What is Pascal's Wager?

Answer 1

The Wager is described by Pascal in the Pensées this way:[2]

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

In his Wager, Pascal attempts to provide an analytical process for a person to evaluate options in regarding belief in God. This is often misinterpreted as simply believing in God or not. As Pascal sets it out, the options are two: live as if God exists, or do not live as if God exists. There is no third possibility.

Therefore, we are faced with the following possibilities:

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss is nothing.

* You do not live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. It is a simple application of game theory (to which Pascal had made important contributions).

Answer 2

Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager is quite simple, and superficially appears to be a strong and compelling argument for theism. However, a little close scrutiny soon reveals the flawed logic and reasoning behind it, which actually makes it one of the weakest arguments a theist could come up with.


The Wager
Pascal's Wager can be presented in many different forms, usually something like this:

"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything."
Alternatively :


"It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way. "


See the link below for more information.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Answer 3

This argument is known as Pascal's Wager. It has several flaws.

Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there. This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's version of hell.

Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will we decide which commandments to follow?

Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness. Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in favor of prayer.

Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero, the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely to convince those who believe already.

Answer 4

Although Pascal is technically on the right track, it's somewhat discomforting to encourage others to follow God just because "they have nothing to lose if He doesn't exist." I believe that is very dangerous / misleading.

First of all, God DOES exist, so anybody who believes in God for the sake of Pascal's wager is obviously "believing" for the wrong reasons and lacks true faith. FAITH is what is required of us for salvation; even Satan & his minions "believe" in God.

Secondly, God wants our hearts and wants to be involved in every area of our lives, so we aren't going to get by with a "sure - what have I got to lose" attitude - at least not for long. Eventually, one of two things will happen. The person will either make a sincere effort and God will convict him/her to make the necessary changes in their lives so He can use them according to His will / for His glory; or the person will decide to continue going their own way because they don't see an immediate change in their lives (and they won't see a change if they haven't truly turned their hearts over to God.)

At any rate, we can't fool God by accepting the "what have I got to lose" logic, because He knows our hearts. As Christians, we shouldn't be trying to use Pascal's wager to win people to Christ. If nothing else, it's calling the CHRISTIAN'S beliefs into question, because the argument is "IF I'm right, we go to Heaven and IF I'm wrong, nothing happens." I know that God exists - there's no "IF" question in my mind about it. He lives in my heart and I see His work in my life every day!

Answer 5

There are two major flaws that are commonly noted in the Wager.
1) How can we force ourselves to believe on this basis? Also, how could God accept belief on this basis?

2) Which god do we believe in?

The answers to these objections are quite simple:
1) Pascal was really arguing that we ought to seek God and that God reveals Himself to those who seek Him.

2) We ought to seek the God who created us and put into us the need for Him.

Answer 6

Pascal's wager is the argument that since the penalty for unbelief is so seemingly great (eternity in hell), and the consequences for belief so few, that it is better to believe.

It disregards the idea that belief in another system might lead to great advantages that are lost if Christianity is false and one places their trust in Christ.

Answer 7

A weak arguement from Christians.

If I was a Christian only because it was better than going to hell, I don't think I would be a very passionate Christian.

Christianity shouldn't be left to the lesser of two evils....

Answer 8

rita_alabama has it.
Basically, what do you have to lose if you choose God? If you do and win, Then you go to Heaven. If you lose, then you lose nothing (if God doesn't exist). But if you don't choose God and He does exist, you lose and spend eternity in Hell. So choose God!

Answer 9

That if he believed in God, and was wrong, there would be no 'loss' because he would not exist after death. But, If he did not believe in God, and was wrong..........get it?

Answer 10

bologna.