Pascal’s Wager

[Peter_J]

The Wager Stated:

A. Either God exists or He does not, and either you choose to believe Him or you do not.
…
C. If you believe in God, and you’re right, you will enjoy unimaginable happiness forever.
…

One of Bud Macfarland Jr’s books had a sub-plot about Pascal’s Wager. Another of his books didn’t involve it, but did have a character with the “I don’t know if God exists, but I know such-and-such about him if he does exist” way of thinking. (At one point in his character development, “Sam” saw that all non-Christian religions, and all non-Catholic Christian denominations, were false, but remained on the fence about whether Catholicism or atheism was the truth.)

 

[Lion_IRC]

A lot of holes have been poked in PW over the years.

One is that there are massive assumptions about the nature of God (an aside here is that there is General Revelation, so we do know something) as a basis for the thing, but the PW is designed to be self-contained. For example, what if you assume God HATES those who believe in him? Then it’s safer not to, and the whole thing falls apart. You are assuming a good and rational God who likes it when people believe in him and rewards them. What if his idea of a reward is something you would never desire, like hell?

Pascals Wager is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for pragmatism.
It (basically) says if you are agnostic about God, and can’t make up your mind, why not give His existence the benefit of the doubt? You’ve got nothing to lose.

 

[Servant19]

Which, some would argue, is actually supportive of the life of a believer.

Only if God does actually exist

.

 

[sehacopian]

Pascals Wager is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for pragmatism.
It (basically) says if you are agnostic about God, and can’t make up your mind, why not give His existence the benefit of the doubt? You’ve got nothing to lose.

Yes, but that would only be possible if you can force yourself to believe in something that you wouldn’t naturally accept. There are still a number of flaws in Pascal’s Wager, and it should not be an argument that we Christians use. I would personally NEVER use it because the Armenian Orthodox Church accepts that there are other ways to achieve salvation besides believing in Jesus and Christianity. Besides, what if you died and found out that Zeus is the king of the gods?

 

[MaryandJoseph]

Me thinks that sometimes people tend to “overthink” an issue.

When I was an atheist, I stumbled upon Pascal’s Wager and it really got me to Think.

Although, there were many things and events that led to my conversion, Pascal’s Wager stayed with me…even to this day.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t know if the timing of this thread was deliberate, but the Gospel today is one that Pascal should have read.

“Stop turning my Father’s house into a marketplace.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12805534:

Pascals Wager is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument for pragmatism.
It (basically) says if you are agnostic about God, and can’t make up your mind, why not

give His existence the benefit of the doubt? You’ve got nothing to lose.

Yes, but that would only be possible if you can force yourself to believe in something that you wouldn’t naturally accept.

…‘force’ yourself to believe?
There is no coercion or attempt at ‘force’. It’s not some Jedi mind trick.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “naturally” as opposed to unnaturally believing/accepting something.
It’s YOUR brain. One can’t blame Pascal for the way it operates if indeed one thinks something unnatural is going on inside there.

…There are still a number of flaws in Pascal’s Wager, and it should not be an argument that we Christians use.

Do you agree with me that it is not an argument for the existence of God but rather, a basic argument for common sense pragmatism?

…I would personally NEVER use it because the Armenian Orthodox Church accepts that there are other ways to achieve salvation besides believing in Jesus and Christianity.

Why should someone care about the afterlife and salvation even when talking to you?
Pascal answers with the rebuttal…why shouldn’t you care about the afterlife?
And he provides a simple, logical reason. Because - if the afterlife doesn’t exist, it won’t matter.
But if it DOES, then it would seem to matter a LOT.

Of course some atheists and anti-theists answer Pascal by citing the two laws of New Atheism.

1. There is no God
2. If there is a God, I hate him.

Christopher Hitchens used to say he hated the idea of God and an afterlife and eternity etc.
But towards the end of his terminal illness he softened a bit saying, when asked about the possibility of an afterlife…“I like surprises”

…Besides, what if you died and found out that Zeus is the king of the gods?

Then that would mean Pascal was right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but that would only be possible if you can force yourself to believe in something that you wouldn’t naturally accept.

This is a common objection, and it is flawed for a number of reasons.

Our wills have a certain amount of control over many of our beliefs. You can choose to think about certain topics. You can choose to be open to new evidence. You can choose to disregard an imprudent fear of error.

Pascal points out that you can:

• choose to pray for faith
• choose to overcome your passions and addiction to sin
• choose to spend time in the company of other believers
• choose to read the Bible with an open heart.

These actions and more will dispose your mind to belief.

Besides, what if you died and found out that Zeus is the king of the gods?

Pascal’s Wager does not attempt to evaluate the merits of the apologetic arguments for Zeus or any other god. However, if one determines that the argument for Christianity is strong but not conclusive, Pascal argues that moving forward in faith in Jesus is the most prudent course of action.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Me thinks that sometimes people tend to “overthink” an issue.

When I was an atheist, I stumbled upon Pascal’s Wager and it really got me to Think.

Although, there were many things and events that led to my conversion, Pascal’s Wager stayed with me…even to this day.

:clapping:

 

[ericc]

Yes, but that would only be possible if you can force yourself to believe in something that you wouldn’t naturally accept. There are still a number of flaws in Pascal’s Wager, and it should not be an argument that we Christians use. I would personally NEVER use it because the Armenian Orthodox Church accepts that there are other ways to achieve salvation besides believing in Jesus and Christianity. Besides, what if you died and found out that Zeus is the king of the gods?

I think PW is constructed to choose between God or No God. Not which god. Once a person believes in the existence of God, then the next step would be for him to decide which one. I don’t believe PW can sway former atheist like Anthony Flew. Evidence for him was some other.

 

[epan]

The Wager Stated:

A. Either God exists or He does not, and either you choose to believe Him or you do not.
B. When you combine these two truths, there are only four logical possibilities.

1. You believe in God, and He exists.
2. You believe in God and He does not exist.
3. You don’t believe in God, and He exists.
4. You don’t believe in God, and He does not exist.
   C. If you believe in God, and you’re right, you will enjoy unimaginable happiness forever.
   D. If you believe in God, and you’re wrong, you will never know you were wrong. When you die, you will simply cease to exist.
   E. If you don’t believe in God, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternal damnation.
   F. If you don’t believe in God, and you are right, you will never know you were right. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. Further, you will not even have the satisfaction of knowing that you were right.
   G. These are the only four reasonable outcomes. You will be in one of these four situations after death.
   H. At present, you have partial control over the outcome.
   I. You cannot abstain from choosing.
   J. The believer has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The non-believer has everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing.
   K. Not believing is the most foolish option.
   L. Therefore, believing in God is the safest course of action.

The safest course, in Pascal’s terms, would be to believe in and worship all god’s who have ever been proposed by the multitude of religions. It could be dangerous to leave one out. From a statistical point of view, the odds of damnation (so to speak) are the lowest by excluding the Judeo-Christian God. It’s surprising that such a poor argument (logically) was proposed by such a brilliant mathematician.

My point is that he does not consider the role of faith in religious belief. Logic can only take you part of the way.

 

[ericc]

Fair enough. However, we are prudent enough to accept small losses when we purchase health insurance or go for a jog in order to acquire more desirable things such as protection from large hospital bills or improved health.

Since the happiness of the Beatific Vision is infinite, the loss due to the sacrifices required of believers is insignificant - even if it is not zero.

I look at this as a gamble with probabilistic expected payoff. Anything multiplied by infinity/eternity renders short term gains/losses(@mortal life length) negligible.

Hence expected payoff is actually:

1)Life with God vs Life with Satan (if God exist/eternity exist)
2)Short term gains/losses (if God doesn’t exist/mortal life length)

Unless the probability associated with option 2 is extremely high (i.e infinity) the higher expected payoff will be option 1.

 

[Tom_Baum]

How so? It seems to me that Pascal merely sets himself up as human.

Pascal objectively establishes the situation that is faced by everyone.

1. We will die; therefore, we must make a wager. Not wagering is not an option.
2. What happens thereafter depends upon two things:
   a. Does God exist?
   b. Do I believe in Him?

I asked, “It is as if Pascal sets him/herself up as God in this “wager” doesn’t it?”

And you in turn asked, “How so?”

Seems to me, that according to Pascal, if one “decides” to believe in God than that is the one and only criteria for either going to the “good place” or not going to the “good place” and as a consequence going to the “bad place”.

Seems to me, to put it mildly, quite the SHALLOW “God” or could it mean something to the effect of the old adage: “God created us in His Image and we have been trying to return the favor ever since”.

Does this “wager” speak of a shallow God or a shallow human being or both?

“Pascal’s wager” seems to be attempting to pull the wool over the Eyes of a God that might be, nothing more but maybe something less.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Maybe but since Pascal was a mathematician, I’m sure he might have considered all the possible states of deity, not only its existence.

To do this, “all the possible states of deity”, wouldn’t Pascal pretty much have to be God?

I don’t know but maybe Pascal considered “all the possible states of deity” that he could think of but do you really think that Pascal could actually consider “all the possible states of deity”?

Seeing as there are “things” about God that are beyond our human comprehension, did Pascal even consider the “state” of the Deity that Is?

 

[Tom_Baum]

You forgot to state that if you don’t believe in God, you can do whatever the heck you like as long as no one finds out!

A life of materialistic gluttony and immoderation in all things.

.

Or one could do what is right for the simple reason that it is right and do it with no thought whatsoever as to receive any “reward” for doing good and to do the good for the simple reason already mentioned.

Could be that a “good” God would smile much more favorably upon something such as this than some phoney baloney, “I believe in You, just in case, because it might be beneficial to me”.

One of these seems to be on the selfless side and one seems to be on the selfish side, can anyone see the difference?

 

[John_Lazarus]

You forgot to state that if you don’t believe in God, you can do whatever the heck you like as long as no one finds out!

A life of materialistic gluttony and immoderation in all things.

.

That is the wag’s “11th Commandment”: “Thou shalt not get caught.”

Supposedly, if you keep that one, you don’t need the first 10.

 

[SteveVH]

Or one could do what is right for the simple reason that it is right and do it with no thought whatsoever as to receive any “reward” for doing good and to do the good for the simple reason already mentioned.

Could be that a “good” God would smile much more favorably upon something such as this than some phoney baloney, “I believe in You, just in case, because it might be beneficial to me”.

One of these seems to be on the selfless side and one seems to be on the selfish side, can anyone see the difference?

I would agree with you, if that was all that was involved (I choose to believe because it gives me the best odds).

But as has been mentioned before, if one then looks into what they have chosen it is quite possible that they may come to an authentic faith.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I would agree with you, if that was all that was involved (I choose to believe because it gives me the best odds).

But as has been mentioned before, if one then looks into what they have chosen it is quite possible that they may come to an authentic faith.

Wouldn’t be the first “con job” that got the “con” thinking a little deeper about what they were doing, as you say, and something a little more than what was intended, coming out of it…

Just what it is called, “Pascal’s Wager”, can bring to mind, someone trying to “hedge their bet”, so to speak.

I was just trying to say that if “Pascal’s Wager” is the extent of one’s “belief” than it seems to be less than shallow, as in an attempted con job, but it can be a start, even if not started out as a start.

 

[Peter_J]

I asked, “It is as if Pascal sets him/herself up as God in this “wager” doesn’t it?”

And you in turn asked, “How so?”

Seems to me, that according to Pascal, if one “decides” to believe in God than that is the one and only criteria for either going to the “good place” or not going to the “good place” and as a consequence going to the “bad place”.

Seems to me, to put it mildly, quite the SHALLOW “God” or could it mean something to the effect of the old adage: “God created us in His Image and we have been trying to return the favor ever since”.

Does this “wager” speak of a shallow God or a shallow human being or both?

“Pascal’s wager” seems to be attempting to pull the wool over the Eyes of a God that might be, nothing more but maybe something less.

I agree with you insofar as one of the problems with PW is saying that We don’t know if God exists, but we know that he cannot exist and not reward “the faithful”. (I put “the faithful” in quotes since I haven’t defined what it means.)

However, I think this problem is fixable. Pascal could have instead started with three possibilities:

• Positive (God exists and rewards “the faithful”)
• Neutral (God does not exist, **or **exists but does not reward or punish “the faithful”)
• Negative (God exists and punishes “the faithful”)

Even with this kind of starting point, Pascal’s argument can still work, provided that the reader believe that the “Negative” possibility is far less likely than the “Positive” one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I asked, “It is as if Pascal sets him/herself up as God in this “wager” doesn’t it?”

And you in turn asked, “How so?”

Seems to me, that according to Pascal, if one “decides” to believe in God than that is the one and only criteria for either going to the “good place” or not going to the “good place” and as a consequence going to the “bad place”.

Seems to me, to put it mildly, quite the SHALLOW “God” or could it mean something to the effect of the old adage: “God created us in His Image and we have been trying to return the favor ever since”.

Does this “wager” speak of a shallow God or a shallow human being or both?

“Pascal’s wager” seems to be attempting to pull the wool over the Eyes of a God that might be, nothing more but maybe something less.

Actually, Pascal was completely cognizant of the phenomenon of which you speak, and there are, in effect, two stages to Pascal’s Argument.

Stage 1 is pretty much as you describe it. The soul recognizes that going to hell is a bad thing and that going to heaven is a better alternative. Fair enough.

Stage 2 begins when the soul actually begins to believe or have true faith as a direct result of taking some basic steps (praying, going to church, reading the bible) in Stage 1. In this stage, the considerations of self-interest no longer pre-dominate - though they may still be useful in times of doubt.

IOW, Tom, you may begin dating a girl simply because she has a car and you don’t. But you wind up falling in love with her.

Beginning to love God can be just like that.