Can you not see the flaw in pascal's wager?

Question

The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man, and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.

Also, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world.

Can you who use this wager against atheists, see the flaw in it?

Answer 1

I don't know about the flaw, but anything that lets you drink has to be good.

Answer 2

Pascal didn't take into account that finite can comprehend the infinite in and only in eternity.

That's my number line reasoning . . .
Pick a number, any number . . . Left or Right?
Ready, Steady, Go! and Go! and Go! and Go!

Having a beginning does not necessitate an ending. The only way for something with a beginning to achieve the infinite is to keep on going.

And that is a number line! If we plug into that theory an x, y, and z axis, that makes for a wonderful panorama of Infite possibilities (directions) as well!

That's all really starting at the same point though . . . I like to think we're all starting at different points traveling towards a singularity, but eh, who can say?

The flaw with Pascal's thought process was that he was trying to say one was right and one was wrong. But I say no matter what you find to believe, you are at least looking. You are moving, you are experiencing and growing. Atheism may be the best way for reality to be revealed to some people, just like buddhism or christianity or what have you for others.

The truth is always changing, dynamic and universally applicable. The second you crystallize it in a creed or tradition, it loses it's value. This is a major problem in organized religion. Symbols lose their meaning when passed from person to person without the idea behind it.

One last thing . . . if God is incomprehensible, mustn't it follow that he is Not known to the world?

Answer 3

I'd say that it is more than likely that none of the theologies you refer to is entirely accurate. Nevertheless I disagree with you. There is a vastly better "best case scenario" than the one you mention. I'd say that it is equally more than likely that God fully recognizes man's limitations and is really only interested in the heart of an individual, and the extent to which it was open to God at all (and not on his/her particular "theology" , which He probably finds childish anyways). So Pascal's wager makes perfect sense to me.

p.s. I focus only on the "God exists or God does not exist" aspect of Pascal's wager. (I personally find the concepts of heaven and hell childish and unbelievable)

Answer 4

Oh I can spot lots of flaws!

First, cut the stuff about infinitely incomprehesible... it is extraenous to your argument.

Second, you are making several inherant assumptions of dubious validity.
Your assumption that "there are more than 2,500 gods known to man" is not sourced. It may be true, assuming you include all the minor polytheistic gods... but if you do that you are laying a monotheistic assumption (you can only worship one God) on to polytheistic religions that neither require the worship of one God, or forbid the worship of many gods. (The Greeks worshiped Zeus AND Hera AND Ceres, and Apollo, AND Athena, etc. ) That cuts down the number of "possible theologies" because they aren't mutually exclusive... but your argument assumes and implies that they are.

The single largest flaw in your argument is that you are making invalid assumptions about the nature of salvation.

Your idea of a "sucessful choice" assumes that salvation is obtained by through your works, and that you have to pick the "right" God and follow the "right" theology in order to obtain Salvation.

Christianity, including Pascal's Catholicisim, teaches quite the opposite. NOBODY can "earn" Salvation. That would put the created creature in the position of going to the UnCreated Creator and saying "pay up buddy, I EARNED my ticket in here, so you'd better fork it over lickety split." When you are dealing with an infinite being that exists outside of space and time, that just ain't going to happen.

Salvation is obtained through the actions of Jesus Christ, and it is a gift freely GIVEN to us, if we choose to accept it. As such, no "successful choice" is required. The Catholic Doctrines of "Invincible Ignorance" and "Baptisim of Desire" would apply here.

Pope St. Pius X
Catechism of Christian Doctrine, para. 132

" A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the
Church, that is, to the soul of the Church."

So Pascal's Wager is still correct, in that if you, (as someone who is aware of Pascal is therefore aware of Jesus) choose to reject God, then you would therefore be outside of it "through your own fault".

However someone who was outside of the Church not through their own fault (say someone born in Japan in 1234B.C.) would be outside of the Church through "invincible ignorance"... they COULD NOT know of Jesus and they have NO way of making the "sucessful choice" you speak of, yet the way of salvation is still open to them none the less, through a "Baptisim of Desire".

The "sucessful choice" you postulate simply is NOT required... and your entire attack on Pascal's Wager is baised upon it BEING required.

Which creates a hole in your argument we could drive the Nimitz through.

Simply put, the need for a "sucessful choice" by which one finds "the right" religion or "the right God", is a strawman. It is an invalid conjecture built upon false assumptions you made about Christian teaching.

So Pascal isn't the one with flaws in his argment here.

Sorry.

BTW: Pascal didn't get to be one of the great minds of Western Civilization by coming up with arguments that any junior high school student could find a way around. Think twice before messing with the biggies.

Answer 5

The question is not which god out of 2,500 choices. By whatever name we choose to call Him, we seek the God who created us.

We ought to reason that the God who created us is good because we know the good and we want to be good ourselves. If God created us, it is reasonable that He put that knowledge of good inside of our heads.

If God is good, then I reason that He will forgive honest mistakes. If I am misled into mistaking some aspect of God's character, I think He will forgive me.

Since God does not reveal Himself directly to the world, I reason that He wants us to seek Him.

So it is not a matter of choosing between many god but rather a matter of deciding whether I will seek my Creator or whether I will manufacturer some excuse not to.

Answer 6

I can see it ... they cannot.

Just imagine what they have lost if they get to the end, only to find out there is nothing ... thus they wasted an entire life which could have been so damned beautiful but was instead spent in kneeling worship.

Answer 7

Star for you, very well said.

The progression of logic and risk vs reward may be sound, but his base assumptions don't hold up.

Answer 8

Bottom line: You have to be in it to win it. If you choose to not believe in God and you're wrong, you will be very sorry. I am not even going to try to challenge your numbers, but some chance of being correct is better than no chance.

Answer 9

Considering it's asked about 50 times a day, I'd guess that they don't get it.


Just a hunch ;)

Answer 10

It's flawed by it's dishonesty.