Pascal's Gamble... bad argument?

[bogeydogg]

I have often heard preachers say that they think that a good way to reach non-believers is by Pascal’s Gamble. The idea is that if I believe in God and there is no God then I have lost nothing, however if I don’t believe in God and there is a God then I have lost everything, therefore it is rational to believe in God.

Problem.

1. The argument assumes that if there is a God then it the Christian God or at least Pascal’s God. The problem is that if, for example, Allah is the one true God, then my faith in Jesus Christ is misplaced and will do me great harm.
2. The assertion that a life spent worshiping a fictitous and/or idolatrous God loses nothing is unbiblical. Paul in 1Cor 15, declares that if Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins, have blasphemed God and then goes on in Ch. 16 to say let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul understands that if God exists and is not Jesus then all who follow Jesus are, perhaps literally, cooked. Paul also understands that devoting time treasure and energy to a non-God is a waste of one’s life, and then disallows the idea that a universe without a God has any ultimate meaning by declaring that such an existence would be only valuable insofar as it may be enjoyed sensually.

I think based on these two things, the Christian who is trying to win someone over with this argument is travelling an unproductive road because once the would-be new believer realizes the problems with the idea then other questions will arise.

Thoughts?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have often heard preachers say that they think that a good way to reach non-believers is by Pascal’s Gamble. The idea is that if I believe in God and there is no God then I have lost nothing, however if I don’t believe in God and there is a God then I have lost everything, therefore it is rational to believe in God.

Problem.

1. The argument assumes that if there is a God then it the Christian God or at least Pascal’s God. The problem is that if, for example, Allah is the one true God, then my faith in Jesus Christ is misplaced and will do me great harm.
2. The assertion that a life spent worshiping a fictitous and/or idolatrous God loses nothing is unbiblical. Paul in 1Cor 15, declares that if Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins, have blasphemed God and then goes on in Ch. 16 to say let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul understands that if God exists and is not Jesus then all who follow Jesus are, perhaps literally, cooked. Paul also understands that devoting time treasure and energy to a non-God is a waste of one’s life, and then disallows the idea that a universe without a God has any ultimate meaning by declaring that such an existence would be only valuable insofar as it may be enjoyed sensually.

I think based on these two things, the Christian who is trying to win someone over with this argument is travelling an unproductive road because once the would-be new believer realizes the problems with the idea then other questions will arise.

Thoughts?

My reaction to it: ugh ​

I think it is bad because it is self-centred: “what happens to me ?” What about God’s right to our undivided love ? If Jesus had thought in that selfish way, He would never have been crucified; He would have taken Peter’s advice, & chosen the easy way.

I think it is fundamentally unChristian - even anti-Christian.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

My reaction to it: ugh ​

I think it is bad because it is self-centred: “what happens to me ?” What about God’s right to our undivided love ? If Jesus had thought in that selfish way, He would never have been crucified; He would have taken Peter’s advice, & chosen the easy way.

I think it is fundamentally unChristian - even anti-Christian.

Note that there is imperfect contrition - sorry that I will be punished - and perfect contrition - sorry that I offended God. Whild perfect contrition is to be preferred, don’t scorn imperfect.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Unless I’m very much mistaken, Pascal’s wager was directed at non-believers – in particular, a class of folk who were living rather hedonistic lives and in some cases rather fond of gambling.

The wager was formulated such that it opens a door for non-believers who may be very self-centered to look at faith from a perspective to which they can relate.

Not being an expert on Pascal, I suppose it’s possible that the wager was his own act of faith, but hey – whatever gets you to the table, right? If that’s how the Holy Spirit reached the heart of a non-believing mathemetician, then so be it. Certainly, if his faith was sincere, then he was led there from where he started.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Mirdath]

This is what I had to say about the Wager the last time it got brought up:

Utterly, irredeemably flawed. A piece of theological waste. A lapse of an otherwise great mind.

First, it assumes that the postulated deity has any interest in humanity.

Second, it assumes that the deity will damn anyone who does not believe in it to eternal punishment and denies the Catholic belief of baptism of desire, whereby those who do not know God may still be saved.

Third, it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, each different, many mutually exclusive, and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette.

Fourth, of that myriad of possible religions, it ignores the fact that many don’t even believe in a hell. If Zoroaster or the Unitarian Universalists are right, I don’t even have to bother to profess belief.

Fifth, it again contradicts Catholic teaching by stating that mere belief assures salvation.

Sixth, as MerryAtheist noted and I forgot, a true deity will see one who takes the gamble and merely lip-synchs the prayers for what he or she really is. It offers no proof of God, merely an encouragement to say one believes.

The Wager is illogical, un-Catholic, vague, and altogether a hopeless wreck of philosophy. For some reason I always see it brought up in a ‘well, why not take it? What do you have to lose?’ way, managing to ineffectively impugn my philosophical stance and make an utter fool out of the questioner at the same time. It’s worthless. Stop pretending it isn’t.

---

A few posts later I called it ‘the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics’. I haven’t changed my mind.

 

[bogeydogg]

I was tring to say that I think the wager is worthless in hope of seeing if some one here would bother telling me why they think it is not. These are things abotu which I am curious to know more and to that end I hope to provoke conversation and learn from it.

 

[dacoobob]

1. The argument assumes that if there is a God then it the Christian God or at least Pascal’s God. The problem is that if, for example, Allah is the one true God, then my faith in Jesus Christ is misplaced and will do me great harm.

But no more harm than remaining an atheist would have done you. Picking a religion at random (playing ‘religious roulette’) might not guarantee a ‘win’, but when one has everything to gain and nothing to lose, refusing to play at all makes no sense. This is the whole point of Pascal’s Wager.

1. The assertion that a life spent worshiping a fictitous and/or idolatrous God loses nothing is unbiblical. Paul in 1Cor 15, declares that if Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins, have blasphemed God and then goes on in Ch. 16 to say let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul understands that if God exists and is not Jesus then all who follow Jesus are, perhaps literally, cooked. Paul also understands that devoting time treasure and energy to a non-God is a waste of one’s life, and then disallows the idea that a universe without a God has any ultimate meaning by declaring that such an existence would be only valuable insofar as it may be enjoyed sensually.

I doubt an atheist (at whom Pascal’s Wager is aimed) would worry about Paul’s advice. I assert (and I think Pascal agrees) that in a random, uncaused, and materialistic universe such as an atheist posits, there is no more point in indulging in pleasures than in denying oneself. If yesterday I did something enjoyable, but today I have no memory of the event, and no consequences or reminders (physical, mental, or otherwise) that it ever took place remain, have I actually experienced anything pleasurable at all? It might as well have never happened to me. From my perspective, it never did. In other words, pleasure is subjective.

But if the soul does not exist and consciousness is an illusion dispelled into total oblivion at death, then there is no subject and “I” actually experience no more pleasure in a lifetime of hedonism than if I had simply shot myself at age 15.

Pasca’s Wager isn’t perfect, but for certain people it might make a decent first tiny step toward the truth. The point is that one has nothing to lose by giving faith another look.

 

[tigers08]

But no more harm than remaining an atheist would have done you. Picking a religion at random (playing ‘religious roulette’) might not guarantee a ‘win’, but when one has everything to gain and nothing to lose, refusing to play at all makes no sense.

Except a lifetime of sacrifice. Especially considering they believe this is the only life you get.

I doubt an atheist (at whom Pascal’s Wager is aimed) would worry about Paul’s advice. I assert (and I think Pascal agrees) that in a random, uncaused, and materialistic universe such as an atheist posits, there is no more point in indulging in pleasures than in denying oneself. If yesterday I did something enjoyable, but today I have no memory of the event, and no consequences or reminders (physical, mental, or otherwise) that it ever took place remain, have I actually experienced anything pleasurable at all? It might as well have never happened to me. From my perspective, it never did. In other words, pleasure is subjective.

True, but you can have fun while your alive. In the end there may not be a difference, but while it’s happening there’s a huge difference. I use this same logic to say there’s no difference between heaven and nothing. Without considering hell for a minute, if you just consider the differences between the belief in heaven and the belief in no after-life, nothing really isn’t bad, because you don’t know its nothing.

But if the soul does not exist and consciousness is an illusion dispelled into total oblivion at death, then there is no subject and “I” actually experience no more pleasure in a lifetime of hedonism than if I had simply shot myself at age 15.

We live in the here and now, so take pleasure whenever you can get it.

The point is that one has nothing to lose by giving faith another look.

Well not by giving faith another look, but by by objectively considering different religions, then I agree.

 

[VociMike]

This is what I had to say about the Wager the last time it got brought up:

Utterly, irredeemably flawed. A piece of theological waste. A lapse of an otherwise great mind.

First, it assumes that the postulated deity has any interest in humanity.

No. All that it requires is the possibility, not the assurance.

Second, it assumes that the deity will damn anyone who does not believe in it to eternal punishment and denies the Catholic belief of baptism of desire, whereby those who do not know God may still be saved.

You’re confusing your terms here. Those who would be saved through baptism of desire or any other extraordinary fashion would still be saved through their belief, as evidenced by their obedience to the law of God written onto their hearts. Beyond that, again, all that the wager requires is that there be a possibility, not an assurance, that belief will have infinitely better consequences than disbelief.

Third, it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, each different, many mutually exclusive, and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette.

I think the purpose of the wager is limited to encouraging atheists to consider the consequences of their unbelief, so I don’t think this objection is valid because the wager does not claim to help the person choose the “right” God.

Fourth, of that myriad of possible religions, it ignores the fact that many don’t even believe in a hell. If Zoroaster or the Unitarian Universalists are right, I don’t even have to bother to profess belief.

Again, I think, merely the possibility of an infinite difference in consequences is enough. An assurance is not required.

Fifth, it again contradicts Catholic teaching by stating that mere belief assures salvation.

OK, but the wager is not a course in theology. It is a provocative way to attempt to get an atheist to reconsider. It’s not the end of any potential faith journey but only the very beginning.

Sixth, as MerryAtheist noted and I forgot, a true deity will see one who takes the gamble and merely lip-synchs the prayers for what he or she really is. It offers no proof of God, merely an encouragement to say one believes.

Again, the wager is not the end of any potential faith journey but only the very beginning. The goal of the wager, I would maintain, is merely to get the atheist to rethink the possible outcomes taking into account the infinite consequences which may be involved.

The Wager is illogical, un-Catholic, vague, and altogether a hopeless wreck of philosophy. For some reason I always see it brought up in a ‘well, why not take it? What do you have to lose?’ way, managing to ineffectively impugn my philosophical stance and make an utter fool out of the questioner at the same time. It’s worthless. Stop pretending it isn’t.

No, it’s not worthless. Neither is it all the things that many people seem to think it is. If an atheist comes to concede that there may be an infinite difference in consequences resulting from his finite choices, then the wager has done all it was intended to do.

 

[Mirdath]

All that it requires is the possibility, not the assurance.

Objection noted, but it’s still a sucker’s bet. The possibility is, shall we say, less than evident, and the question of which possibility entirely unsettled – so I’ll live as good a life as I can and take my chances in the hereafter. Maybe I’ll be called up before the lamb, maybe my soul will be weighed against a feather, maybe I’ll see you in the molten steel tsunami – or maybe I won’t be seeing anything.

The goal of the wager, I would maintain, is merely to get the atheist to rethink the possible outcomes taking into account the infinite consequences which may be involved.

No amount of wagering will bring about belief in one who is incapable of it. I’ve tried to believe, and failed miserably. If I found the concept of a loving, fatherly deity reasonable, trust me, I’d be on it like white on rice. I don’t – and betting on the outcome isn’t going to help.

No, it’s not worthless. Neither is it all the things that many people seem to think it is. If an atheist comes to concede that there may be an infinite difference in consequences resulting from his finite choices, then the wager has done all it was intended to do.

Ah yes, believing is a choice – hm, what else do we hear that about all too often? I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you there. My mind simply doesn’t seem to work that way.

Could you imagine yourself denying God? Could you deny him, and deny not merely as an act of petty rebellion or blasphemy but as an honest expression of incredulity?

 

[MerryAtheist]

A few posts later I called it ‘the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics’. I haven’t changed my mind.

And every time I read that line I chuckle. Brilliant!

 

[surgei]

I have often heard preachers say that they think that a good way to reach non-believers is by Pascal’s Gamble. The idea is that if I believe in God and there is no God then I have lost nothing, however if I don’t believe in God and there is a God then I have lost everything, therefore it is rational to believe in God.

This wager is correct and useful when put in context of Catholic theology and Pascal’s work.
There are two types of Grace that are available to a person who does a good deed. We are all most familiar with the idea that God meats our intentions. If we bring the right intent into the mass we get the most out of it. Many of us are less familiar with the second type of Grace that the church assures us is there, the Grace just because we do it.
St Maxamillian used to take advantage of this second type when he did mission work. So did St Theresa of Calcuta. Max would often give out medals of the Theotokos and ask that the person simply keep them on them. Theresa would plant medals like seeds in the ground. It worked for them both.
Pascal’s wager is often trunkated in my opinion and that is why it loses much of it’s power. Part of the wager is that if you do all that a devout man does for a year you will become a devout man. This is where the second form of Grace comes in. I would say that in many a case God will grant the person the gift of belief in much less than a year. He did with me.

 

[Mirdath]

Part of the wager is that if you do all that a devout man does for a year you will become a devout man. This is where the second form of Grace comes in. I would say that in many a case God will grant the person the gift of belief in much less than a year. He did with me.

I am living proof to the contrary. After realizing I did not possess faith, I still went to Mass every Sunday (although I did not receive), obeyed the teachings of the Church, et cetera, et cetera, for a little over a year. Didn’t work.

 

[gomer_tree]

Utterly, irredeemably flawed.

First, it assumes that the postulated deity has any interest in humanity.

Second, it assumes that the deity will damn anyone who does not believe in it to eternal punishment and denies the Catholic belief of baptism of desire, whereby those who do not know God may still be saved.

Third, it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, each different, many mutually exclusive, and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette.

Fourth, of that myriad of possible religions, it ignores the fact that many don’t even believe in a hell. If Zoroaster or the Unitarian Universalists are right, I don’t even have to bother to profess belief.

Fifth, it again contradicts Catholic teaching by stating that mere belief assures salvation.

Sixth, as MerryAtheist noted and I forgot, a true deity will see one who takes the gamble and merely lip-synchs the prayers for what he or she really is. It offers no proof of God, merely an encouragement to say one believes.

I think you are overstating matters. I do not disagree that Pascal’s Wager is flawed. But you are exaggerating the assumptions of it. Pascal’s Wager does not have to have the assumption of a guarantee of anything. It presents as theological philosophy an argument of probabilities. An analogy to it is basically any other kind of wager. If you follow the NFL this year, you will know that the Patriots are 13-0 and the Dolphins are 0-13. They play each other in two weeks. A reasonable person will say that it is a much safer bet to bet on the Patriots to win (assuming you can actually find someone to take that wager!). Saying that makes no guarantees, it is a statement of probabilities. The objection that it makes an argument based on a God that cares is somewhat of a silly one, in my view. The wager is submitted to atheists under the premise of the Christian God. Sure, there are many religions and I suppose you can change the debaters to change the wager, but that woould be something entirely different from Pascal’s Wager in intent.

All that said, there are real problems with Pascal’s Wager. In my view, the largest problem is that it is very difficult to sustain any kind of faith when you are simply trying to base it on probabilities. While I suppose it is possible that imperfect contrition spurred on by this argument can lead to something better, but I wouldn’t count on it. All in all, even if it has merit, it has been - rightly deserved or not - relegated to the bin of ideas that are entirely dismissed. That’s a little unfortunate, because even if flawed, it is a valid philosophical question.

I think a better corrollary argument is:

Does it ever behoove anyone to stop seeking God? In other words, is there any philosophical benefit in a probabilistic sense to stop searching for the truth? This is a little different from Pascal’s Wager, but it is in the same family. Quite honestly, I see no reason why an atheist wouold ever stop checking out religions of all sorts, including of course Christianity, to try and find the God they don’t believe in. From a purely rational viewpoint, looking into different religions and even giving their worship a shot to see if it does anything to you is risk-free in your own mind if you do not believe in anything to begin with. Yet, the promise of eternal life (stating things in terms of utility theory) has a utility infintely greater than the utility of perceived freedom that is gained by being an atheist. Even a small probablilty that such an eternal reward might exist means that it should be worthwhile to continue to seek out the truth of that possibility.

The converse isn’t necessarily true, though. A Christian may reasonably believe they have found the truth, and in addition to that they see no greater reward being promised in any other religion that encourages or promotes looking elsewhere for a different “truth.” Most religions have an eternal reward of some sort promised. Thus, conversion is more a question simply of truth rather than any sort of analysis of probabilities. A nihilistic view has no hope beyond the pleasures of this world. It seems illogical and probabilistically inferior to just accept that view without looking for something better.

So, while the merit of Pascal’s Wager that you should believe in God because of probabilities may fall short. But I think there is merit in the argument (as one of many) that one should continue to seek God because the probabilities suggest it is a rational thing to do.

 

[gomer_tree]

I am living proof to the contrary. After realizing I did not possess faith, I still went to Mass every Sunday (although I did not receive), obeyed the teachings of the Church, et cetera, et cetera, for a little over a year. Didn’t work.

Not every argument “works” for everyone. Not every approach “works” for everyone. This does not undermine the argument as a tool in the arsenal.

If I go to a doctor because I am extremely ill, I don;t expect that the doctor will withold treatment from me because it didn’t work on someone else, when there are also numerous success stories with that treatment. There seems to be this habitual response in faith arguments about how we shouldn’t do or say something because “so and so was told this and he lost his faith!”

Sheesh. I’ve been told I shouldn’t teach my kids religion because they may get sick of it, rebel, and leave the faith as adults because somebody has some story about someone where that happened. Somehow, you never seem to get the anecdotes of the kids who weren’t taught their faith and never came back to the church - to be sure a higher percentage than the other way around.

 

[surgei]

I am living proof to the contrary. After realizing I did not possess faith, I still went to Mass every Sunday (although I did not receive), obeyed the teachings of the Church, et cetera, et cetera, for a little over a year. Didn’t work.

Do you believe now?
I am not asking do you have the feelings of belief. Feelings come and go. Do you believe and know God in the “cloud of unknowing” that needs no proof?
If not why are you here?

 

[surgei]

Objection noted, but it’s still a sucker’s bet. The possibility is, shall we say, less than evident, and the question of which possibility entirely unsettled – so I’ll live as good a life as I can and take my chances in the hereafter. Maybe I’ll be called up before the lamb, maybe my soul will be weighed against a feather, maybe I’ll see you in the molten steel tsunami – or maybe I won’t be seeing anything.

No amount of wagering will bring about belief in one who is incapable of it. I’ve tried to believe, and failed miserably. If I found the concept of a loving, fatherly deity reasonable, trust me, I’d be on it like white on rice. I don’t – and betting on the outcome isn’t going to help.

Ah yes, believing is a choice – hm, what else do we hear that about all too often? I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you there. My mind simply doesn’t seem to work that way.

Could you imagine yourself denying God? Could you deny him, and deny not merely as an act of petty rebellion or blasphemy but as an honest expression of incredulity?

Incredulity is the unwillingness to believe. These are the people who seek to be right no matter the cost. It is a problem with pride. Not in the sense of the legal moral issue but in the way of sickness. The incredulous person is seeking attention. They are just as sick mentaly as the person with bipolar disorder. I am not saying that unbelief is a chemical problem, nor am I saying that bipolar is not a chemical problem. Just that these are both problems and sicknesses of the mind.

 

[Filius_Prodigus]

I have often heard preachers say that they think that a good way to reach non-believers is by Pascal’s Gamble. The idea is that if I believe in God and there is no God then I have lost nothing, however if I don’t believe in God and there is a God then I have lost everything, therefore it is rational to believe in God.

Problem.

1. The argument assumes that if there is a God then it the Christian God or at least Pascal’s God. The problem is that if, for example, Allah is the one true God, then my faith in Jesus Christ is misplaced and will do me great harm.
2. The assertion that a life spent worshiping a fictitous and/or idolatrous God loses nothing is unbiblical. Paul in 1Cor 15, declares that if Christ is not raised then we are still in our sins, have blasphemed God and then goes on in Ch. 16 to say let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul understands that if God exists and is not Jesus then all who follow Jesus are, perhaps literally, cooked. Paul also understands that devoting time treasure and energy to a non-God is a waste of one’s life, and then disallows the idea that a universe without a God has any ultimate meaning by declaring that such an existence would be only valuable insofar as it may be enjoyed sensually.

I think based on these two things, the Christian who is trying to win someone over with this argument is travelling an unproductive road because once the would-be new believer realizes the problems with the idea then other questions will arise.

Thoughts?

I’m an ex atheist. Although Pascal’s wager didn’t reconvert me, when doubts arise, Pascal’s wager is a good complement to prayer and other arguments. You can’t base your faith solely on the wager, but it helps. The most powerful magnet for me is Christ’s personality. Islam cannot beat that.

 

[Mirdath]

So, while the merit of Pascal’s Wager that you should believe in God because of probabilities may fall short. But I think there is merit in the argument (as one of many) that one should continue to seek God because the probabilities suggest it is a rational thing to do.

Some people simply do not seem to have the capacity for faith without empirical knowledge. Thomas the apostle was one such.

If I, like Thomas, could put my finger through Jesus’ palms, I’d be scoping out churches right now.

surgei:

Do you believe now?
I am not asking do you have the feelings of belief. Feelings come and go. Do you believe and know God in the “cloud of unknowing” that needs no proof?

No. I do not think the question of whether or not a deity exists is answerable by mere humans.

If not why are you here?

Because I enjoy being here.

Incredulity is the unwillingness to believe.

Incredulity is the inability to believe. Willingness doesn’t even come into it.

These are the people who seek to be right no matter the cost. It is a problem with pride. Not in the sense of the legal moral issue but in the way of sickness. The incredulous person is seeking attention. They are just as sick mentaly as the person with bipolar disorder. I am not saying that unbelief is a chemical problem, nor am I saying that bipolar is not a chemical problem. Just that these are both problems and sicknesses of the mind.

This is a beautiful example of how not to evangelize.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I think it can be a bad argument for several audiences:
Those who worship Mammon more than they love God
Those who like to be god to themselves and don’t want to be thrown off the throne

And those whose lifestyles are comfortable and pleasant to themselves; then they see the Baptists saying they can’t drink or dance; the Catholics saying they can’t contracept or abort or euthanize; the Seventh Day Adventists saying they can’t eat meat or worship on Sunday; the Church of Christ saying they can’t use musical instruments in worship; Evangelicals say fork over 10% of the gross income please.

Well, for someone who likes money, music, drinking, dancing, contracepting, aborting if needed, and euthanizing if needed, (which is probably most of the population including Christians) perhaps it is too much to ask in terms of sacrifice in the following.

Because it isn’t just about belief–it’s about following. If you say you believe in something, a faith, a denomination, a system, whatever it is, then you are making yourself accountable to it, hence, sacrifice of some sort. Perhaps an hour on Sunday and a few dollars in the basket is the obvious price, but then there are the assents of the baptismal promises, and a seriously thoughtful person doesn’t lightly deny all of Satan’s pomps and works because they’re fun and profitable. Then there’s the morality, and the church laws, and…

So let’s look at the bet. I am happy with my life and am not so much a philosophical atheist as a practical one. You’re saying I should do WHAT on the promise of a rewarding eternal life? Can I save it for the deathbed please?

Ah, the laborer who comes late and is paid the same wages. I would rather have someone go through a deathbed conversion as fire insurance if they’re staring down that moment and smelling the sulphur (or not), if that’s what it takes. Maybe the wager makes the most sense to take as a bet, on the deathbed, when there are no sacrifices left to be made except one’s life. Maybe we should be going to hospitals and accident scenes and talking about Pascal’s Wager. It seems so much more rational and doable in that moment.