The Fruit of Pascals Wager

[catholicray]

I only learned this year that my rationale was already concluded in Pascals Wager but it seems that the reasoning is lost on both sides by some. So I would like to review and offer insight concerning objections.

What is Pascals Wager? Pascals Wager weighs the rationale of two possible choices. It takes into account on the one hand the possibility that God, eternal life, and eternal punishment in hell exists (the total package). It also accepts the possibility that none of these exist. Then it determines the rationale of ones decision to accept or reject one possibility over the other.

The logic is as follows:
Rejection results in zero gain. If you are right all of your gain is temporary (boasting in your own intellect), lost completely at death. If you are wrong your loss is infinite (eternal hellfire).

If you do not reject God the outcome is nearly entirely in your favor. If you are wrong, even if you were subjected to the same miseries as depicted of Jesus, your loss is temporary and death (rest) is gain compared to life. If your right you gain eternal life and infinite happiness.

Pascals Wager does not prove God exists. Instead it proves beyond dispute that it is rationale to follow the God of Abraham. The fruit of Pascals Wager then is that we can intellectually reject any assertion that believing in God is ignorant. We can also determine soundly that anyone who rejects God is for certain irrational in their decision to do so.

To Address a Couple Objections

What about other Gods?
The logic is based on infinite gain and infinite loss. Pascals Wager only determines that it is rationale to accept a God who promises infinite gain or infinite loss like heaven or hell. Any God that fits this is a candidate for the logic. That being said I believe this narrows it down to the God of Abraham no matter what.

Doesn’t this encourages others to believe in God as an insurance policy?
If your dogmatic about Sola Fide then I suppose so but for the Catholic this poses no problem. The logic only reveals the rationale, an intellectual kick in the right direction if you will. To accept God as a Catholic is to live Catholic. The implications this has on Sola Fide is indeed interesting though and perhaps another topic for discussion is in order.

But this logic assumes God doesn’t it?
This logic acknowledges the possibility of God and balances itself by acknowledging the possibility that God does not exist.

In conclusion I believe Pascals Wager shows explicitly that a rejection of the God of Abraham is intellectually irrational. The atheist is therefore left to reject God without intellectual excuse. This also shows that faith is not necessarily the suspension of reason.

 

[STT]

What about all constraint which come with religion? You cannot do this. You should do this. Etc. One should consider this into the account.

 

[catholicray]

What about all constraint which come with religion? You cannot do this. You should do this. Etc. One should consider this into the account.

If you are wrong, even if you were subjected to the same miseries as depicted of Jesus, your loss is temporary and death (rest) is gain compared to life.

Already accounted for.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Was Pascal’s wager ever meant to be a serious evangelization tool?

It always seemed humorous to me.

 

[catholicray]

I think it is merely a reiteration of what Scripture already says [Isaiah 32:6]. So I would accept it as a valid tool for evangelization.

 

[chessnerd321]

To my knowledge it’s an argument against agnostacism. It isn’t supposed to convert people who think they know God doesn’t exist. But people who claim not to know ought to believe because of this so it goes. A finite chance of infinite reward versus a possibly larger (depending on where the particular agnositc falls) chance of nothing except a less hedonistic life. At least one person told me it helped her through doubt. So meh. Maybe for people who can’t think through questions hard enough to make a choice.

I’ve always found it unconvincing as well as sort of unchrisitan. We should love God for his own sake.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m Catholic, but Pascal’s Wager doesn’t move me.

 

[LateCatholic]

I believe Pascals Wager shows explicitly that a rejection of the God of Abraham is intellectually irrational. The atheist is therefore left to reject God without intellectual excuse. This also shows that faith is not necessarily the suspension of reason.

Pascal’s wager is refuted in many ways.

From a philosophical perspective:

1. It is only valid if the initial cost is truly zero. For instance, I am holding a lottery tomorrow. The winner gets an infinite amount of money. The loser gets nothing, but loses nothing. You take my decision on who wins on faith alone. Are you in? Pascal’s Wager says you should be.
   Now, you are only in if you pay me $1. Are you still in? How about $2? $1000? According to Pascal’s Wager, you should be in regardless of the amount, because the reward (infinite) exceeds the cost. But this is clearly not true. In other words, there is a lot of “baggage” that goes along with believing in God.
2. The "reward’ can always be better. Or the penalty worse. My religion, for example, claims that if you believe in MY God, not only will you obtain infinite, eternal happiness just like a Catholic - but all your loved ones will too. If you don’t believe in my God, not only will you suffer infinite, eternal torment, so will all your loved ones. My “super-reward” trumps your “normal” reward. Therefore, you should believe in MY God, not the Christian God. There are many variations on this - ie, Christians are infidels so be a Muslim, etc.

From a theological perspective

1. Lip service is not enough for salvation. I’m sure even those that have come to despise me on these forums will agree with this.
2. The rewards are not “infinite”. There are different levels in heaven, as in Hell.

Don’t read this as a knock on Christianity. It applies to Pascal’s wager from a logical point of view.

 

[catholicray]

I disagree with you. As far as I can tell you are not actually arguing against Pascals Wager. You are arguing with your own poor understanding of it. Let’s deal with each point you made.

From a theological perspective

1. Lip service is not enough for salvation. I’m sure even those that have come to despise me on these forums will agree with this.
2. The rewards are not “infinite”. There are different levels in heaven, as in Hell.

I agree with you on your third point. If however you are further pointing out that to be saved one must do more than believe, Pascals Wager is not hindered by this provided that the reward is indeed infinite. I covered this in my original post.

This brings me to my next point. The reward is indeed infinite as is the loss. I think theology is blinding your logic here. Eternal happiness as it relates to a complete lack of life after death is infinite regardless of the level of Heaven. The same applies to Hell. This does assume that a strictly natural reality dictates that there will not be life after death. Unless someone has mapped out how we will consciously decompose and return to dust. So the numbers are zero (or however you want to express the concept) versus infinity. Infinite life or infinite nothing versus Infinite nothing or infinite hell.

 

[catholicray]

From a philosophical perspective:

1. It is only valid if the initial cost is truly zero. For instance, I am holding a lottery tomorrow. The winner gets an infinite amount of money. The loser gets nothing, but loses nothing. You take my decision on who wins on faith alone. Are you in? Pascal’s Wager says you should be.
   Now, you are only in if you pay me $1. Are you still in? How about $2? $1000? According to Pascal’s Wager, you should be in regardless of the amount, because the reward (infinite) exceeds the cost. But this is clearly not true. In other words, there is a lot of “baggage” that goes along with believing in God.
2. The "reward’ can always be better. Or the penalty worse. My religion, for example, claims that if you believe in MY God, not only will you obtain infinite, eternal happiness just like a Catholic - but all your loved ones will too. If you don’t believe in my God, not only will you suffer infinite, eternal torment, so will all your loved ones. My “super-reward” trumps your “normal” reward. Therefore, you should believe in MY God, not the Christian God. There are many variations on this - ie, Christians are infidels so be a Muslim, etc.

Your philosophy contains errors and the issues it has do not hinder Pascals Wager which by the way is not for a believing audience it is for the atheist. In your second point you try to assert that infinite eternal happiness is hindered if my loved ones do not share it with me. This is a false materialistic idea. It comes from an attachment to the world. I am not afraid to tell you the truth here that God is infinitely more than my loved ones. He gave them to me and if I do not have them in heaven my happiness will be none the less for the lack of them as I will be in the presence of absolute joy, the Almighty. The reward for Catholics and Christians is nothing less than God himself. Your reward hierarchy is backward to me.

Your first point follows much the same error. An infinite amount of cash is actually worthless. Money only has value relative to the value society places on it. Given a proper assessment of the value of money Pascals Wager wouldn’t tell you to place your bet. This is easy put all of the money in the whole world next to God and tell me which is greater than. Like this:

God > Money only it would actually be proper to have an infinite number of greater signs facing the Lord
God (> times infinity) money. Materialism is actually hindering your understanding of the logic of Pascals Wager.

 

[catholicray]

Finally I want to respond to the problem of Sola Fide. Pascals Wager holds true even if you have to walk the same life Jesus did unto crucifixion. It’s simple. If Jesus were wrong then death after life would still be better than life itself so he gains. If he is right there is no end to his gain. In fact given the logic of Pascals Wager the more you suffer in this life the better your odds of gain when you die.

 

[LateCatholic]

Pascals Wager is not hindered by this provided that the reward is indeed infinite.

Of course it is hindered by it. Pascal’s wager simply says you must believe in God. It assumes no other activities. Pascal doesn’t say, for instance, you must believe in God AND give 10% of all your money to your local Church. Salvation requires more than what Pascal says it does. He’s a snake oil salesman.

Eternal happiness as it relates to a complete lack of life after death is infinite regardless of the level of Heaven. The same applies to Hell.

Did your read my point #2? The reward is irrelevant. It is simply a claim with no proof. Why is Pascal’s wager valid for a Christian and not a Satanist? Seriously. Explain why a Satanist that believes infinite reward for his beliefs cannot ALSO use Pascal’s wager as validation? Consider this - replace every word in your original post as follows: Abraham/God=Satan, Hell=Heaven, Heaven=Hell, and so forth.

The point is that there is NOTHING in Pascal’s Wager that in any way prevents it from being used by another religion. Your only counter is that Christianity’s reward is infinite, so it wins. That’s absurd. I just gave you an example of a “religion” whose reward is greater than Christianity. So, according to your logic, my religion wins under Pascal’s Wager.

 

[catholicray]

Of course it is hindered by it. Pascal’s wager simply says you must believe in God. It assumes no other activities. Pascal doesn’t say, for instance, you must believe in God AND give 10% of all your money to your local Church. Salvation requires more than what Pascal says it does. He’s a snake oil salesman.

Pascals Wager has nothing to do with saying you must believe in God. Your failing to understand the implications. I’ve gone over this in great detail. Pascals Wager does nothing more than to reveal the rationality of following the God of Abraham. The logic tells us it is completely rational to follow the God of Abraham and completely irrational not to. It does very well to reveal to a man the kind of man he is speaking to.

 

[catholicray]

Did your read my point #2? The reward is irrelevant. It is simply a claim with no proof. Why is Pascal’s wager valid for a Christian and not a Satanist? Seriously. Explain why a Satanist that believes infinite reward for his beliefs cannot ALSO use Pascal’s wager as validation? Consider this - replace every word in your original post as follows: Abraham/God=Satan, Hell=Heaven, Heaven=Hell, and so forth.

The point is that there is NOTHING in Pascal’s Wager that in any way prevents it from being used by another religion. Your only counter is that Christianity’s reward is infinite, so it wins. That’s absurd. I just gave you an example of a “religion” whose reward is greater than Christianity. So, according to your logic, my religion wins under Pascal’s Wager.

This is also wrong. Absolutely wrong. You’ve put all of your wager on the reward that’s why your failing to grasp this. Pascals Wager works because of the threat of hellfire. Outside of the God of Abraham there is much reward but if I do not follow those other Gods I have no worries of their penalties. As to your religion being better because of more reward I covered that. Let me spell it out.

God versus my loved ones
God (> times infinity) my loved ones

Your reward hierarchy is built on materialism but it in no way affects Pascals Wager.

 

[LateCatholic]

This is a false materialistic idea. It comes from an attachment to the world.

You are missing the point. You claim Christianity provides infinite bliss for Belief A, and infinite torment for NOT belief A.
Now I am creating a NEW religion. I declare not only infinite bliss for Belief B, I also claim infinite bliss for all your children. Further, I also claim infinite torment for NOT Belief B, but ALSO infinite torment for your children, regardless of their beliefs.
Clearly my rewards are superior. Your response seems to be that you care not one bit for the fate of your children/loved ones, because, by definition, if you are in “infinite bliss”, you would be unaware of their horrible torment. There is certainly a sick, twisted logic to this. But even THEN, you STILL have to deal with the knowledge you are dooming your loved ones to torture UNTIL you die and get your reward. Unless you die this very instant, my reward is still superior.
AND, regardless, at the very least, my reward is EQUAL to yours.

Don’t get bogged down on the religious aspect to this. Think logically as if this were a philosophy class.
Pascal’s Wager has been refuted for centuries. It’s an interesting concept, but it’s wrong - on many levels.

 

[LateCatholic]

God versus my loved ones
God (> times infinity) my loved ones

Your reward hierarchy is built on materialism but it in no way affects Pascals Wager.

My reward is EXACTLY the same as yours, including “Hellfire” - if you believe in that sort of thing. But my religion is superior in terms of Pascal’s Wager because - even though we both agree that infinite reward is greater than materialistic items - you still must live out your life. People who join MY religion have all the benefits of your PLUS they know their children also receive eternal bliss. According to Pascal’s wager, my religion wins because my religion’s rewards are better - same as yours PLUS nicer time here on Earth.

 

[catholicray]

You are missing the point. You claim Christianity provides infinite bliss for Belief A, and infinite torment for NOT belief A.
Now I am creating a NEW religion. I declare not only infinite bliss for Belief B, I also claim infinite bliss for all your children. Further, I also claim infinite torment for NOT Belief B, but ALSO infinite torment for your children, regardless of their beliefs.
Clearly my rewards are superior. Your response seems to be that you care not one bit for the fate of your children/loved ones, because, by definition, if you are in “infinite bliss”, you would be unaware of their horrible torment. There is certainly a sick, twisted logic to this. But even THEN, you STILL have to deal with the knowledge you are dooming your loved ones to torture UNTIL you die and get your reward. Unless you die this very instant, my reward is still superior.
AND, regardless, at the very least, my reward is EQUAL to yours.

Don’t get bogged down on the religious aspect to this. Think logically as if this were a philosophy class.
Pascal’s Wager has been refuted for centuries. It’s an interesting concept, but it’s wrong - on many levels.

First we can not use your argument here of a created religion. Only because we would all know it is false. Pascals Wager works because we don’t know if the God of Abraham is false or not (Again from the point of view of an atheist).
(God I love a good breakdown of logic LOL)

You have also made an error of assumption. No where (and your welcome to go back and read carefully) did I assert that I do not care about my loved ones. I merely stated as you observed that infinite bliss will be void of all knowledge that would cause me pain or suffering. Infinite bliss is the reward. Your argument tries to assert some sort of suffering on my part but then that would not be infinite bliss which is what the God of Abraham promises.

 

[catholicray]

My reward is EXACTLY the same as yours, including “Hellfire” - if you believe in that sort of thing. But my religion is superior in terms of Pascal’s Wager because - even though we both agree that infinite reward is greater than materialistic items - you still must live out your life. People who join MY religion have all the benefits of your PLUS they know their children also receive eternal bliss. According to Pascal’s wager, my religion wins because my religion’s rewards are better - same as yours PLUS nicer time here on Earth.

Just so you know, this is trying to say that you offer a reward better than infinite bliss.
Like (Infinite Bliss + Your Loved Ones)
That may look good to you and sound good but again as you observed correctly if you were awarded infinite bliss you would logically not experience any pain or suffering whether your loved ones are there or not. You have not actually offered a better reward you’ve merely misunderstood the logical implications of a state of eternal joy.

This is not a matter of me being cold hearted it is a matter of fact that’s all.

I’m a little confused here as well are we still talking about a made up religion? If so maybe you wrote this before you read my response to this. If we are talking about Islam then we are talking about the God of Abraham. Pascals Wager considers the rationale of believing in the God of Abraham (Jew, Muslim, Christian, Orthodox, Catholic) versus not believing in him.

 

[catholicray]

A finite chance of infinite reward versus a possibly larger (depending on where the particular agnositc falls) chance of nothing except a less hedonistic life.

You have misrepresented the reasoning. This fails to observe the chance for infinite hellfire (eternal suffering). Correct me if I am wrong but I believe Pascal himself was more considerate of the chance of infinite hellfire. He stated something along the lines, that it would never be a good gamble to risk eternal suffering. The best odds in the world still wouldn’t make the gamble worth it. This is reasonable without the chance for infinite rewards.

 

[FiveLinden]

Pascal’s wager makes no sense. What if there is a God who brings everyone to internal bliss except those who believe in the God of Abraham? Pascal’s wager is based on the idea that there is only one possible God. In fact there are infinite possible Gods. So you don’t know how to place your bet.