What's the big deal about Pascal's Wager?

Question

I have frequently seen Atheists respond to the question "what if you're wrong?" with, "That sounds like Pascal's Wager." As if the wager is a terrible thing? Anyone who has read his work will know that he answers other questions like "which god" in other places. However, it is true that as a Christian, a person has absolutely nothing to lose is Atheists are right. I love my life so far and if it ends and there is nothing - no big deal. Atheists have said that they will live good lives so that if there is a God, they will go to heaven anyway. Wrong! He requires righteousness and holiness, and many people who claim to be Christians are still going to hell(Matthew 7:21-23) for being sinners and not obedient. Besides, if you sacrificed your child to save someone else - how would you feel about that person if they ignored you? So what's so bad about Pascal's Wager?

Answer 1

No "big deal", but...
1. I could not in all conscience throw my rational beliefs away.
2. Even if I could, how do you believe in something that's not there - could *you* "force" belief in the Easter Bunny?
3. Even if you could, wouldn't *you* feel cheap and tawdry?
4. What if you choose the wrong "God" to believe in?
5. Wouldn't "God" see thru such a transparent belief ruse?

Answer 2

The logical fallacies contained within.

"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 (some people pray 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

The wager isn't a terrible thing it is just ridiculous.

What if god is Marduk? Well being a christian you are screwed.

What if god doesn't exist? Well you have wasted your life worshiping and believing in false things, and have deprived your self of experiencing life to the fulliest out of fears from some imaginary boogey man.

Belief is also not choice. You can't just choose to start believing. I may recognize that indeed if the christian god exists I could have a lot to loose, but how does that convince me that god exists? It doesn't. Any if god exists he would see right through that scam.


"Besides, if you sacrificed your child to save someone else - how would you feel about that person if they ignored you?"

Ridiclous. Now I understand why you think Pascal's Gambit is valid; logic isn't your strong suite.

Answer 4

There are various explanations of the criticism of Pascal's Wager here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticisms_of_Pascal.27s_wager
To me, the problem is it's intellectually dishonest. Rather than examine the evidence to come up with the right answer (philosophically speaking) we just say that following Christianity is the _safer_ choice, and construct our actions and philosophy around it. That's fine when you're deciding whether to ride in an armored Humvee or an open air Jeep in Iraq these days (is it really worth the gas mileage? What does our armor project about our belief in the Iraqi people? Who cares! We just want to get there safely!) but it's not a truely honest way of examining philosophy. It's also a disingenuous faith. If I'm going with the flow "just to be safe," that's not truly committing your life and mind to Christ. So you may not get the benefit regardless.

Answer 5

What's bad about Pascal's wager is that it is full of logical fallacy. Furthermore, you can use it to justify ANY position that claims to have negative consequences for those who don't follow. The Muslims tell me that YOU are going to hell. Why should I take your word over theirs? And don't say "Because my book is the true one", because they say that too.

I also disagree that people who choose to be fundamentalist Christians "lose nothing". If death is the end of consciousness, and you spent your only life as an annoying holy roller, then you've lost a lot. For that matter, there's still the possibility that you're following the wrong religion, and will still suffer.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Christians still use this argument. It portrays their religion as something people go to only because people fear consequences. What kind of "faith" is that?

Answer 6

It is an example of something that is used as an ad hoc apologetic for relgious faith-- it is not intended as an irrefutable claim, anyone who has read Pascal carefully would realize this. Pascal was intending in the wager, not to convince the sceptic, but to show the depth of the decision on behalf of faith, the potential for gain and loss-- some are deeply moved by his insight, others are aggravated by it, as it seems threatening and potentially manipulative in terms of one's relationship with God. It also serves as a way that a conversation about religious faith or lack of religious faith can be positioned in order to engender deeper thought and inquiry, as I said earlier, it is not meant as a threat, or as an absolute answer. As an ad hoc apologetic, one should use the insight for what it is worth, judge its effectiveness, and if need be, abandon it in favor of another line of argument. Many atheists reject the wager. And believers do not need it in order to understand or practice their faith. Faith cannot be co-erced because it is a virtue. One's will must actively enage the offer of faith and freely offer its assent. If faith is co-erced, it is no longer virtuous or faith, but it becomes the tyrrany of ideology.

Answer 7

The problem is that it is an unsound argument that is vastly overused because theists think it sounds, well, sound. It only points out the inability of theists to see things from an atheist point of view.

The first flaw is the assumption that one can simply decide to believe something. We cannot suddenly decide to believe in your deity any more than you can wake up morning and decide to believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. Either you do or you don't.

Secondly, theists can't imagine that there is anything to be lost by people not participating in that religion. But, what you don't understand is that many of see the Christian deity to be downright evil, and aside from the problem referred to in the preceding paragraph, one would lose all integrity in worshipping an evil god, one would live a life of complete falsehood and deception and dishonesty in going through the motions of participating in a religion we disagree with AND can't believe in.

Why waste one's life living a lie, simply out of fear that our creator is really so horrible that the only really important thing in life is to participate in prescribed rituals (that said deity can't even be bothered to tell us directly, but only through... other people)? This isn't losing nothing... it's losing everything that matters! For an outrageous idea that makes no moral or philosophical sense whatsoever!

We prefer to live morally, freely, and honestly.

So you see that fine-sounding argument holds absolutely no water with atheists, and will never be able to convince us of anything, and yet is mentioned over and over again by Christians who think this is all atheists need to hear to change our minds.

I wish theists would understand WHY this argument has never managed to convert anyone before they use it for the umpteenth time to try to convert everyone. It just boils down to, the argument is based on assumptions its targets don't agree with and is therefore useless.

Answer 8

1) It assumes that Christianity is the only religion that could possibly be the correct one. If you're willing to accept "God does not exist at all" as a possible scenario in this wager, then why aren't you willing to accept "Allah might exist instead" or "Brahma might exist instead" also? There are thousands and thousands of religions out there, ya know.
2) It assumes that God won't mind if you believe in him just because the odds are in your favor that way. Wouldn't he want something a little more sincere and honest than that? You really don't think he'd mind if you believed in him for no other reason other than "playing it safe"?
3) It assumes that a person like me can CHOOSE to believe in God. No, I can't. Can you choose to NOT believe in God (without lying to yourself)?

Answer 9

Pascal's wager relies on the belief that it is acceptable to believe in something for the sole purpose of what might happen if you do not believe. That alone is not a good reason to believe in something. It is illogical. If you believe in God only because of what might happen if you do not believe, you must also believe in anything and everything else you are told that includes consequences for your lack of belief, such as the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn.

Answer 10

There's nothing wrong with Pascal's Wager. It's just a desperate act.

Answer 11

i'd nonetheless pass with Pascal for 2 motives: demons have finished little, if something, to make this international a extra suitable place; and 2d, no demon ever had a working laptop or computing device software named after him (PASCAL)--ok, ok, undesirable premise. nonetheless, i choose the Pascal's guess.