The following solves many (not all) fallacies:
When given the choice between following a prescribed moral/religious life (turn the other cheek, judge not thy neighbor, the "Golden Rule," hold your tongue), one should wager on that which is likely to be more favorable in consideration of all possible consequences and their prescribed risks and benefits; regardless of whether one is motivated to do so by religious or other ideals:
If a God (or Gods) exist:
A) The person who follows the above counsel would presumably gain eternal happiness/satisfaction for such altruistic gestures to his/her fellow beings, regardless of belief in God(s) [INFINITE GAIN]
B) The person who does not follow the above counsel would presumably suffer eternal unhappiness/dissatisfaction, regardless of belief in God(s) [INFINITE LOSS]
If God(s) don't exist:
A) Society benefits from the above counsel being followed [FINITE GAIN]
B) Society suffers from the above counsel being rejected (finite loss) [FINITE LOSS]
2007-09-20 09:41:00 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Either way, in following socially moral ideals, whether we are religious or not, there is at least finite gain, with the hope of eternal gain as well. In rejecting these same moral ideals, however, there is a finite loss, with the fear of an eternal loss.
Can theists, atheists, deists, pantheists and agnostics at least agree on this?
I know it's not perfect... suggest improvements if you'd like.
What are your thoughts? Do you think this improves on Pascal's Wager in some material way?
2007-09-20 09:43:24 · update #1
You have this idea that God needs us to do good deeds (altruistic gestures). Why would God need us for that? He could do that Himself.
The Christian idea is that God wants us to be His sons and daughters and to love us and for us to love Him. Love contains the idea of "free will" so God cannot force love on us and still be God just as God cannot be evil and still be God.
If you want to do good deeds and be free from God, then that is what you want and God will eventually agree with you and give you what you want. But if you don't want God in this life, what is going to change in the next life?
2007-09-27 11:38:31 · answer #1 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For one thing I'd like to say that people (from all sides) like to take Pascals Wager to mean much more than what He intended. He merely intended it as a starting point, not as the "beginning and ending" of everyones faith. But anyway I know thats not the point of your question....
Yes I can agree that regardless of faith or lack there of, society needs moral basis to exist. To follow it, can produce finite gain and potentially infinite gain... for good, not solely for ones own self. To reject it, may provide temporal gain but not infinite. Only instant gratification. In any event, it cannot hurt anyone to live morally.
2007-09-20 16:51:59 · answer #2 · answered by impossble_dream 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The deck is totally stacked in favor of "finite gain." Morality will simply "happen" in any human society - whether you have 1 god, or 10,00 of them, or none. That we may later attribute this human behavior to deities and such is the most trivial aspect of it.
It's a bit like betting that something will come down if we throw it up in the air.
2007-09-20 17:21:15 · answer #3 · answered by JAT 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager begins with a bad premise; that mere belief in the existence of god is enough to make it to Heaven. That is Scripturally unsupportable. I think "Jesus Wager" as described by Rick Deem is much more accurate.
2007-09-20 16:48:41 · answer #4 · answered by Tim 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey man. No answer to your Q, I was just wondering if you had joined the church again or something. Your answers seem to be more watered-down that they once were. Maybe I am dreaming this of looking into it too much. We are both inside Utah, we need a support network that helps us not fall into the sea of the "brothers and sisters" just for social reasons. Be strong man! LoL =)
2007-09-21 17:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually - I have always thought along those lines. What would I do different if the second statement were true (i.e. God(s) don't exist)? Nothing. I would always be true to myself.
BTW I love the name you have chosen.
2007-09-20 22:41:50 · answer #6 · answered by Cinthia Round house kicking VT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's better but why can't we simply behave in a moral fashion without the carrot?
2007-09-20 16:47:29 · answer #7 · answered by t_rex_is_mad 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
But you must consider "What if God exist, and he's not the Christian/Jewish God, further more, he is angry that people believe in the Christian/Jewish God.
2007-09-20 16:47:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not atheists that need to be told how to behave morally . . .
An atheist
2007-09-20 16:59:17 · answer #9 · answered by Grotty Bodkin is not dead!!! 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
religious people here believe their actions are irrelevant so it won't work (nice try though)
2007-09-20 16:46:24 · answer #10 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋