apply that logic to allah or buddah as well. I for one, will play it safe.

Answer 2

I'm not sure about the morality of "betting" on God's existence. James 2:19 - You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

I have always liked the way that people can put things so smoothly. However, according to Proverbs 26:23-26, this could be evidence of wickedness.

Pascal said: "Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly." It sounds pious, but then, I'm also thinking Zen might fit the job. If, out of millions, only a few flower, doesn't that mean that there is no God, and we are responsible for ourselves? I have no idea what that means, but I've read something just like it by a believer in Zen. Anyway, the problem is that we have this thing called outgroup homogeneity bias where, if we believe we belong to groups at all, the outgroup is whoever branched off the earliest. Cladistically, this is determined by means of a methodology, rather than keeping track of "events", because the criteria of what an event is is highly subjective. The cognitive bias is that everybody in the outgroup is the same. I can't remember now what, theoretically, would drive the ingroup to perceive themselves as being ever more rarified.

In any event, I can see what Pascal is saying about the longevity of the payoff if you go with a belief in God's existence, but he says that "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing." What on earth is that supposed to mean? Human health is not that which doesn't need any further input. Human health is knowing that you're allowed to keep asking for more. I disagree that he was a human being.

I'm a bit worried about you guys. Why haven't you thought of the obvious? He was a child molester who needed a way to pacify his victims about his intentions.

Answer 3

It's a false bifurication. A false bifurication is when you arbitrary choose two results on a premise than argue based on the false claim that those are the only two results of the premise. It's basically a type of strawman argument.

Pascal's Wager claims there are two beliefs:
1) Belief that God (i.e. the Christian god) exists.
2) No belief in any gods.

It assigns four outcomes based on those two beliefs:
1) God exists and you believe in him.
2) God exists and you don't believe in him.
3) God doesn't exist and you believe in him.
4) God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him.

It then does a cost/benefit analysis based on those premises, to show that belief in God is a "safe bet". First, of course, the idea that a God would honor belief based on a "safe bet" is silly. Also, the idea that you can just choose what you are convinced of is false.

But that aside, this is a false premise because there are an infinite possible gods that could exist. If a god exists, and it isn't a Christian god, your outcome could be less than favorable for worshiping the wrong one. If there is a god that exists that likes people who try to figure out the world logically and use reason, then atheists could be rewarded. Of course, the idea that believing that there is a god when there aren't any has no negative consequences can also be argued false, especially given all the harm its done to society.

(Of course, Pascal's Wager applied to any other religion is also false for the same reasons.)

Answer 4

I think Pascal's wager is the greatest question ever asked on R/S. I have consumed more liquor since the P.W. drinking game was set up than in my entire life!

Seriously, this question has been asked so many times, but I will give a very quick answer. If there was only one religion MAYBE it would be more logical, but there are many many. Which one do you wager on? And, wouldnt God, if he existed and was all knowing, be able to figure out that you were just hedging your bets and not really sincere?

Answer 5

Believers have no idea how pathetic they sound when they resort to this lame joke as their final, last-ditch, this-far-no-farther argument. Sometimes I wonder why they don't simply dump the prayer books and the liturgy, in favor of the following:

"I believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
Because after all, if He doesn't exist, then I suffer not at all, and I lose but little in my belief --
Apart from a few dollars' worth of tithes, a certain amount of my time, and a pair of kneecaps which would have worn out anyway.
And because if He does exist, my belief must be pleasing to him, and therefore I stand to gain
An eternal home which happens to look very much like where I am right now, only better."

Answer 6

How much did he bet and on whom? If he's betting on the Red Wings to win the Cup this year, he is going to lose out big time. I don't think that gambling is a good thing to get involved in because I don't like then looks of the bottom of the river if I cannot find the money to pay the guys in charge, since I don't have much money. My advice is for Pascal to stop this gambling game and get back to reality and get a real job.

Answer 7

It is a faulty premise. Even if you were to accept the basic presuppositions of the wager (i.e. it is desireable to you to believe in a christian god to avoid eternal damnation) such a wager would have to be applied to all other claims of deity as well. This means that you would also have to believe in Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Odin, Chronos, et. al.

Furthermore, the Christian view of deity, promulgated through Paul does not describe a God that wishes us to worship Him through fear of the consequences of not believing. Pascal's wager is a disservice to both logic and the Christian God it attempts to "prove".

Answer 8

It is one of the worst arguments for believing in a Deity. It has been asked and debunked so many times on R&S that we have a drinking game, every time someone re-asks it, we take a shot.


Personally, I'd love to see some kind of game involving Loki's wager. Now that would be fun.

Answer 9

Pascal was erroneous about how hell works. According to the bible there will be the 1000 years of Christ's reign where we will have the chance to learn and potentially rejoin god.

So in the context of life+1000, it may well be in our best interests to believe now because if we knew there really is a heaven we would want to be in on it, but in the context of life+1000 versus infinite afterlife, his wager falls apart, because what is 1000 years of school when compared to eternity?

I realise that this will really annoy the holier-than-thou fire-and-brimstone slingers, but they should stop wishing hell on us and actually read and understand what the BIBLE says about the afterlife instead of erroneously regurgitating Milton's Paradise Lost and other non-biblical literature. Oh, and learn about how thinking they are better than other people causes evil regimes too, while they are at it.

Answer 10

I haven't read about it in Pascal's own writings, but I think the gist of it is that it is better to believe in God because if you are wrong, then nothing happens than to not believe in God because if you are wrong you'll go to hell. Is that what you are talking about?

I think that if you base your faith on a precaution, then it is a shallow faith and you haven't really meditated on it. It's also a shallow answer to the larger questions in life and is completely self-centered. It puts all the focus on saving your own bum, and that is not what religion is supposed to be about. Anyway, if there is a God, he will know that you don't really believe- you are just taking the safer road.

Answer 11

better odds to win at lottery than the pascal wager. considering that Christianity pretends to be the only way, if make your bet you need to think about the other zillion of religions and cults that exist what if only on is real?Anyway i do not believe in the existence of only one true religion.