Pascal's Gamble... bad argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bogeydogg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bogeydogg said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Here is my view, for better or for worse.

Upon reading the wager in Pascal’s Pensees, I felt hopelessly lost at first as I first supposed that the problem expressed in the wager could only be explained by mathematics to have any validity. Pascal was a mathematician. When reading someone’s efforts to explain mathematics behind the wager, my eyes glazed over.

Reading Peter Kreeft’s article about the wager helped, too (found here: peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm)).

But, one thing did stike me about the problem. It is specifically tailored to be answered by a skeptic. A skeptic by definition does not believe that truth is a reality. If a skeptic is confronted with the issue to be resolved in the wager and is forced to consider the possibility of God’s existence (the ultimate truth), he could no longer be considered a skeptic, but an inquirer after truth. And if the person is a honest inquirer, he would invariably led to the truth. This notion of inquiry is something that is discussed in Chesterson’s Orthodoxy.
 
Mirdath said:
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.
Click to expand...
[Edited by Moderator]

The point is, the arguement is put forth to get the nonbeliever to at least begin considering his options; believe, or not believe. And by the by, as ***no one ***has ever heard of you and your [edited by Moderator] theology while EVERYONEhas heard of Pascal and his notable theology, I think I’ll take what he says over what you say any day.

[Edited by Moderator]
 
The real problem with all of this is that you’re trying to force Pascal’s Wager to do things that it wasn’t intended to do. Pascal saw people in his native France slipping from the Catholic Church into agnosticism and atheism. His argument is that, given the choice between the two, it makes infinitely more sense to choose Catholicism.

So comments like “it ignores the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of ways to believe, …], and leaves the gambler to play religious roulette” are like saying that gravity is a flawed theory because it doesn’t account for cellular mitosis.

[Edited by Moderator]

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Gravity and mitosis are not related; we have one explanation for each, and they get along perfectly well. Two differing, mutually exclusive explanations for God – not so much. If you would use the Wager to convince someone to consider Catholicism, you will have to show how every other possible religion is not an option, and good luck with that.

It is something the argument ‘wasn’t intended to do’, as you say, but it is something it absolutely must take into account if it is to be taken seriously. It doesn’t.

I don’t get why you say ‘choose Catholicism’. I didn’t choose to be agnostic; it was the only reasonable option I saw. Maybe it’s different for church-shopping believers, but I can no more choose to believe than you could choose to be abducted by Martians. From here, faith or lack thereof does not look like something you choose, but something that happens to you.
 
Bad argument - depends on your perspective, I think.

From the perspective of the evangelist, if this is all you got left you may as well give it a shot, I guess. There are apparently some that have truly converted because of this argument. But it has to be a last resort, doesn’t it? I mean its a terrible reason to convert, as others have pointed out. And I don’t know if its even really conversion. The hope, I guess, is that Vonnegut is correct that we are (or become) what we pretend to be.

But the problem is from the side of the converted. I just can’t see how this would convince anyone who is really atheistic. Its a terrible argument. Some of these reasons have been mentioned, but I’ll give my top 4:
  1. It assumes that if there is a God, the religion proffered is the right religion. (why should the atheist trust this?)
  2. It assumes that, if there is a God, He cares that you are religious. (again, why trust this aside from faith, which the atheist does’t have)
  3. It assumes that practicing the wrong religion is better than practicing no religion. (IOW, some faiths go easier on the ignorant or atheist then on rival religions. Why wouldn’t the atheist fear he is making it worse by picking the wrong one?)
  4. It assumes that practicing a religion is cost-free.
  5. It assumes that God is satisfied with nominal meaningless worship. (which the atheist will learn is untrue in RCIA)
Now maybe if you have a person that is already in a binary position - he will be Catholic or atheist (so generally a lapsed Catholic) this would work. Eliminating the logical problems created by the possibilities of other faiths would cure 1and 3 on my list. But many leaving the Faith point out no. 5, that they have no business staying because they don’t believe going through the motions will get them anything even if they are wrong. So, if it works for you, knock yourself out. I dont like it.
 
The problem with this argument, is that it only has value to those that already believe. It may strengthen or validate the belief of those already considering becoming Christian, but it is laughable to those who haven’t already considering it. Actually, as I was leaving the Church my father used it on me, and I found the whole idea of the argument offensive.
 
TMC said:
Bad argument - depends on your perspective, I think.

From the perspective of the evangelist, if this is all you got left you may as well give it a shot, I guess. There are apparently some that have truly converted because of this argument. But it has to be a last resort, doesn’t it? I mean its a terrible reason to convert, as others have pointed out. And I don’t know if its even really conversion. The hope, I guess, is that Vonnegut is correct that we are (or become) what we pretend to be.

But the problem is from the side of the converted. I just can’t see how this would convince anyone who is really atheistic. Its a terrible argument. Some of these reasons have been mentioned, but I’ll give my top 4:
  1. It assumes that if there is a God, the religion proffered is the right religion. (why should the atheist trust this?)
  2. It assumes that, if there is a God, He cares that you are religious. (again, why trust this aside from faith, which the atheist does’t have)
  3. It assumes that practicing the wrong religion is better than practicing no religion. (IOW, some faiths go easier on the ignorant or atheist then on rival religions. Why wouldn’t the atheist fear he is making it worse by picking the wrong one?)
  4. It assumes that practicing a religion is cost-free.
  5. It assumes that God is satisfied with nominal meaningless worship. (which the atheist will learn is untrue in RCIA)
Now maybe if you have a person that is already in a binary position - he will be Catholic or atheist (so generally a lapsed Catholic) this would work. Eliminating the logical problems created by the possibilities of other faiths would cure 1and 3 on my list. But many leaving the Faith point out no. 5, that they have no business staying because they don’t believe going through the motions will get them anything even if they are wrong. So, if it works for you, knock yourself out. I dont like it.
Click to expand...
Ok, so counting isn’t my strong suit, looks like I have a top 5.
 
bogeydogg said:
…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.
Click to expand...
The wager poses as a “stand-alone proof” that belief is rational and disbelief is irrational. That may not be its intent or what it can teach, but that is how I read it.

But God would not accept a “fake belief” (“I believe [but I know you aren’t there]”). So some may say the wager really intends to prove that a rational disbeliever should CONSIDER the possibility that God exists.

I think that ALL BY ITSELF the wager does not prove even that one should consider God.

The wager makes some assumptions that might be acceptable even to some atheists. I.e. it assumes that you accept the NOTION of a “God who causes you to lose everything if you don’t believe in Him” (e.g. you don’t think it is a self-contradiction). It assumes you think that belief is by choice, i.e. not something that can’t be helped. But there is one assumption that is different.

THE FATAL ASSUMPTION OF THE WAGER (as I see it)

The wager (AS IT STANDS) has an hidden assumption that you think the existence of God is (at least) POSSIBLE and not absurd (on the basis of SOME other evidence - NOT just mathematical probability such as 50%(exists/doesn’t exist)).

Similar wager that shows what I mean:

Background: I am told by many people that there is an “oddsc”, who is a 2-headed-6-winged-santa-claus. They say that this oddsc will put everyone who doesn’t believe in him by 2 o’clock tomorrow into a coal-bin for the rest of their lives.

Wager: “If I believe in oddsc and there is no oddsc then I have lost nothing, however if I don’t believe in oddsc and there is a oddsc then I have ruined the rest of my life, therefore it is rational to believe in oddsc”

Who would go out to look for an absurd oddsc (in case he is not absurd after all)?

Here’s an argument that a rational man must at least CONSIDER God’s existence:

Belief Lottery​

There are two tickets, which do you choose:
continue disbelief - buys either:
…NO GOD: nothing much… OR
…GOD: hell

reconsider belief - buys either:
…NO GOD: nothing much… OR
…GOD: heaven (if you come to believe & obey)
Any rational man would choose to reconsider belief. (So the argument goes)

The problem is (once again) that some atheists think that hell, heaven and <a God who requires you to believe, or else hell> are impossible or absurd. Cross out all the “GOD” consequences, and see what you get.​

HOWEVER there is still hope for some form of the wager. The evidence for God seems to speak for itself (to us, and at least to some atheists - I think). Evidence comes from all directions: conscience, scripture (especially the life of a man named Jesus), creation, our hearts, etc. I hope that deep down some atheists think there is a possibility of God that is seen from God’s grace and all things, not from Pascal’s wager itself.

But a very small possibility isn’t going to move all atheists either. There’s a minute possibility that a claimed cancer cure in Timbuktu may actually work. But many rational people may stick with what they know (medicine that sometimes helps), unless more evidence is given.

However some (by God’s grace) may have felt the strong “pull” of God’s evidence. Possibility may have become real hope in, or fear of, a God that one is beginning to see; or eagerness to reflect on an idea that just might be Truth. Possibility may have become a “reverse” kind of doubt – a doubt of one’s own disbelief, pulling a man towards God not away.

But our perception of God’s evidence, and our search for Him, can be hampered by various things: our own unwillingness, self-deception, carelessness, lack of time, the remoteness of “the next life”, etc.

The wager may remind us that if we even suspect that God is real, searching for Him is something we cannot afford to neglect.

POSSIBLE REWORKING OF THE WAGER (expansion)

Have you ever suspected that God may exist, because of the evidence of your heart and other gifts that may be from Him? If you have, don’t stop looking for Him! If God does NOT exist, but you really looked for Him, what great harm will it do? But if God DOES exist, where will you be, at the end of your life? If you did not care to look for Him (and ignored His call), you will never have God, for you did not seek Him – this is called Hell. If you sought God, with all your heart, and followed Him if He was found, you will forever have the God whom you sought – this is called heaven. If you think there may be a God in whom our happiness lies, search Him out! And pray to Him: “God (if you exist) help me”. What harm will it do, if He does not exist; what good may it do if He does?
 
I’ve read an author propose that the Wager is actually a parody of over-rationalizing faith. I think it was Kathleen Higgins and Robert Solomon in Short History of Philosophy, but I’m not certain.
 
Couple of excellent posts here, especially TMC and nkbeth.

Here are a few thoughts from the atheistic perspective.

I can imagine that our known part of the Universe (3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions) is not “all” there is. I can imagine that there are “beings” (why only one?) out there somewhere who played an instrumental role in the formation of this part of the Universe. Maybe they even played a part in arranging matters so that our life would emerge. Maybe they are even interested in us, for some reason or another. None of this looks unreasonable to me, even though I do not find it plausible or useful.

What follows from this hypothesis?
  1. Those beings cannot be “self-sufficient”. If someone is self-sufficient, he (or she, or it) will not engage in any activity. Any activity presumes a purpose. (In the traditional God-view, God wants to be loved. That is a “need” - the lack of self-sufficiency.)
  2. Those beings would be extremely powerful, especially compared to us. There is no such thing as “all-powerful”, it is a nonsensical concept.
  3. Those beings cannot be “all-knowing”. Apart from the fact that no one can “know” about something that does not exist, the act of creation presumes a need for obtaining knowledge or amusement or something else.
  4. Even if we are “interesting” for those beings, they would never reveal themselves to us. There would be two reasons for this:
4a) If we are a scientific experiment, then any revelation would be a disturbance of the autonomy of experiment, and that is an absolute “no-no”.

4b) Even if we are here for their amusement only, its would be cruel to notify us about our origin. And I cannot imagine the intelligence and power these beings must have can be reconciled with petty cruelty.
  1. The idea that these beings would “reward” or “punish” us for not loving and serving them is preposterous. What a low level of behavior it would be? To create beings, give them rational thoughts, not give them absolutely unambiguous proof of their existence, and then demand that they “love” and “serve” them is mind-boggling.
What follows from these thoughts?

Even if there are such beings (god-like compared to us) what would be the point in believing, or loving or serving them? Nothing at all. We must live our life to the fullest “here and now”, because we know that this “here and now” is real. To give it all up for some possible “afterlife” would be giving up something real for something that may or may not exist.

And that is a bad gamble.
 
Great points, ateista. But why would it be cruel for the being(s) to notify us of our origin? And if it is cruel, how do you know this cruelty isn’t part of their amusement?
ateista said:
  1. Even if we are “interesting” for those beings, they would never reveal themselves to us. There would be two reasons for this:
4a) If we are a scientific experiment, then any revelation would be a disturbance of the autonomy of experiment, and that is an absolute “no-no”.

4b) Even if we are here for their amusement only, its would be cruel to notify us about our origin. And I cannot imagine the intelligence and power these beings must have can be reconciled with petty cruelty.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, it sure could be. But I simply cannot fathom to have that level of intelligence and power to be compatible with such low-level “amusement”. To notify sentient beings that they were created for “amusement only” is pretty cruel. That is, of course my opinion only. 🙂
 
quote:
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.unquote

Maybe you didn’t really want to (believe)? Only a year? Not even close. It may be the work of a lifetime. Have you asked for the gift of faith? It is a gift, you know. You have to ask for it. You have to want it. That’s step one. If you don’t want it, forget it. It’s your call. Stop playing at it.
 
anthony8109 said:
Maybe you didn’t really want to (believe)? Only a year? Not even close. It may be the work of a lifetime. Have you asked for the gift of faith? It is a gift, you know. You have to ask for it. You have to want it. That’s step one. If you don’t want it, forget it. It’s your call. Stop playing at it.
Click to expand...
Who are you to tell me what I do and don’t and have and haven’t wanted? I wanted to believe with all my heart – and I couldn’t. Don’t impugn my sincerity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top