My problems with Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager basically says we should wager as if god exist because if he doesn't yet we have faith in him in life, then when we die, we don't lose anything, whereas if he does exist, and we do not have faith in him, when we die, we lose everything. However, there are many different religions with many different gods, so the probability of picking the right one is pretty low. Also, if you believe in a god just because you don't want to go to hell, then you aren't really sincere in your belief. You are just, well, betting. So it is safe to say that if your only basis for having a religion is Pascel's Wager, then you don't really belive in that religion, you're just saying "Well there is no way to tell if this is true, but I'll believe in it anyway" And by saying "there is no way to tell if this is true" you are admitting that you do not have absolute faith, which is pretty much a requirement in any religion.

Any opinions?

My main problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is total bullshit.

My main problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is total bullshit.

That works too.

I think that the people who have wagered and decided to become faithful have indeed lost a lot.  A priest for example.  They say they are picking the best answer logically, because if they are right they will go to heaven, if they are wrong then there is no loss.  But if they are wrong, they have wasted their only life worshiping a god that isn't real.  They never get to enjoy sex, they never get to have children or grandchildren.  The choice is less thought-provoking when removed from the mouths of advocating christians.  

Also, the whole argument is merely a way for christians (I'm sure nearly every religion can invoke the wager under a different name) to sound logical.  A rare foothold in a system built on faith.

Finally, one has to accept christian doctrine as truth (or at least be in conflict with it) before the wager means anything.  If some tribal shaman comes up to you and says you need to worship the great cloud god because if you don't you will be tortured for all eternity.  So obviously it's the logical choice, a chance of eternal torture by the cloud god or not?  Anyone not already overexposed to the cloud-god-cult will dismiss this claim outright as being foolish.  After all, who's dim enough to believe in the cloud god?

The real problem with Pascal's wager is that even if you decide it's a good idea to hedge your bets, then it's still worthless, because that isn't belief. Any belief based on such cynical logic is worthless belief, and any omnipotent god who actually cared about belief would see through your charade.

To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (he was actually talking about absolute morality at the time, but it works here too), Pascal's Wager doesn't make the existence of God any more likely, only more desirable. This is why it is a bullshit argument for God and one that any self-respecting advocate of faith should avoid, because in actuality all it proves is that religion is derived from a personal need for consolation rather than any solid evidence or reasoning.

The real problem with Pascal's wager is that even if you decide it's a good idea to hedge your bets, then it's still worthless, because that isn't belief. Any belief based on such cynical logic is worthless belief, and any omnipotent god who actually cared about belief would see through your charade.

Thats pretty much what I said, I just didn't word it as well.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 13, 2009, 06:48:30 AM

The real problem with Pascal's wager is that even if you decide it's a good idea to hedge your bets, then it's still worthless, because that isn't belief. Any belief based on such cynical logic is worthless belief, and any omnipotent god who actually cared about belief would see through your charade.

Thats pretty much what I said, I just didn't word it as well.

Yeah, sorry, I was real bastard and just didn't read your post. I felt like being dissmissive and ignorant all at once I guess. Easy habit to form here.

Quote from: Kain2112 on June 13, 2009, 02:20:15 PM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 13, 2009, 06:48:30 AM

The real problem with Pascal's wager is that even if you decide it's a good idea to hedge your bets, then it's still worthless, because that isn't belief. Any belief based on such cynical logic is worthless belief, and any omnipotent god who actually cared about belief would see through your charade.

Thats pretty much what I said, I just didn't word it as well.

Yeah, sorry, I was real bastard and just didn't read your post. I felt like being dissmissive and ignorant all at once I guess. Easy habit to form here.

Lol.

The real problem is that God can sense doubt.

The real problem is that God can sense doubt.

He might be able to, if he existed.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 14, 2009, 11:12:50 PM

The real problem is that God can sense doubt.

He might be able to, if he existed.

What?

Quote from: Mykael on June 15, 2009, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 14, 2009, 11:12:50 PM

The real problem is that God can sense doubt.

He might be able to, if he existed.

What?

God can only sense doubt if he exists. Many people believe he does not exist.

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 16, 2009, 01:20:25 AM

Quote from: Mykael on June 15, 2009, 02:15:15 PM

Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 14, 2009, 11:12:50 PM

The real problem is that God can sense doubt.

He might be able to, if he existed.

What?

God can only sense doubt if he exists. Many people believe he does not exist.

God's existence is implied in the statement.  I did not see the point of your statement, which left me confused as to why you even felt so compelled to make it.

I always assume that this idea was formed slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Urm, no

Beno! 

I've always thought Pascal's Wager was a ridiculous idea.  If you're just paying lip service to belief, then you don't really believe.   

KillaBee, what?  If that was Pascal's Wager, then how would it "save" him?

Quote from: Pongo on June 12, 2009, 04:40:02 PM

Finally, one has to accept christian doctrine as truth (or at least be in conflict with it) before the wager means anything.

I'm not sure if Pascals Wager applies solely to Christianity. It would equally apply to the cloud God, in which case would the God (Jehova or Cloud) be more or less annoyed that you'd banked on the opposition?

Anyway I thought Pascals wager was a general propostion that "I'll accept that there is a God" rather than "I accept that there is this specific God".

Firstly, Pascal's Wager does indeed apply only to christianity because Blaise Pascal was christian and made the wager with the christian god in mind.  You can apply the idea to almost any religion, but you can no longer call it Pascal's Wager.  After that though, I didn't understand your post. 


"Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."  -Richard Dawkins  The God Delusion

Anyway I thought Pascals wager was a general propostion that "I'll accept that there is a God" rather than "I accept that there is this specific God".

If that were the case, you would still be going to hell, which would defeat the purpose of Pascal's Wager.

The problem with that, KillaBee, is that the specific 'god' may not see it in such purely techical terms. He may expect you to believe in him specifically, and not just cop out by believing in 'a god' instead of 'the god'.

Plus, if he's omnipotent, then he'll still know that you're just trying to scam your way into heaven. If believing in god is necessary to get into any potential afterlife and avoid brimstone in the rectum, then any god that requires such belief must be capable of knowing that you do in fact 'believe'. In which case, once you start hedging your bets with Pascal's Wager, any god that Pascal's Wager could possibly apply to would know that you don't really believe, but are just using logic to make sure you don't get caught out.