When people frequently use Pascal's Wager to argue for theism, what does that say about the state of theism?

Answer 1

They choose God because it's a "safe" bet? What about because they love him . . . or believe him . . .

It's morally bankrupt and really a pity. Oh well.

They're gambling this life for one to come. But there is none to come, so they waste the one free life they have (by conforming to the wishes of a non-existent God) for the delusional meme of life after death.

Answer 2

They are just as bad as the others when they are extremely judgmental then put down non-christians, atheists and I suppose some times agnostics for not siding with them. Thus they bring in the big guns what if questions slap on a silly name like Pascal's Wager and think it would do them some good and get people aboard the loony train. Apparently it back fires if people can see right through it or at least know what direction the questions are headed. With their praise of a supposedly fearing place might as well go with going to hell just to upset them lol. That and speaking about the spaghetti monster is fun just to get a high reaction out of them LOL.

Answer 3

I have to be totally honest today I was doing some research on Hitlers' religious background and I somehow was on an Atheist run forum which for the record was very interesting...I had no idea what Pascal's Wager was..then I read it and was like well I believe that way too.. I know in my heart that there is a God...It is something that cannot really be explained logically, which I am ok with admitting..for me my relationship with God is emotional because I am just so grateful and amazed at how he has changed me....

I think that a lot of times we use Pascal's wager not because we are shakey in our faith, or because the state of our faith is lacking..it just sometimes seems to be a logical way of stating the obvious....Someone is going to be wrong..maybe it is you maybe it is me...in the end we will find out.. I personally wouldn't use it to argue the exsistence of God..because it still wouldn't give someone the physical (correct me if I am wrong) proof they are looking for...

We (Christians/ Atheists/ theists) look at the same world but we see it through to very different sets of eyes... I see God and his work in everything.. every leaf, the way the rain falls, the way that rocks look..and I just feel that it didn't just happen..how it was created. I don't know but I know in my heart that it wasn't an accident..we aren't just all a result of some big cosmic explosion or some type of creature that evolved from pond scum (sorry for lack of a better expresion)... I do like science and I think it has given us wonderful gifts through out the ages...medicine, machines, how things work...but I just don't think it can explain everything.. The argument between Theists and Atheists really never will end until someone is dead and discovers the truth then..and if we are just a body then well I guess we won't really know the difference and it won't matter. I am happy with my beliefs and I know they have made me a better person and I just wish people could understand its not about trying to convert them...its about trying to explain the gift I have been given..

Sorry kind of long winded..my bad.

Answer 4

Most people, including myself, have treated the infamous "Pascal's Wager" as a serious argument for convincing skeptics that it's reasonable to believe in a god. Is it possible, though, that Pascal had something a little different in mind?
Bob Dog has an extended argument in which he explains why he thinks Pascal was making a different point that has long been missed. It's too complex to summarize here, but he ends his argument with:

Pascal is making it clear what he thinks of those who "spread the word of god": they are doing it for their own benefit, not those to whom they proselytize.

I say it clearly: Pascal was not asserting a proof that there is a god, but that the rational are not wrong in denying belief without proof. The answers he found in religion were satisfactory for him, Blaise Pascal, but that he did not arrogantly expect them to satisfy non-believers. And so it should be.

...I'm not sure that I am convinced that Bob Dog is right, but I do think that he is making an interesting argument that deserves to be considered. It's a different perspective on things people have assumed they understood.

Answer 5

Pascal's wager is a fools bet in the truest sense of the word, because one would have to accept it's premise before taking the wager, only those raised to be believers can bother with such nonsense as pascal's wager'' I reject it's premise based on the damning lack of any and all empirical data to suggest the remotest possibility of anything even remotely godlike existing.

Answer 6

It doesn't say anything about the state of theism as much as it does their ignorance to other religions and gods.

When one invokes Pascal's Wager, they are assuming that their god is the only god that one should believe in. It is safer to believe than not. Well, what about the other gazillion gods to choose from? Each one of those gods is significant to a group of people on this planet.

Ignorance is bliss I guess.

Answer 7

It means they're still recycling arguments from the Dark Ages unaware that they've been thoroughly refuted a zillion times already...

Answer 8

Desperation.

Answer 9

that it's reaching for straws that aren't there
Believe in us just to be safe! Even though there are thousands of other religions out there that all claim that only they are right and anyone who says otherwise is a blasphemer.

Answer 10

Yep---it's pretty dumb---they're not only betting there is a god--they are also betting that they have picked the right one--that's akin to backing a racehorse with no legs.