Is Pascal's wager a bad bet?

Question

Blaise Pascal, a 16th century mathematician coined the famous question known as Pascal's Wager. Paraphrased, it goes like this:

If you choose to believe in God and he doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If he does you'll spend eternity in Heaven. However, if you deny God and upon death you're proven wrong, you'll spend eternity in hellfire. The logic being, it's statistically more advantageous to believe in God than the inverse.

There are countless problems with this logic scheme. What are they. Or better yet, tell me why you think it makes sense.

For the geniuses that will tell me the question has already been asked, save your energy and your ego. I'm looking for a unique response.

Answer 1

Many problems:

Assumes that the odds of being a God are exactly 50/50

Assumes that one can "choose" to believe, or that God will reward feigned belief the same as real faith

Assumes that there is no loss to believing in a non-existent God.

Assumes that the God in question is the Christian God and makes no allowances for other Gods. If there are 10,000 Gods, then the odds are 10,000 to 1 that you are worshipping the WRONG God.

Answer 2

I'm not an atheist, I'm Agnostic, BUT, I think that Pascal's Wager has one fatal flaw - assumption.

He ASSUMES there's a Heaven or Hell in which to make that "decision". If, in fact, there is neither, then the wager does not stand up. PROVE there's a Heaven or Hell, without using the Bible (usually, when asked for proof, people are asking for scientific proof, btw), and then perhaps the wager has merit. But then again, after that proof, you'd have to prove that "God" would punish people for not believing in Him/Her/It, and that HYPOCRITICALLY, God would also "give a choice" that ISN'T a choice, and yet still be "loving". And then you'd also have to prove that all other religious beliefs are wrong, as well as convince people that it is in their best interests to believe in a Desert God (or at least one that spends most of the time in "His book" in the desert) rather than a God that is equally at home (and spoken to have influence) in other areas of the world as well.

Answer 3

The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the wager can apply to ANY religion. And there are thousands of religions. A Muslim could use that exact same argument on someone: If you believe in Allah and he exists, you gain everything; if you believe in Allah and he doesn't exist, you lose nothing. So as long as you just believe in Allah, you can't possibly lose!

The wager starts out with the assumption that Christianity is the ONLY religion that could potentially be the correct one. But what about Islam? Hinduism? Daoism? Buddhism? Zoroastrianism? There are thousands and thousands of religions in the world and probably millions of potential scenarios -- and countless opportunities for anyone to be wrong, INCLUDING Christians. So in that sense it's definitely a bad argument.

Answer 4

I see no problem with believing in God if God
does not exist.

However, ACTING on your belief of God if
he doesn't exist can be a problem. For instance,
if you think that events are purely based on God's
will, then you won't try to predict them or change
them. Why put up lightning rods if God chooses
whether or not to strike?

So - Pascal was right only to the degree that
one's belief in God doesn't change one's actions.
However, what is the point of religion if it doesn't
change one's actions?

If I choose to believe that evolution is BS, then
I probably won't believe that microbes are evolving
due to natural selection in response to our
innoculations - so I'll take old fashion medicines
that used to work and now don't ... and I'll die.
Or worse, I won't take any medicine ... and die.

I consider that a significant cost of believing in
in God if that belief is exclusive of science.

Fortunately, belief in the two don't have to be
exclusive.

Militant agnostic: I don't know AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Answer 5

oh man, be prepared to take some heat for this one. this is one of the most hated questions on the board. But the short answer is that the wager makes assumptions about G-d that only correspond to the Christian god. There are hundreds of other religions thousands even, which offset the assumptions here.

Answer 6

it doesnt make sense. if a christian believe just as a fail-safe and god does actually exist, dont you think they would burn in hell because they dont truly believe? and suppose it isnt the god of abraham that exists? supposes its some other god and you have been worshiping a false diety? what then? see there are many holes in this wager which is why i get frustrated when people use it in an argument. it makes an EXTREMELY weak argument for believing in god.

Answer 7

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, [some versions have 'Schopenhauer and Hegel']

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

Answer 8

Its kind of a stupid wager to me.

What about all the other gods? What are the odds that this one particular god is the correct one to worship? There have been millions of gods created. What are the odds that you are correct that yours is the correct one when you dont even know what he looks like or much less what he does all day as hundreds of starving children in Africa die with aids.

^_^ sorry for the rant.

Answer 9

i grow to be an outstanding mathematician once. on the age of 18 I built my personal mechanical calculator. I helped to justify the axiomatic foundations of geometry. I created new insights on the binomial theorem. I proved, once and for all, the existence of a vacuum, and my paintings on hydrostatics grow to be seen so major I had a medical unit of measurement named in my honor. And Fermat and that i just about invented the concept of chance. yet what am I remembered for? no longer my paintings in technology, or mathematics, yet for a theological treatise so deeply flawed it pains me even now to envision it, no longer something despite the indisputable fact that the senile ramblings of an previous guy. I desire i might want to not in any respect written that infernal wager. Yours quite, Blaise Pascal

Answer 10

::Sword takes a drink:: Search for Pascal's wager (in the search box above) and you'll get many, many answers to this question. It's been asked a million times.