First off, I find myself strongly disagreeing with Mr.Damian on a multitude of issues. Someone mentioned Russell. The ontological proof was the only argument that came close to converting old Bertrand…“Great God in boots, …etc”. But that was a different thread. Pascal was one of the most intelligent people who ever lived and it’s queer that his contributions to religion outshine all his other achievements. Nevertheless, the wager is one of the most invaluable tools for the evangelization of our Church in our modern times…which was the whole point of Vatican II, right?..interfaith dialogue and rational discussion.
The real one? Allah? Wotan? Prometheus? Shigidi? Mithra? Thor? Kali? Vishnu? Nuit? Dionysius? Isis? Zeus? Deanna? Hera? Apollo?
People wouldn’t die for their faith unless they were very, very sure it was true… I feel very drawn towards Mecca or Shinto…
As for our friend Moonstruck, you aren’t the only one who feels threatened by protestant fundamentalists. I feel like you lean toward atheism mostly for political reasons but I may be wrong there. Catholics don’t believe in the rapture and in no way feel obligated to bring about the apocalypse. In fact, most of us fear it because it gives us less time to get gentlemen like yourself into eternal paradise, which aside from our other commandments from the sermon on the mount (assisting the poor, tending to the sick, visiting those in prison, loving one another, etc), it is imperative for us to “make disciplines of all nations and baptize as many as possible in the name of Jesus Christ”.
It may come as a surprise to many, but the actual concept of “the wager” comes from a Muslim scholar. I didn’t realize this until I read Disouza’s book “whats so great about christianity” which is a reply to “god is not great”. Pascal was probably familiar with its origins and modified it for a Catholic Context.
I’ve read most of Pascal’s Pensees, but I must admit, I haven’t gotten around to all it. I am also familiar with his conversion to Catholicism, which I believe was partially related to a mystical vision after a carriage accident (What’s with God appearing to people riding or near horses?..Constantine, Paul, etc). He recorded it as “fire. God of abraham, Issac, not of philosophy or the academics.” In other words, I’m pretty sure God gave him a pretty good glimpse of hell. This leads us to believe that he WASN’T converted by the argument of the wager, but by mystical reasons…or an act of God. He formulated the argument for philosophers and scholars (people mostly consumed by arrogance and destined for hell), for the primary purpose of making sure THEY AVOID HELL.
The “which god should I wager on” objection comes very close to a straw man. It’s like taking something someone says completely out of context. In Pensees, he has one entire chapter exclusively devoted to theology and “Proofs of Jesus Christ” as it is called. Modern atheists (not all, but
those who are out to make a quick buck like Hitchens) don’t really care what this brilliant man had to say, they are just looking for a quick way to steamroll his argument and move on…forget that it was* conceived in a Catholic context by a Catholic convert*, …that alone should indicate to which God Pascal recommends applying the wager, but the Pensees are filled with references to scripture and reasons why one should place their faith in Jesus Christ. Pascal’s wager exclusively applies to Jesus Christ if one wants insert his name in front of the word wager.
That doesn’t mean that other religions can’t make use of it. They can, and it was originally muslims who used it to their advantage, however, there are two conditions that must be met in order for any type of wager to be proposed.
- Place of eternal suffering
- Place of eternal joy
Therefore, many religions or “Gods” that you mentioned don’t qualify. In short, you are strawmanning Pascal.
My next point comes from myself, a semi-professional gambler, not Pascal. Since I am a graduate student, most of my income comes from online poker, and playing hold 'em at casinos. The assumption implicit in your objection, “Wagering on any arbitrary God is equally valid, one wager is as equally valid as the next” assumes that all gods have an equal chance of “winning” or being the one true God. This isn’t true. There exists more justification for believing in one god over another. In other words, it’s like you going into a casino and playing a slot machine with a 15% house advantage and assuming you have an equal chance of winning on the slot as you do in blackjack or roulette which offer a 1%-5% house edge depending on the variant. If your chances of winning the lottery are one in 156million, then you should only, in mathematical theory, have “justification” to play if there is over 156million in the prize pool. This concept is called “pot odds” in poker and the example is more easier to see in that context. I play poker because I know when I chase a straight, I have around a 32% chance of actually making my hand, so I only do so when I am getting more than 3 to 1 on my money. Because I understand pot odds and choose to play a game where I directly choose my odds, as opposed to a game where to odds are fixed to be advantageous to the house, I end up winning in the long run. This is why slot players, and lottery players are suckers.
I think many religions are sucker bets. I’ve carefully researched my reasons and don’t have time to go into them. But to put into into perspective, Jesus mentioned that your reward in heaven will be a “hundred fold” more than what you leave behind on earth. In other words you are getting 100 to 1 on your money.
