Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[laylow]

I am used to hearing the traditional Pascal’s Wager and the arguments for it. However, it just refers to belief in God, not a specific religion.

When I think about it from that perspective, I think Christians are quite ballsy.

Using Pascal’s logic, wagering that Jesus, a human being, is God, would have some pretty dire circumstances if incorrect. I don’t think anything could be considered more blasphemous than that.

Most certainly it would be “safer” to be a theist?

 

[Cyril]

I have that problem too, basically whats supposed to happen your to wager that if there is a God, He must be good so being a good person is the most likely way to avoid the wrath and receive the blessing of said God.

It doesn’t take into consideration if God is evil or indifferent or if there are multiple Gods.

Just be a good person is enough for me. Make the world slightly better then when you got here.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician. His wager is about probabilities. He is arguing that you can get an infinite reward by ‘betting’ that God exists. His argument is meant for atheists. That is as far as the wager goes. Of course once you decide that God exists, the next step is to search for the true faith.

 

[laylow]

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician. His wager is about probabilities. He is arguing that you can get an infinite reward by ‘betting’ that God exists. His argument is meant for atheists. That is as far as the wager goes. Of course once you decide that God exists, the next step is to search for the true faith.

But his assumption would be that belief is what earns you the reward. What math did he derive that from?

 

[BartholomewB]

The fact that Pascal’s wager doesn’t tell us which deity to worship is why I reject the wager.

When Pascal presented his argument to the gamblers he knew in Paris in the 1650s, he didn’t have to worry whether some of them might be Muslims, or Buddhists, or even Protestants. If they practiced a religion at all, it was Catholicism. His argument is a simple confrontation between religion and irreligion, but he had no need to take into consideration any religious belief other than those of the Catholic Church. He was writing for real people who were living in a certain place at a certain time. He wasn’t writing for posterity.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It is meant for those who think God can neither be proved nor disproved. Either choice has an equal probability. His point is that even if that is true, the consequence of the choice is not the same.

 

[laylow]

It is meant for those who think God can neither be proved nor disproved. Either choice has an equal probability. His point is that even if that is true, the consequence of the choice is not the same.

But how does he know a nonbeliever that lives a good life won’t be treated better than a believer who doesn’t live so great in the theoretical afterlife?

 

[Dan_Defender]

Look I have no interest in a long debate, suffice it to say that the Bible has severe warnings against those who are faithless.

 

[laylow]

Look I have no interest in a long debate, suffice it to say that the Bible has severe warnings against those who are faithless.

Not really a debate, more than discussion.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Doesn’t it imply Catholicism based on Pascal’s own faith?

 

[MPat]

But how does he know a nonbeliever that lives a good life won’t be treated better than a believer who doesn’t live so great in the theoretical afterlife?

That would be relevant if Pascal’s wager would be specifically meant to persuade a “nonbeliever that lives a good life” to become a “believer who doesn’t live so great”. But it is not. And usually believing that God exists helps to “live a good life”.

But his assumption would be that belief is what earns you the reward. What math did he derive that from?

No. The assumption is that living as if God exists is more likely to result in a reward than living as if God does not exist. The actual mechanism (if the belief itself is relevant, or only some actions that are more likely if the belief is present) doesn’t matter here.

Maybe it would have back then, but now that there are more religions prominent in everyday culture, I don’t feel the wager can be used anymore.

It simply doesn’t have to be used alone.

But anyway, for example, all it needs to defeat atheism is an assumption that even if some other religion would be true, it would still be better to be a Catholic than an atheist. And that seems to be likely, at the very least.

 

[laylow]

And usually believing that God exists helps to “live a good life”.

I disagree. I know many atheists that are more morally sound than believers.

 

[MPat]

I disagree. I know many atheists that are morally sound than believers.

The relevant question is not “Are there atheists who live more morally than believers?”, but “Are there atheists that live more morally than they would live if they were believers?”.

 

[laylow]

The relevant question is not “Are there atheists who live more morally than believers?”, but “Are there atheists that live more morally than they would live if they were believers?”.

If believing is the reason for morality, than I think that morality is questionable to begin with.

 

[MPat]

If believing is the reason for morality, than I think that morality is questionable to begin with.

And?

First, in this case it doesn’t matter what you think. What do various religions believe? For example, Catholic Church does teach that imperfect contrition is much better than no contrition at all.

Second, “questionable” still outranks “non-existent”.

Third, let’s note that you offered no reason to think that there is anything wrong with such morality.

 

[laylow]

First, in this case it doesn’t matter what you think. What do various religions believe? For example, Catholic Church does teach that imperfect contrition is much better than no contrition at all.

The content should be judged on its on merit, not the source.

Second, “questionable” still outranks “non-existent”.

True, but I doubt people who are considered the worst in the world have nonexistent morality.

Third, let’s note that you offered no reason to think that there is anything wrong with such morality.

I don’t, if it’s genuine. In this case, I’m more concerned with result, that the means in which it was derived.

 

[laylow]

But anyway, for example, all it needs to defeat atheism is an assumption that even if some other religion would be true, it would still be better to be a Catholic than an atheist. And that seems to be likely, at the very least.

Really? So worshiping a human being as God, if incorrect would be better than worshiping no one? At best, I think it would be a stalemate.

The two biggest implications logically would be:

1. How much you suffered
2. How well you lived your life to help others

 

[MPat]

The content should be judged on its on merit, not the source.

Not in this case.

If you want to expand the Pascal’s Wager to handle more religions, you have to look how they actually “work”, not how you would prefer them to “work”.

I don’t, if it’s genuine. In this case, I’m more concerned with result, that the means in which it was derived.

Sorry, I’m not sure I can decipher that… You probably meant to write “than with the means” instead of “that the means”, but even that doesn’t make it all that clear…

Could you please restate your position in a bit more detail?

Really? So worshiping a human being as God, if incorrect would be better than worshiping no one? At best, I think it would be a stalemate.

We do not have to imagine things here. Look at how religions that consider Jesus to be merely a man think about this. For example, do Muslims prefer atheists or Catholics? (I get an impression that they do prefer Catholics over atheists.)

The two biggest implications logically would be:

1. How much you suffered
2. How well you lived your life to help others

I’m afraid I do not know what you were trying to say here…

 

[rstrats]

The Wager is flawed right from the start since it’s based on the notion that beliefs can be consciously chosen, and of course that is impossible.

 

[MPat]

The Wager is flawed right from the start since it’s based on the notion that beliefs can be consciously chosen, and of course that is impossible.

Oh, of course it’s possible. It’s just that you chose to hold a belief that that’s impossible.

I wonder why…