For those who don't know Pascal's wager, it's the argument that says that the expected utility of belief in God outweighs the expected utility of disbelief in God, so we ought to believe.
I was wondering, do any Christians believe in their God because of this argument?
More info on Pascal's Wager:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
2007-10-07 03:18:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The ONLY reason to believe in the biblical monster is an irrational fear of an imaginary place.
2007-10-07 03:24:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
I would hope not. Since you have found that article and read it you should understand that the wager is an agnostic position.
It only has effect if you are not a believer.
If you believe there is no God or if you believe there is a God then the decision is already made.
So first of all, only agnostics can apply the wager, next is the point that his table of values is likely skewed because there are more options than he lists.
Anyhow, it was never intended as an argument for or against God. It was a demonstration of decision theory and he chose a subject that he thought most people of his time would be familiar with, and which had clear payoffs.
To be tedious, it only works if you have no possible way of knowing your choice is right or wrong.
If P's Wager is used as a theological argument, it only proves that the person using the argument does not believe in God.
2007-10-07 03:35:08 · answer #2 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Pascal's Wager brings up the issue of the worth of God to us (or utility as you say).
We seek that which we hope to find. Why hope to find God? The idea of having a communion with the One who created us is very powerful. We know of love and compassion and justice and mercy and, if our Creator exists, He must have put that knowledge into us. So He must have those qualities except to a much higher degree. This is a very powerful attraction to seek Him.
But wait. There is also a very powerful reason not to seek God. God is also an all seeing judge over our actions. Finding God would be like inviting our parents to rule over us like we were children. This is a very powerful reason to not seek Him.
Ultimately, we seek Him or refuse to seek Him and once we have chosen our path, we gather evidence to support our decision.
2007-10-07 23:54:24 · answer #3 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ironically, "Pascal's Wager" is a better argument for being a Satanist than a "Good Christian"...Think about it... In fact it can be used to "prove" accepting ANY doctrine is a good idea!
2007-10-07 03:36:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fundamental problem with Pascal's wager is that it proceeds from a false assumption. That being; that god exists.
When one realizes that, it's easy to see that the whole argument is false.
2007-10-07 03:51:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I had never heard of pascal,s wager before coming to R&S
so no I believe in God because of my personal walk with him
and I know he is real.
2007-10-07 03:23:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it only fosters a message that the person using it believes hedging bets for gain and against possible punishment are reasons for belief. It is highly ineffective on those who find the base belief being promoted is completly unrealistic anyway. It would only work on weak fence sitters who found anything possibly plausible in the system.
2007-10-07 03:28:19 · answer #7 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't personally think it does. The Bible says, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (the Bible). I don't think some philosophical line of reasoning as "pascal's wager" does much good.
2007-10-07 03:22:40 · answer #8 · answered by CJ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No... it's too easy to use this for all the Gods then and they would have to take that into consideration as well. Of course they won't, because they know it's flawed (it simply doesn't work that way). Psychological tactics like this are such a waste of time.
2007-10-07 03:39:29 · answer #9 · answered by River 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They may use it as a post hoc justification, but the primary motivation seems usually to be fear, ignorance and early brainwashing.
CD
2007-10-07 03:30:03 · answer #10 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. We believe because we have experienced. But this is an added argument to prove what we believe.
2007-10-07 03:30:15 · answer #11 · answered by P P 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋