Pascal's Wager

[wanstronian]

The Judge in that case would be God, not the defendant.

True, but if he’s as clever and honest as he’s supposed to be, he’d have to agree!

 

[Topaz1128]

1. It proves that betting on God not existing isn’t a good plan.
2. Pascal’s wager also works if you replace the self interest motivation with a desire to do what is best or similar, self interest is just the lowest common denominator sort of thing (so that even for the person who only cares about himself, disbelieving in God is not a good plan). In such a case it then becomes “if anything is good and true, it must be this. Therefore, I should follow it because if I don’t and it’s true, I’m not doing the good that I should, and if I do and it’s not, then it doesn’t matter because there is no goodness or truth anyway.”
3. Yes He would (and did) - if the wager was all there was that would be a problem. But not all people recognize these other ways (valid though they are) and Pascal’s wager suggests that even such a person should follow God, even if all he has in mind is self interest.

I don’t think it’s the most noble reason to believe in God, but I think we would err if we dismissed it entirely just because we see better reasons - especially since some people do not accept those reasons. I highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s treatment of the issue found here: peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm.

Great discussion. I agree with the above points.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**wanstronian

I don’t believe Pascal was dumb enough to believe that the “wager” was a credible reason to believe in a god. It’s quite clearly a philosophical trinket, as has been stated already. It certainly carries no weight in the “defence against atheists” arena, other than perhaps to provide some false notion of intellectual superiority. **

Who has the false sense of intellectual superiority? I’ve noticed that atheists regularly describe religious people as dummbells. You haven’t noticed this?

The 19th Century atheist Robert Ingersoll remarked: “This century will be called Darwin’s century…. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of the species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity.” Thus Ingersoll began the still popular atheist habit of insulting religious people by accusing them of intellectual inferiority.

Interesting too that Jean Paul Sartre and Antony Flew, two of the highest rated intellectual atheists of the 20th Century, converted to theism not long before they died. A bit of Pascal’s Wager at work there? The uncertainty of atheism exposed at the end.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And what your comment proves is that anyone who thinks they can choose what to believe is a fool.

Perhaps, but it IS entirely possible that individuals choose what NOT to believe all the time. It would seem that a kind of negative filter operates to motivate many to categorically dismiss what merely APPEARS to be “foolish” without a second glance so as not to have to engage completely with the of the idea. The move is to give unappetizing beliefs only a cursory hearing or none at all and then pride oneself in making the enlightened choice away from what only fools would embrace.

I suspect shallow thinkers - present company excepted, of course - do it all the time. They “straw man” ideas they do not want to embrace for all kinds of motives. Pride, of course, is the strongest filter to limiting real “choice” about what to believe. It operates with a pat on the back, a gesture towards what is not “foolish” and a consolatory reminder of how the intellectually bright would not deign to even think about such nonsense.

Which is the reason why Paul pointed out that, “…God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong…” (1 Cor 1:27). It is also the reason why most atheistic portrayals of theistic beliefs are mere caricatures of the reality. It makes them easy to dismiss and still convince oneself that only a fool would think they can “choose” what they believe.

I don’t think a fool has the gumption or courage to follow the truth wherever it leads, even when it is not to their liking. That is when truth does force a choice - when we would rather not believe it, but know that it is true. Which, perhaps, leads back to the challenge of Pascal’s Wager.

 

[wittgenstein]

Pascal’s wager is absurd and immoral. It is absurd because the original proposition can be anything. For example,

1. If you believe that there is an elf that lives under the Washington monument you will be infinitely rewarded.
2. If proposition one is true and you believe, you will be infinitely rewarded.
3. If proposition one is false and you believe nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is best to believe that there is an elf that lives beneath the Washington monument.
   Pascal’s wager is immoral because it bases one’s faith in God solely on greed and not love. It is also immoral because he implies that self benefit is more important than the truth.

 

[jmjconder]

---

What do you mean by asking if it is “valid?” It’s a thought-provoking idea, not a proof of morality or the existence of God.

**I am not seeking a proof of God or a thought provoking idea…I am seeking ultimate and pure happiness, peace, freedon that eternal salvation in heaven promises.

I am a living proof that Pascal’s Wager is one means to attain salvation.

I made a promise that I would live one month totally without faith or hope and one month with total faith and hope…even if I had to be determinded to “do” so instead of “being there” which is a living a life in union with God.

Tell me which one brought me more rest, spiritually security, hope and charity to others? I hope I do not have to spell it out.**

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pascal’s wager is absurd and immoral. It is absurd because the original proposition can be anything. For example,

1. If you believe that there is an elf that lives under the Washington monument you will be infinitely rewarded.
2. If proposition one is true and you believe, you will be infinitely rewarded.
3. If proposition one is false and you believe nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is best to believe that there is an elf that lives beneath the Washington monument.

Except that we have no reason to think that an elf lives under the Washington monument, but there are many reasons for thinking our existence has ultimate meaning and purpose which can only be the case if eliminative materialism is not true and that human beings have purpose grounded in the universe having meaning outside of its material substance, because matter, by its own nature, is not purposeful. This can only be the case if God, with all the characteristics defined by classical theism, exists.

Again, the Wager is not an argument for God so much as a reason to take a particular kind of action in a particular direction precisely because the alternative is devoid of ultimate purpose and meaning, i.e., purpose grounded in the possibility that the universe has real meaning rather than merely attributed meaning.

Pascal’s wager is immoral because it bases one’s faith in God solely on greed and not love.

You would have to show that reasonable self-interest is the same as greed. I would argue that you can’t really love WITHOUT an appropriate measure of self-love. To “love others as oneself” or to “do onto others as you would have them do to you” both presume you know how to properly love yourself.

To have proper concern for your own eternal welfare is not greed by any stretch of definition. Greed is wanting more than your due. Greed would mean expecting eternal life when you do not deserve it. Pascal is advocating action to place yourself in the position of doing what is necessary to be made worthy by grace, which is not greed, but rather concern for your own good. He was Catholic, after all.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Libral

Go ahead, bet on Nogod. See what that gets you at the end … just what you believed in.

I don’t think this is the case, you say you were an atheist for 25 years, if so you should be able to know that mind convictions aren’t some sort of a bet or a choice you do.
You just believe or disbelieve because you have reasons to believe or to disbelieve.

And what your comment proves is that anyone who thinks they can choose what to believe is a fool

true.

 

[Mumbles140]

It’s ironic that you use the words “attacks from atheists” when you are implicity attacking them with your own comments!

The truth is, most atheists don’t give a hoot what you believe. What we decry is your insistence that the rest of us live by your rules. The idea that we “attack” you merely for holding a certain set of beliefs belies a persecution complex that is unjustified.

I don’t believe Pascal was dumb enough to believe that the “wager” was a credible reason to believe in a god. It’s quite clearly a philosophical trinket, as has been stated already. It certainly carries no weight in the “defence against atheists” arena, other than perhaps to provide some false notion of intellectual superiority.

I do not mean to attack, nor did I mean ‘attack’ as a synonym for slur, slander, insult, etc. Rather, I specifically meant in debate, as I often do with some of my atheist friends and colleagues. I’ve been asked why waste my time when I could spend the time I use for worship doing something more ‘fitting’ in their eyes. This is when I employ the wager - not to convince them to believe in God, but to get to this point: if striving to live an active religious life keeps me in a state of love, peace, and charity (not to say you can’t achieve these things outside of religion, its just I personally wonder how I might do without the guidance of a supreme being to keep me on the straight and narrow), and in the end there is no God, I’ll still be content with how I’ve lived my life. Therefore, I don’t view worship as a waste of time or unnecessary activity. And that is how I meant for it to be employed, even if my language was a little blunt in my prior post. Again, not persecution, but debate.

 

[Mumbles140]

I don’t think this is the case, you say you were an atheist for 25 years, if so you should be able to know that mind convictions aren’t some sort of a bet or a choice you do.
You just believe or disbelieve because you have reasons to believe or to disbelieve.

In a way, Charlemagne II was merely stating the obvious about ‘betting’ on no God.

If there is a God, and you lived your life aware that others believed in God (ruling out the ignorant islander case) but personally found no reason or evidence pointing to the existence of God, I’d say it would be wholly upon God’s mercy (which is infinite but just) to save you from an existence outside of His Presence (which is the concept of Hell). So, not saying impossible, but as God is just, I find it safe to say that your actions and beliefs on Earth would direct you towards a place where God is not, unless saved by His Mercy.

If, on the other hand, faith has led us astray, then you have ‘won the wager’, and there is no God.

So, either situation, ‘betting’ on no God will most likely result in a resting place without God. That being said, I agree ‘betting’ is not an agreeable term in this matter because many atheists have pointed out to me that it is not ‘a choice’ to not believe in God or not. I respect that, and I am trying to understand it logically (not in the terms that it is flawed, but in terms of how to verbalize it when talking about these matters). I think if one finds a reason, there isn’t a choice to believe or not, because that ‘reason’ would be the cause. Rather, the choice exists among those who already believe in God, and it becomes a choice of following His Word or not. But, again, this does not have any affect on those whose paths have not led them to belief in a higher entity, so the visualization of ‘choice’ must be removed.

 

[wittgenstein]

How about this,

1. If you believe in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman you will receive infinite bliss.
2. If proposition 1 is true, and you believe in Brahman, you will receive infinite bliss.
3. If proposition 1 is false and you believe in Braham, nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is best to believe in Brahman.
   Of course one may disagree with 3. One may say that believing in a Hindu God will make you suffer for eternity. However, that is outside the context of the argument. We are talking about the validity of the argument not its truth value.
   Truth and validity are not the same thing.
   Here is a valid but untrue argument,
5. All Martians eat snakes.
6. Bob is a Martian.
7. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
   Here is an invalid but true argument,
8. Michigan is part of the United States.
9. Obama is US president.
   3.Therefore, the earth orbits the sun.
   Of course the ideal is a valid and true argument,
10. All men are mortal.
11. Socrates was a man.
12. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
    I cannot resist. here is an invalid and untrue argument.
13. All Smurfs eat gerbils.
14. Lake Michigan is made of silly putty.
15. Therefore, my brain is light years in diameter.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

In a way, Charlemagne II was merely stating the obvious about ‘betting’ on no God.

If there is a God, and you lived your life aware that others believed in God (ruling out the ignorant islander case) but personally found no reason or evidence pointing to the existence of God, I’d say it would be wholly upon God’s mercy (which is infinite but just) to save you from an existence outside of His Presence (which is the concept of Hell). So, not saying impossible, but as God is just, I find it safe to say that your actions and beliefs on Earth would direct you towards a place where God is not, unless saved by His Mercy.

If, on the other hand, faith has led us astray, then you have ‘won the wager’, and there is no God.

So, either situation, ‘betting’ on no God will most likely result in a resting place without God. That being said, I agree ‘betting’ is not an agreeable term in this matter because many atheists have pointed out to me that it is not ‘a choice’ to not believe in God or not. I respect that, and I am trying to understand it logically (not in the terms that it is flawed, but in terms of how to verbalize it when talking about these matters). I think if one finds a reason, there isn’t a choice to believe or not, because that ‘reason’ would be the cause. Rather, the choice exists among those who already believe in God, and it becomes a choice of following His Word or not. But, again, this does not have any affect on those whose paths have not led them to belief in a higher entity, so the visualization of ‘choice’ must be removed.

Claimimg that if a God exists, he’s the one who has Hell and not believing in Him you’ll end up there, is an extraordinary claim out of thousands of other contrary extraordinary claims that any of the ancient or current beliefs can offer.

I already mentioned the reasons against Pascal’s wager, that God and faith isn’t a bet and that you should not limit the bet with only one possibily out of billions, what if evil aliens exist and if you don’t believe in them they will experiment on you?
What if? What if ? What if?.. The list is too long.

If a person believes and rejected to follow god then he isn’t an atheist.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

How about this,

1. If you believe in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman you will receive infinite bliss.
2. If proposition 1 is true, and you believe in Brahman, you will receive infinite bliss.
3. If proposition 1 is false and you believe in Braham, nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is best to believe in Brahman.
   Of course one may disagree with 3. One may say that believing in a Hindu God will make you suffer for eternity. However, that is outside the context of the argument. We are talking about the validity of the argument not its truth value.
   Truth and validity are not the same thing.

…

This is a fair point. The response is normally thusly: start by generalizing away from a specific religion, to “If there is a standard of right and wrong by which you will be judged, and you ignore it, then bad things happen; if there is no such standard and you act in accordance with one that is false, then nothing worse than normal will happen.”

Atheism still looses. In order to figure out what to do now that atheism has lost, we take as true for the sake of argument that there is some higher power, some God, and then reason from there to see what to do about it.

The wager was, I think, intended for people who took it as a given that it was Christianity or nothing (and in your example, if you add “either Hinduism is true or atheism is true” then it would be a valid argument - though one I obviously think arrives at a false conclusion, disagreeing with several of the premises), but even for people who have not at this time arrived at that conclusion of Christianity or nothing, the argument still holds for theism over atheism.

 

[ServantPD]

Well then, I will appeal his decision to a higher God

Is that statement supposed to lack sense, or do you have a lack of understanding on what a God is? A transcendent and eternal God has no “higher God”, as it is logically impossible…

This is far from the first time you used that argument, and this is also far from the first response to your argument. You’re planning to play blind and deaf to reason to how much longer?

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

In a way, Charlemagne II was merely stating the obvious about ‘betting’ on no God.

If there is a God, and you lived your life aware that others believed in God (ruling out the ignorant islander case) but personally found no reason or evidence pointing to the existence of God, I’d say it would be wholly upon God’s mercy (which is infinite but just) to save you from an existence outside of His Presence (which is the concept of Hell). So, not saying impossible, but as God is just, I find it safe to say that your actions and beliefs on Earth would direct you towards a place where God is not, unless saved by His Mercy.

If, on the other hand, faith has led us astray, then you have ‘won the wager’, and there is no God.

So, either situation, ‘betting’ on no God will most likely result in a resting place without God. That being said, I agree ‘betting’ is not an agreeable term in this matter because many atheists have pointed out to me that it is not ‘a choice’ to not believe in God or not. I respect that, and I am trying to understand it logically (not in the terms that it is flawed, but in terms of how to verbalize it when talking about these matters). I think if one finds a reason, there isn’t a choice to believe or not, because that ‘reason’ would be the cause. Rather, the choice exists among those who already believe in God, and it becomes a choice of following His Word or not. But, again, this does not have any affect on those whose paths have not led them to belief in a higher entity, so the visualization of ‘choice’ must be removed.

Claimimg that if a God exists, he’s the one who has Hell and not believing in Him you’ll end up there, is an extraordinary claim out of thousands of other contrary claims that any of the ancient or current beliefs can offer.

I already mentioned the reasons against Pascal’s wager, that God and faith isn’t a bet and that you should not limit the bet with only one possibily out of billions, what if evil aliens exist and if you don’t believe in them they will experiment on you?
What if? What if ? What if?.. The list is too long.

If a person believes and rejected to follow god then he isn’t an atheist.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Is that statement supposed to lack sense, or do you have a lack of understanding on what a God is? A transcendent and eternal God has no “higher God”, as it is logically impossible…

This is far from the first time you used that argument, and this is also far from the first response to your argument. You’re planning to play blind and deaf to reason to how much longer?

Reason, believing in a god is more reasonable than believing in a higher god? Why is that? Since when?

Also the appeal thing was a joke, I don’t think it’s really a god issue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wittgenstein
**
Pascal’s wager is immoral because it bases one’s faith in God solely on greed and not love. It is also immoral because he implies that self benefit is more important than the truth. **

What’s really immoral is to tell religious people they don’t have the truth when you yourself can’t even prove that atheists have the truth!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Libral

I don’t think this is the case, you say you were an atheist for 25 years, if so you should be able to know that mind convictions aren’t some sort of a bet or a choice you do.
You just believe or disbelieve because you have reasons to believe or to disbelieve.**

All the time I was an atheist I did not believe I had no choice but to be an atheist. In fact, I was constantly looking for reasons to not be an atheist. I have never been a psychological determinist. When I chose to read Chesterton and others in greater depth, I saw how shallow my atheism was, that I had not thought things through, and that on top of everything else, for being an atheist, I was a little too humble to be good at it. The lack of humility among all the atheists I knew troubled me greatly, and I chose then no longer to be counted in their company. Ever since, I have found Christians to be generally a good deal more agreeable, and generally a good deal more humble (not all, but most).

Sorry if that sentiment is hurtful to any atheist, but it is the truth about my journey from Nogod to God. I bet on God, and I won a treasure of happiness.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Pascal’s wager is absurd and immoral. It is absurd because the original proposition can be anything. For example,

1. If you believe that there is an elf that lives under the Washington monument you will be infinitely rewarded.
2. If proposition one is true and you believe, you will be infinitely rewarded.
3. If proposition one is false and you believe nothing bad will happen to you.
4. Therefore, it is best to believe that there is an elf that lives beneath the Washington monument.

Let’s take another stab at this.

The reason the argument seems absurd is because you are using absurd premises. Let’s restate it to show what it does demonstrate.

1. If you believe that you might have the winning lottery ticket and you cash it in, you will be richly rewarded.
2. If your belief, stated in premise one, is true and you act on that belief, you will be richly rewarded.
3. If your belief, stated in premise one, is false and you act on that belief no serious consequences will happen to you.
4. Therefore, given that you have everything to gain (P2) and nothing to lose (P3), it is best to act as if you have the winning lottery ticket even if you are not certain that you do.

Pascal’s point is that it is often reasonable to act on a belief even when you are not certain of it. He would also contend that taking action would be more or less reasonable depending upon your certainty (or lack of) and the cost of doing so.

It would be more unreasonable if you were very unlikely to have a pay off (elf under Washington monument would have close to 0 probability of payoff obtaining) or if the cost of acting were very steep (wasting time and expense of going to Washington.)

His assumptions would be

1. that the chance for eternal life depends upon God existing (assume > 50% probability, although, like the lottery ticket it might still be worth it with <50%, depending on the burden.)
2. that the cost of cashing in the eternal life “ticket” (living a good life) bears negligible cost and is actually a positive “good” in its own right (not wasting life on frivolity.)

Given those assumptions Pascal would contend that it would be very reasonable, like cashing in a lottery ticket, to act on behalf of a possible positive outcome instead of neglecting to do so.

As such, his wager is more like a probability or “reasonableness” calculator exhorting his readers to weigh the “cost” of acting on the promise of eternal life (like cashing in a lottery ticket) and possible outcomes rather than reading it as a logical “syllogism.”

 

[jmjconder]

wittgenstein
**
Pascal’s wager is immoral because it bases one’s faith in God solely on greed and not love. It is also immoral because he implies that self benefit is more important than the truth. **

What’s really immoral is to tell religious people they don’t have the truth when you yourself can’t even prove that atheists have the truth!

I have never believed that Pascal’s Wager was based on greed…in all honesty I can not wrap my brain around that notion. It was my way to God…and that is not creed - it is about finding love and truth.