Pascal's Wager

[Mark_David]

I’ve noticed that some militant atheists today brush off Pascal’s Wager as having been sufficiently contested numerous ways and thus is no longer compelling or even relevant. Despite the spiritual shallowness of the Wager, I think that it still holds water. No matter what one believes: it is definite that Hell is a possibility, and there are more compelling arguments for its existence as opposed to its contrary opinions. Furthermore, many arguments can be made for why believing in Jesus Christ as God is beneficial for the individual, beyond the safeness of taking the path that the Wager suggests (I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value). The Wager may not be the best reason for one to become a Christian, but it is still a reason, and a logical one at that. What’s your view of it?

 

[coolduude]

It makes perfect sense to me. In it’s simplest form, one either loses big and for all eternity, wins big, or nothing happens. It’s stupid to contest it, IMO. People now days…

 

[Samuel63]

I have always liked the wager. The more you consider the options available, the more clear it is to bet on a possible positive outcome. It makes perfect sense, even to an atheist.

I believe this is what bothers them so much. This simple argument, or wager, turns them around and forces them to consider leading a holy life. They cannot stand this! They have one more tactic to deploy, that is, to just “brush off” the wager with a mere technicality.

However, there is no technical error in this wager. They are seriously stuck. Stuck between truth and the evil one that is. They are in the middle of a spiritual tug-of-war with eternal consequences.

Pascal was trying to make them think. I am certain he saved a lot of souls over the centuries with this little gem.

 

[kimmielittle]

I have always liked the wager. The more you consider the options available, the more clear it is to bet on a possible positive outcome. It makes perfect sense, even to an atheist.

I believe this is what bothers them so much. This simple argument, or wager, turns them around and forces them to consider leading a holy life. They cannot stand this! They have one more tactic to deploy, that is, to just “brush off” the wager with a mere technicality.

However, there is no technical error in this wager. They are seriously stuck. Stuck between truth and the evil one that is. They are in the middle of a spiritual tug-of-war with eternal consequences.

Pascal was trying to make them think. I am certain he saved a lot of souls over the centuries with this little gem.

 

[Mark_David]

It makes perfect sense to me. In it’s simplest form, one either loses big and for all eternity, wins big, or nothing happens. It’s stupid to contest it, IMO. People now days…

One way they try to contest it is in claiming that being a Christian means that you lose many temporal things in this life. The problem with that, though, is that it wouldn’t make any difference either way in a godless world, if life were meaningless, and nothing had any inherent value. Thus, the Wager still stands.

I believe this is what bothers them so much. This simple argument, or wager, turns them around and forces them to consider leading a holy life. They cannot stand this! They have one more tactic to deploy, that is, to just “brush off” the wager with a mere technicality.

I agree - it seems to be more about personal convenience than what is the safer bet. Sort of like a severe diabetic who wants to eat a whole cake over a short period - their doctor warned them not to, but they might wager that we can’t know for sure that it’ll harm them, so they go ahead and eat it, because they enjoy it so much. Convenience over prudence.

 

[jochoa]

I agree with you. Any reason that is pro-Christ is a good reason in my book, including “fake it, until you make it.”
God knows the extremely difficult situations of our lives:
First, we are born with what I think is zero knowledge, but Free Will and Desires, which cry for egoism!
Second, no matter who first shares His Word with you, you are first hearing His Word from a hypocrite. In most cases, the hypocrite is very far from understanding and practicing His Word completely.
Third, you are in a world where the greater the egoism (the overwhelming majority of the time) the more fame, fortune, desirability, and seemingly more peace and happiness.
Fourth, the only book that provides insight to the Amazing Law of Love is very far from easily understandable.
Fifth, the best human to understand His Word and role model of His Will, is also God! Whew!

As long as you continually and genuinely seek His Word and Him, you will, without a doubt, grow in peace, happiness, and longevity. If one is not gaining and/or spreading peace, happiness, and longevity, he/she has either misinterpreted the Word or is not doing His Will.

I have had many different reasons which, over time have strengthened my belief in God and His Word. 1. Parents forced me to learn. 2. Searching for peace in a stress-filled life. 3. Fake it until you make it (doing a simple aspect of His Word, but not doing His Will) 4. Learning obedience through Suffering. 5. Experiencing a taste of the power of doing His Will instead of my will, in my inner-self. 6. Experiencing a taste of the power of doing His Will instead of my will, in my relationships.

 

[Mark_David]

I agree with you. Any reason that is pro-Christ is a good reason in my book, including “fake it, until you make it.”

Yes, and that can be Biblically supported too: What difference does it make, as long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed? And in that I rejoice. Philippians 1:18 Doing the right thing, even if your heart isn’t fully in it, is still doing the right thing, which is always better than doing the wrong thing with your whole heart (another common atheist fallacy). You made a lot of good points in your post.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The idea is all ridiculous and a waste of time. Ridiculous because the reason for living properly is because…it is factually further advantageous. For the human , both emotionally and physically, a moderate well ordered life is naturally agreeable by… “ease of existence”.

Therefore spiritually progressive only as well, relative to the believer by virtue of reasoned choice in honor of belief system

But none the less progressive by any means which will employ reason…We are graciously bound by reason(God)

A primitive challenge, for the primitive mind.with appropriately ancient marketing skills .

Fear for those who inflict fear. What a bore.

 

[jochoa]

Yes, and that can be Biblically supported too: What difference does it make, as long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed? And in that I rejoice. Philippians 1:18 Doing the right thing, even if your heart isn’t fully in it, is still doing the right thing, which is always better than doing the wrong thing with your whole heart (another common atheist fallacy). You made a lot of good points in your post.

Thank you very much for sharing the Biblical reference and kind thoughts! May peace be with you.

 

[exnihilo]

I think it is a very interesting idea. It is of course not a proof for God but a argument that you are better off, given the choice of belief or lack of belief, in choosing belief. There are some good criticisms of it that I think make it important to make clear the wager. For instance you have to account for believing in the right divinity such that you actually get a reward and dont suffer. In other words if believing in a vague notion of God is not sufficient then simple belief accomplishes nothing. You also have to consider what is proper belief. Will God accept belief based only on the advantage the wager claims?

I find the idea of the wager most interesting in our life on Earth. It appears that belief has benefits to longevity and possibly quality of life as perceived by the believer.

The wager also ought to lead one to think about how acting as if something is true influences your true belief. This certainly seems to be the case. It seems acting as if something is true increases your perception that it is in fact true. Then it is worth examining what beliefs lead to a better life.

If an idea leads to a better life would that suggest that the idea is true. Or can false beliefs just as easily lead to better life? Or are beliefs and their truth completely unrelated to a better life.

If one were to deny God yet believing in God leads to a better life then the denier would be left saying that false beliefs can lead to a better life. That is certainly something that would seem strange and problematic.

 

[Mark_David]

In other words if believing in a vague notion of God is not sufficient then simple belief accomplishes nothing. You also have to consider what is proper belief. Will God accept belief based only on the advantage the wager claims?

According to the Catholic Church (as far as I understand), a vague notion of God can be sufficient for those who aren’t familiar with, don’t understand, or (with a good conscience) can’t accept the correct doctrines; nothing is impossible with God. In any case: It seems to me that, yes, a vague notion is better than none at all.

The wager also ought to lead one to think about how acting as if something is true influences your true belief. This certainly seems to be the case. It seems acting as if something is true increases your perception that it is in fact true. Then it is worth examining what beliefs lead to a better life.

Buddhism posits that “We suffer”, and leads us to the conclusion that Desire makes us suffer. Christianity understands this better and more fully, I believe, in that it isn’t merely desire that makes us suffer, but desire of worldly things - ie: sinful desires. Committing sinful acts may offer temporary “pleasure” and relief from those desires, but the aftermath always proves to be even worse for the individual than before. Sin offends God, and, sooner or later, destroys us as well, in this life and in the one to come. Emotions aren’t bad in themselves; it’s what provokes them and how we respond to them that matters.

If an idea leads to a better life would that suggest that the idea is true. Or can false beliefs just as easily lead to better life? Or are beliefs and their truth completely unrelated to a better life.

The foundation has to be true, I think. Bad tree = bad fruit. That doesn’t mean that one can’t be deluded about certain things while being on the right path.

If one were to deny God yet believing in God leads to a better life then the denier would be left saying that false beliefs can lead to a better life. That is certainly something that would seem strange and problematic.

I reject that false belief leads to a genuinely better life. Many people come to embrace their sufferings, or simply endure them in further pursuit of worldly things - so the word “better” in that context could mean many different things. People don’t always know what’s actually good for them; or, even if they do, irrationally keep gratifying their sinful, base instincts.

 

[TheWatcher]

The biggest problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it can be applied to Non-Catholic and Non-Christian teachings as well.

Belief in a random God or Gods won’t help; to earn the reward and avoid the punishment, you must pick the correct God.

For someone who feels that the real God is obvious, this is not difficult. For someone who does not believe, this does not help.

It would make sense, if you did not know, to base your faith then in a god with the strictest requirements. Surely, if the more lax one happens to be correct, the more strict church will definitely be “safe.” There are many faiths, even within the Christian umbrella, to pick from. Why would you pick the forgiving and loving God? Surely, if God was forgiving and loving, he would forgive you for thinking he would not forgive you and love you, despite your wildly inaccurate thoughts of him. You did, after-all, still believe in him, probably loved him, and strove to please him.

Another major problem with the wager is insincere belief. The belief of the person would not be based on any understanding or love of god; merely an avoidance of hell and hope of reward. I forgot who it was now- I will have to look it up at some point, contact me if you are interested- that suggested that God may value true seekers of truth over dull-belief. In which case, a lack of belief may actually be worth more in the risk analysis than simply believing because you want something.

The last major problem I’ll outline here is belief based on choice. For someone who is skeptical of God, believing is difficult. If I told you that Tinkerbell is real, all you have to do is believe, you likely wouldn’t suddenly believe. Even if I were to assign rewards and punishments (after your death) to your belief, you likely would still find yourself skeptical. I am not addressing, at all, why it is you should believe in Tinkerbell, although I can show you in the same manner as Pascal, why it would be beneficial for you to believe over not-believing. Pascal isn’t addressing such non-belief either.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The biggest problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it can be applied to Non-Catholic and Non-Christian teachings as well.

Belief in a random God or Gods won’t help; to earn the reward and avoid the punishment, you must pick the correct God.

For someone who feels that the real God is obvious, this is not difficult. For someone who does not believe, this does not help.

It would make sense, if you did not know, to base your faith then in a god with the strictest requirements. Surely, if the more lax one happens to be correct, the more strict church will definitely be “safe.” There are many faiths, even within the Christian umbrella, to pick from. Why would you pick the forgiving and loving God? Surely, if God was forgiving and loving, he would forgive you for thinking he would not forgive you and love you, despite your wildly inaccurate thoughts of him. You did, after-all, still believe in him, probably loved him, and strove to please him.

Another major problem with the wager is insincere belief. The belief of the person would not be based on any understanding or love of god; merely an avoidance of hell and hope of reward. I forgot who it was now- I will have to look it up at some point, contact me if you are interested- that suggested that God may value true seekers of truth over dull-belief. In which case, a lack of belief may actually be worth more in the risk analysis than simply believing because you want something.

The last major problem I’ll outline here is belief based on choice. For someone who is skeptical of God, believing is difficult. If I told you that Tinkerbell is real, all you have to do is believe, you likely wouldn’t suddenly believe. Even if I were to assign rewards and punishments (after your death) to your belief, you likely would still find yourself skeptical. I am not addressing, at all, why it is you should believe in Tinkerbell, although I can show you in the same manner as Pascal, why it would be beneficial for you to believe over not-believing. Pascal isn’t addressing such non-belief either.

I would like to confess that I made my post without knowing what Pascal’s Wager was about.
Thought it must of been a sophisticated long idea with all kinds of implications and so on.

so…I thought i could guess what it was based on the entries and…the emphasis on fear in man
with respects to the dreaded hell business. Theres simply no end to the dungeon idea in spirituality right up to todays thinking. Goggled it and found out what the wager is about.

Obviously, the missing link in the wager concerns the idea of a personal God. Simply following Pascal’s advise , the atheist unfolds a sort of robot faith without the doorway to
an interior life. The newfound follower of a good lifestyle cannot imagine or otherwise participate in the idea of received refreshment of Peace, from a specific source.
A stickily solo affair.

It could be argued that Pascal’s wager is cruel and a menace to Spirituality.

Here is the wager from goggle:

“Pascal says that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ.”

I will rephrase above wager in simple terms highlighting exactly what is being said and
show recklessness in spiritual inspiration.

If you cannot prove to yourself that in fact there is a God, you may as well live properly with
attention to a moderate lifestyle as the mechanics of the Human being, are thus best served.

Rephrased again without loss:

Hey …maybe theres a God, maybe there isn’t, your better off living with moderation.

Another rephrasing:

What the heck are you thinking, just live properly and forget it.

Another rephrasing:

It’s hopeless man, do the best you can to live good, for yourself.

Another rephrasing:

Who cares!!! try to live good and forget it.

Another rephrasing:

Take my advise as a Christian .You really shouldn’t give two piece’s of baloney about it and just live properly.:…Whats the matter with you anyway?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Among the numerous problems of Pascal’s Wager, it can be reversed! Here’s one person’s reversal of Pascal’s Wager:

“Suppose there is a god, but he is only going to reward those who have enough courage not to believe in him. This god is no less likely than Pascal’s. By Believing in a god, Christians are risking eternal torture! When they die, they will be very surprised.”

 

[Blinky]

Among the numerous problems of Pascal’s Wager, it can be reversed! Here’s one person’s reversal of Pascal’s Wager:

“Suppose there is a god, but he is only going to reward those who have enough courage not to believe in him. This god is no less likely than Pascal’s. By Believing in a god, Christians are risking eternal torture! When they die, they will be very surprised.”

What is the name of the god or religion that you are referring to?

 

[rossum]

I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value

A Muslim might lose up to three of his wives. A Lesbian could lose her wife. In both cases they are losing something of inherent value to them.

My usual reply to Pascal’s wager is, “Do you attend a Mosque on Fridays, just in case?”

Anyway, you get better odds at a Hindu temple: worship one god, get 999,999 for free.

rossum

 

[Mark_David]

A Muslim might lose up to three of his wives. A Lesbian could lose her wife. In both cases they are losing something of inherent value to them.

Likewise, a serial killer could miss out on adding more names to his death list. This proves nothing.

My usual reply to Pascal’s wager is, “Do you attend a Mosque on Fridays, just in case?”

That would be in direct violation of the first commandment.

 

[Rahn]

I’ve noticed that some militant atheists today brush off Pascal’s Wager as having been sufficiently contested numerous ways and thus is no longer compelling or even relevant. Despite the spiritual shallowness of the Wager, I think that it still holds water. No matter what one believes: it is definite that Hell is a possibility, and there are more compelling arguments for its existence as opposed to its contrary opinions. Furthermore, many arguments can be made for why believing in Jesus Christ as God is beneficial for the individual, beyond the safeness of taking the path that the Wager suggests (I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value). The Wager may not be the best reason for one to become a Christian, but it is still a reason, and a logical one at that. What’s your view of it?

Atheists dismiss it because it’s effective at pointing out their error.

 

[Luke_K]

I like it but it doesn’t work alone. Non-believers just throw up the smokescreen of the multitude of other religions or other after-life possibilities to choose from, as if the evidence for Thor or the countless Hindu gods is comparable to the evidence for Catholicism. Use it only with other arguments.

People need to be more aware of the fact that they are inevitably going to die someday.

(I don’t think there’s anything to lose in being a Christian - certainly nothing of inherent or incontestable value)

As St. Paul said, "But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. " -Phil 3:7-11

 

[rossum]

Likewise, a serial killer could miss out on adding more names to his death list. This proves nothing.

Two remarried divorcees could have to separate.

That would be in direct violation of the first commandment.

That is not the assumption of Pascal’s Wager. Do you attend a Synagogue on Saturdays? At least you will agree that is the right God?

rossum