Does Pascal's Wager make sense?

[Steadfast_love]

But, here’s my problem, under several theologies, my belief in the incorrect God is the same, and sometimes worse, than a lack of belief in God. So I am still risking a potential infinite cost in believing in God.

Mathematically it doesn’t matter. The cost of examining a finite number of divine candidates is negligible compared to the infinite value of finding God.

Further, believing in God can and does incur cost in this lifetime. If there is not an infinite afterlife, then moments lost in this life after infinitely more costly.

If you are certain (100%) that God does not exist you are not compelled by the wager to believe *but *disbelief is still not necessarily the best choice. Weigh the finite benefits of each and choose accordingly. There’s *still *a good case to be made for religion (statistically, longer life and happiness) but that doesn’t hold in all cases. For example, there are powerful disincentives to being Catholic if you’re the kinda guy who lives in a Communist state, or hates going to mass.

And finally, (and this is the kicker), can anyone really say that not believing in God would definately incur the infinite cost of hellfire?

Mathematically it doesn’t matter. For example, let’s say that the probability of a disbeliever getting into heaven is 99% – it’s *still *infinitely better to believe since 1% of infinity is infinite.

The exceptions are if God prefers disbelievers (in which case you should obey his will by disbelieving him) or if God makes no distinction (in which case you’re back to comparing the finite benefits of either.)

Now that I think of it, Pascal’s Wager is something more of a threat - “Believe in God or go to Hell”.

It’s only a threat if you agree that you’re neglecting what you ought to do. *Brush your teeth or go to the dentist *is a threat to dental hygiene believers but not to dental hygiene atheists. What Pascal’s Wager is really saying is: you should seek God unless you’re 100% sure that you shouldn’t.

 

[Fate]

Why is that bad? Why would you want to go to hell? Sounds like a weird stubborness.

It’s a threat - and assumes that whoever you are talking to believes in Hell. I’m not the one making the threat that being athiests results in going to Hell - I simply don’t believe it’s true. The problem I have with the logic is that it puts atheists into that box by asserting a false stereotype. Anytime you say a person of category X will go to hell, because that person thinks/believes/reasons/rejects… you have trouble.

I’m not the one asserting that all athiests go to Hell, so I’d ask those that do to provide proof, that is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church they belong to.

The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church

Now, if an atheist was seeking God, but just never found, do you think that they, by the Catholic church’s words above, would be hell-bound? Side note: Any dictioanry definition will let you know that atheism does not require one to state beyond all doubt that God doesn’t exist, it only requires a belief or denial.

Catholic doctrine for Pascal’s wager only let’s it make sense in the confines of someone trying not to find an answer to the question…

 

[Fate]

Mathematically it doesn’t matter. For example, let’s say that the probability of a disbeliever getting into heaven is 99% – it’s still infinitely better to believe since 1% of infinity is infinite.

Actually, this shows a rather basic lack of knowledge in theoretical statistics… Infinity is not a number that you can take a probability of - it’s a construct for a limit that no number can be greater than. This precludes any form of basic multiplication/division, or taking of probabilities based upon it - why is why as a mathmatical construct all of Pascal’s wager is stated in infinites, infinitesimals, and absolutes. If the probability of a believer going to Heaven is not 100% and vice versa… Your system has entered an indeterminate state (google for Lewis Caroll’s Obtuse Problem for a good treatment of issues…)

My conclusion is that Pascal’s Wager is not valid mathmatically, but it does present a good argument for consideration of God, which from what I’m reading here now, seems to be what Pascal might have intended?

 

[Publisher]

I don’t find “going to hell” a good enough reason to believe in God. I think belief is much more than 'fire insurance".

I can “believe” and be a miserable hateful person…I can be a loving and caring person, exhibiting a far more “Christ-like” life than many “Christians” and have no 'belief" at all.

Following Christ for me, is trusting that God has done for me what I could not do for myself…Jesus is recorded to have said that he came to give us life…“life more abundant”. Life in the here and now…eternal life begins NOW…not some later date after I die…becasue when I die I will have passed the opportunity to touch my world in a positive way. Faith in Christ is just the first step of “eternal life”…the Kingdom of God is within us…to be lived in now…not at some future date.

Pascal’s wager tends to suggest that the only benefit “believing” has in to escape the fires of hell…believing now brings me peace…seeking to care for the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked is where eternal life intersects with “this life”…

Paul spoke that those who accept the gift of salvations have been translated into the Kingdom of His Son…in the here and now we live a life that has eternal benefit…not only to us…but for those lives we touch…we share in his incarnation…we become “Jesus” to them.

 

[DixiesFinest]

It is my belief that Pascals Wager does more harm than good. So someone might decide to believe in God (we will ahead and assume its the Most Holy Triune God). What kind of faith and belief will they have? They believe because its insurance, not because they want and desire God. Pascals Wager produces dead, weak faith.

 

[Mijoy2]

The thing that is bothering me about Pascal’s wager, and the point I was trying to drive at, but did not make well… Is that to me, it seems a violation of several Catholic beliefs. (Which is why I posted this here.) Anyway, here are the problems, please correct me if I miss-speak a belief here -

1 - The Church has never noted a person as “going to hell” - but Pascal’s wager takes this as forgranted.

.

I agree. Pascal’s Wager, if an argument for belief in God, is certainly much more of a evangelical or fundamentalist argument then a catholic one. The fundementalist protestant preaches we must believe in God and accept Jesus as our Lord and savior or we most certainly will “go to hell”.

Catholics say no such thing.

 

[cor]

Merely believing in God will never be enough to get anyone into Paradise.

Always remember that Satan too believes in God.

What else is necessary to get into Paradise? Is loving God necessary to get into Paradise?

 

[Montalban]

It’s a threat - and assumes that whoever you are talking to believes in Hell. I’m not the one making the threat that being athiests results in going to Hell - I simply don’t believe it’s true. The problem I have with the logic is that it puts atheists into that box by asserting a false stereotype. Anytime you say a person of category X will go to hell, because that person thinks/believes/reasons/rejects… you have trouble.

So, if I said to you “Don’t touch that live electrical wire, you’ll be killed” you’d be threatened?

It’s not so much a threat, as a promise. The idea of loving God -who is all their is, is a draw-card too! If you reject God - you’re rejecting love. If you feel threatened by that, then I suggest you stay away from things with warning signs as per example above.

I’m not the one asserting that all athiests go to Hell,

Neither am I.

so I’d ask those that do to provide proof, that is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church they belong to.

That what’s not contrary?

Now, if an atheist was seeking God, but just never found, do you think that they, by the Catholic church’s words above, would be hell-bound?

I don’t know. I’m not Catholic.

I’d go by Romans 2

Side note: Any dictioanry definition will let you know that atheism does not require one to state beyond all doubt that God doesn’t exist, it only requires a belief or denial.

Catholic doctrine for Pascal’s wager only let’s it make sense in the confines of someone trying not to find an answer to the question…

Why only “Catholic doctrine”? I hope you answer this Orthodox

 

[DixiesFinest]

“Now, if an atheist was seeking God, but just never found, do you think that they, by the Catholic church’s words above, would be hell-bound?”

St Matthew 7:7-8

"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"

If you seek Him, you will find Him. That is the promise of CHRIST

 

[Fate]

“Now, if an atheist was seeking God, but just never found, do you think that they, by the Catholic church’s words above, would be hell-bound?”

St Matthew 7:7-8

"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened"

If you seek Him, you will find Him. That is the promise of CHRIST

Not seeing where it says it won’t take death for that to happen in every case…

 

[Fate]

That all atheists go to Hell is the implication of Pascal’s wager, because if you take away that aspect, then it becomes meaningless.

I’m discussing this from a Catholic perspective because this is a Catholic forum - mainly, the question of how well Pascal’s wager fits with Catholic doctrine, and secondarily, how well it fits with reason in general. The conclusion that I see from the posts here is that it doesn’t fit with either, but can be a tool against apathy.

Pascal’s wager is used by many as an objective tool. However, the athiest can reject the basic propositions making the wager meaningless, and the very teaching of a great many churches also outright rejects this. Falling in such a strange place - being incorrect according to theological and philosophical rational, I find it strange to be used as such a concrete argument against atheists.

 

[Montalban]

That all atheists go to Hell is the implication of Pascal’s wager, because if you take away that aspect, then it becomes meaningless.

That’s a good point. However it’s not the only point raised here.

IF only you’d address mine about you feeling threatened by the concept of someone telling you what’s going to happen.

The other was a rebuttal to your belief about it’s better to believe in no god than to pick the wrong one.

Neither one I’ve raised you’ve dealt with

However getting back to your point above; although I can’t say for 100% certaintly that an atheist *will *go to hell - for in Orthodoxy we can not judge on behalf of God - I do know that the ‘rejection of’ God, rather than ignorance of God is a sin. So it would be better to believe in God than not. (believe in means follow, not just accept and reject)

 

[cor]

That all atheists go to Hell is the implication of Pascal’s wager, because if you take away that aspect, then it becomes meaningless.

I’m discussing this from a Catholic perspective because this is a Catholic forum - mainly, the question of how well Pascal’s wager fits with Catholic doctrine, and secondarily, how well it fits with reason in general. The conclusion that I see from the posts here is that it doesn’t fit with either, but can be a tool against apathy.

Pascal’s wager is used by many as an objective tool. However, the athiest can reject the basic propositions making the wager meaningless, and the very teaching of a great many churches also outright rejects this. Falling in such a strange place - being incorrect according to theological and philosophical rational, I find it strange to be used as such a concrete argument against atheists.

Catholic doctrine holds that all those who die with the virtue of charity (love for God for his own sake) go to heaven (perhaps being cleansed or purified first) and that all others do not go to heaven.

It’s difficult to see how someone who doesn’t believe in God’s existence could then possess the virtue of charity (which btw entails the presence of sanctifying grace and vice versa).

But I suppose someone could believe in Love’s existence while expressing disbelief in “God’s” existence and loving Love for Love’s own sake is indeed loving God for God’s own sake since God IS Love – that is his very essence.

I’ve heard Jimmy Akin say that some avowed atheists may not truly be atheists – that they may have psychological difficulty acknowledging the existence of God instead of really, truly, rejecting his existence.

I’m not sure if those who believe in God’s existence to a probability can possess the virtue of charity (and I’m unaware of any Catholic writers who have written about it). For example, someone who is unsure of God’s existence might say in a kind of prayer, “God, if you’re out there, I love you!” – can that be an act arising out of the virtue of charity? I don’t know.

 

[Blinky]

In the end, it’s better to have believed in God and be wrong than to not have believed in God and be right.

 

[hamba2han]

What else is necessary to get into Paradise? Is loving God necessary to get into Paradise?

Yes, a loving God is definitely necessary to get into Paradise.

Allah describes Himself in the Qur’an as “the Loving”:

"And He is the Forgiving and Loving" (Al-Buruj 85:14)

However, God does not give unconditional love and His creations must first sincerely repent their sins and wrongdoings as can be seen from numerous verses from the Qur’an, among them are these two examples:

“Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves”… [al-Baqarah 2:222]

“Say: O ‘Ibaadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allaah, verily, Allaah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”… [al-Zumar 39:53]

"Surely those who believe and do righteous deeds, to them will God Most Gracious bestow His Love." Qur’an (19:96)

Those who sincerely repent all of their wrongdoings should never despair that their Creator will not grant them relief when they come back to Him, no matter how far astray they might have gone.

"O My slaves (mankind) who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of Allah, Who forgives all sins. He is the Forgiving, the Merciful." (Az-Zumar 39:53-58)

Forgiving sins and accepting repentance is a manifestation of God’s love. He is absolutely just and fair to the minutest detail, so everyone gets exactly what they deserved, plus extra measures of compassion, mercy, and forgiveness.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Allah said: ‘O son of Adam! I shall go on forgiving you so long as you pray to Me and aspire for My forgiveness whatever may be your sins. O son of Adam! I do not care even if your sins should pile up to the sky and should you beg pardon of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam! If you come to Me with an Earth-full of sins and meet Me, not associating anything with Me in worship, I will certainly grant you as much pardon as will fill the earth’” (At-Tirmidhi).

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:** “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says: ‘I am as My slave thinks I am, and I am with him when he remembers Me. If he remembers me to himself, I remember him to Myself; if he remembers Me in a gathering, I remember him in a gathering better than it; if he draws near to Me a handspan, I draw near to him an arm’s length; if he draws near to me an arm’s length, I draw near to him a fathom’s length; if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed.”** Narrated by Muslim (2675).

 

[b_justb]

I don’t like Pascal’s Wager because it attempts to motivate from a position of fear. Believe in God because if you don’t and you’re wrong you go to hell. Christians don’t love out of fear. We don’t love God or neighbor because we’re afraid of being zapped by some sort of serious anus orifice deity looking down and waiting to zap us so he can have a jolly good laugh.

 

[Fate]

IF only you’d address mine about you feeling threatened by the concept of someone telling you what’s going to happen.

The point is, as was clearly illustrated above, that you can’t make that assertion because you just don’t know. Further, depending on your church, the assertion is likely to conflict with your doctrine. A warning of punishment is the exact definition of threat (check dictionary.com) - so if you are saying, “if God exists you’ll go to Hell”, is by every definition of the word, a threat. Attempting to assert otherwise is just trying to sugar coat the situation.

The other was a rebuttal to your belief about it’s better to believe in no god than to pick the wrong one.

That is not my belief, merely a hypothetical based on other possible belief system. (I don’t know if my stating I’m not atheist didn’t make that obvious enough…)

However getting back to your point above; although I can’t say for 100% certaintly that an atheist *will *go to hell - for in Orthodoxy we can not judge on behalf of God - I do know that the ‘rejection of’ God, rather than ignorance of God is a sin. So it would be better to believe in God than not. (believe in means follow, not just accept and reject)

I think someone has posted a far better response to this than I recently. The false assumption here is that an atheist has rejected God. The problem is that religious people have changed the definition of atheist so they can do the whole “you’re not really atheist, your agnostic” thing. Problem being that being an atheist and an agnostic are not mutually exclusive - unless you reject the older definitions and substitute in definitions from modern Fundamentalists. That definition goes back to ancient greek and the root of the word atheist - it is only in the 20the century that it has changed. Still, just about every major dictionary does provide the proper definition.

Faith requires a lack of information, otherwise it would be knowledge. A person that has “faith God exists”, in a very real way asserts that they don’t know God exists (otherwise, you’d say I know God exists).

Most theists and atheists are actually agnostic. Some of both groups are not. (However, there are arguments against this, but it really requires changing semantics and root meanings…)

 

[Vaclav]

I’m Catholic and I think it is a ridiculous argument on it’s very face.

The problem is that one does not choose to believe in God in order to receive a reward (or to deny a punishment).

I love God, regardless of divine rewards or punishments in this life or the next.

 

[Mijoy2]

I’m Catholic and I think it is a ridiculous argument on it’s very face.

The problem is that one does not choose to believe in God in order to receive a reward (or to deny a punishment).

I love God, regardless of divine rewards or punishments in this life or the next.

I understand your position. But if initial fear gets one thinking about God and then one begins to witness His love and Truth, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

I admit that fear (more so fear of the souls of my children whose spiritual life I ignored) was a catalyst to my conversion and thus the spiritual life of some of those around me.

 

[CCM08]

I would say it is extremely foolish to automatically assume that the infinate gain and loss spoken of is heaven and hell. A somewhat personal example, a friend of mine was killed in a car wreck in high school. His mother was a Christian, his father a declared atheist. His mother took a great deal of comfort believing that her son was with God in death and was able to move on with her life. His father sank into alcoholism and drug abuse, his wife left him over it, and in short became a real mess. In that alone one could say that hope is the infinate gain and the inability to hope the infinate loss.