Pascal's Wager

[TMA_1]

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

What do you think?

[nampigai]

I don't believe in hell.

[Acriku]

I think Pascal should have thought about it further.

I would explain why its not a very rational wager, but this guy says it better than myself:

Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager" essentially argues that to believe in God is the best bet because if God exists, you'll go to heaven and avoid hell. If you don't believe in God, you might lose all this. If God does not exist, you'll have nothing to lose. So it's better to believe in God than not to.

The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed "go to heaven and avoid hell." However, if you choose the wrong religion, you'll still go to hell.

The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot "bet" on the general concept of "theism." You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something - which means picking something. If you pick nothing, then your "belief" is literally empty and you remain an atheist. So, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.

A second problem is that it isn't actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What's more, the True God might not mind that people don't bother believing in it when they use rational reasons - thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.

Also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. Others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because Jesus said they would be able to do so without harm. Thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.

A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly "safe bet." However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the "safe bet." Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a "safe bet."

One final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. However, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.

But this means that this god isn't actually a just or fair god, since a person's eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice. I don't know about you, but that certainly isn't the sort of god I would ever consider worshipping.

Woo!

[HasimirFenring]

Well gambilng is a sin, isn't it? So if you gamble by placing your 'wager' on god's existence, won't that condemn you to hell anyway? ;D

[TMA_1]

gambling isnt a sin per ce. it is the act of habituation involved with it.

Acriku, I actually agree with you here. Let me ask you this though, how about if we generalized this wager to take in any religion? or all religions? Why not try to please all the Gods as the greeks or romans did?

[gryphon]

Taken the 2 sides you mentioned are the only ones, I have a slight preferance fot believing. Although that would be done for the wrong reasons, and we all know what God did to people who just believed in Him for there own bettering and conveniences.

So if we should believe in God for that reason, do you think we still go to heaven ?

If you have believed in God your whole life and turned out incorrect, you have lived your whole life under the pretence of somethings not being true for you whole life. . you will have lost your freedom to explore things beyond boundries provided by that religion.

[Acriku]

Ok TMA, but even if we did that, wouldn't the gods or goddesses know we are only doing it out of a wager and not out of true belief or faith? Seems like we're using the god or goddess to get into a better place.

[gryphon]

making it so we please all the God's in impossible .. . according to all major religions acknowledging another God is not allowed .... you are always wrong in that situation.

[TMA_1]

But if the Gods and goddess' made a promise (which most have) that in general, if you follow them that they will protect you, then how about that? I dont agree with this stuff, but it is an interesting subject.

[Digital Guerrilla]

You can not satisfiy all Gods that would be a contradiction within itself. What one God promises another will oppose.

[TMA_1]

that isnt always true. There are ways to be "saved" in all religions. Most are based on moral behavior, many dont even have a heaven or hell.

Also, the problems pointed out by that one guy you mentioned acriku, are non sequiters. They dont address the question. The question doesnt deal with What God's to worship, just the judeo christian one. Just answer the question guys, if you cant than dont answer. it is saying one way or another. Fence sitting is not possible for this question, because it leaves no spot for it.

[Acriku]

Actually TMA, there are no non-sequitors in that argument he gave. And the question doesn't specify which god, which is why he made such arguments. If it specified the judeo-christian god, well then the problem is that it would know you are believing for the sake of getting into heaven and out of hell, and the judeo-christian god would know that, and would not let you into hell. So the question is moot.