Pascal's Wager

[SSanf]

The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing. In Pascal's assessment, it is inexcusable not to investigate this issue:

Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.[1]

Variations of this argument may be found in other religious philosophies, such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Buddhism. Pascal's Wager is also similar in structure to the precautionary principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Atheist.27s_WagerThoughts?

[Shanti]

Well this sentiment is based on choice...being better to believe than to be punished by some higher power when you die basically, from what I gather.

But for me my beliefs are not choice, not decided upon by evidence. Its what I know for me. I have no doubt in what I know to be my truth. I couldn't make myself believe in anything else period. The only thing that could alter my beliefs is if an experience of my own happened to make the change. Other than my own experiences my beliefs are based on nothing else.
So basically if some alleged higher power came to me, maybe, I would change. And if I higher power came, I sure would be challenging their claim big time. It would take a lot for a supposed higher power to convince me that they own my spirit.
If they proved they own my spirit it would probably mean war!! I sure would fight before I would let some entity take my choices away! :)

[SSanf]

RabidApe does a great job of presenting Dawkins answer to Pascal's Wager here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2Bb-b8LsA&mode=related&search=

If you are an Atheist, you are bound to have to defend yourself against Pascal's Wager at some point so might best watch it.

Besides, it is impressive to start talking about Pascal's Wager when you are trying to pick someone up. They will think you are all deep and all that.

[gwendar]

Well, which god shall I believe in? What if I pick the wrong god and just end up making the true god angry and pissed off?
Since there is no evidence for the existence of any god, I'll simply refrain from believing in any. :D

I think Pascal's wager lacks thoughtfulness. It presents a false dichotomy.

[Toby Stimpson]

Well, which god shall I believe in? What if I pick the wrong god and just end up making the true god angry and pissed off?
Since there is no evidence for the existence of any god, I'll simply refrain from believing in any. :D

I think Pascal's wager lacks thoughtfulness. It presents a false dichotomy.

Thats actually a very wise comeback or the argument. The mere fact there are many other religions would say that Pascal's Argument is defunct... of course a proponent of the argument in philosophy would say "ahh but does the mere belief in something outweigh the belief in nothing?"

I think either way you are doomed if you do and your doomed if your not. I think though that this argument is very dualistic and elitist... where does it end? One person with firm beliefs could say this, but really

Ofcourse I could see where this argument can be applied to Humans, for example if we replace Divine Being with Human beings, ie. ourselves... if we dont have a belief in ourselves, are we doomed to not live a happy life? If we take his example in the link provided... who defines what 'Truth' is... indeed I would say a man is sinful if he does not acknowledge the truth... BUT, again who defines what true is. If someone argues against known facts, they are labeled a fool...because they obviously do not believe such elementary facts.

If someone argues the details of a fact, but acknowledges the fact has partial truth, what then? If for example someone acknowledges the truth of existence... but argues the source of that existence... are they really not submitting to truth? If someone acknowledges some kind of spiritual creation but does not believe that a God created it... are they so ignoring the truth of that creation?

Personally I think the whole argument is too apologetic, and really biased in many ways. It is based on facts of faith only, and we all know that a belief does not supercede and create reality, only the perception of reality.

Namaste

Tobias

[Jolixte]

It's pretty much wrapped up in an either/or fallacy. Either there is a god, or there isn't. It sounds nice, cute, and wrapped up, but it's still a fallacy to suggest that those are the only two choices.

[Fairy_Princess]

I always just say, it's my life to screw up for eternity if I so choose. Now please, let me get with on with my bad choices in peace please Mister Annoying Church Person.

[Toby Stimpson]

I always just say, it's my life to screw up for eternity if I so choose. Now please, let me get with on with my bad choices in peace please Mister Annoying Church Person.

I only seem to get women...I think I frighten all the church men away :( its a shame, I learned how to successfully wink with those mormon and Jehovahs witness guys... in their tight little suits ;)

[Fairy_Princess]

I call the women Mister too.

[SSanf]

For me the real question is how do you force yourself to believe something if you don't believe it? The best you can do is to feign belief. And, if you are just pretending belief, wouldn't God know it? And, wouldn't he reject you for only pretending to believe in him?

[gwendar]

For me the real question is how do you force yourself to believe something if you don't believe it? The best you can do is to feign belief. And, if you are just pretending belief, wouldn't God know it? And, wouldn't he reject you for only pretending to believe in him?

Well, yes, there's that, too.
I've learned that I can't force myself to believe. I tried, but it just wasn't happening.

[Cassie]

Besides, it is impressive to start talking about Pascal's Wager when you are trying to pick someone up. They will think you are all deep and all that.
True, I have known it to work! ;)


( its a shame, I learned how to successfully wink with those mormon and Jehovahs witness guys... in their tight little suits ;)
Hmm, lovely for a breakfast treat! :devil:

I think Pascal's Wager probably does work in a purely mathematical sense.
If there is a God you may spend 70 years sucking up for an eternity of bliss. If you don't suck up you get an eternity of damnation.
If there is no God (in Pascal's scheme) it makes no difference anyway so it is better to take the line of action most guarenteed to offer an eternity of bliss.

Personally I don't believe Pascal's Wager has any bearing on spirituality (with or without Deity). Is this a proof that mathematics isn't always right?

[gwendar]

Cassie, I think I have to disagree.
Even if there was a god, you'd have no way of knowing anything about it. How would you know (if there was only one god) which god? The Christian god? The Muslim god? Countless pagan gods? In order to make a decision to follow a god, wouldn't you have to know which god it was, and what it wanted of you? Which holy book do you choose to believe, and which to disregard?
How would you know this god would punish you if you didn't worship it? Maybe this god actually doesn't care either way.
And what if there is more than one god?
There's no evidence for the existence of any particular deity, so I don't think it makes any sense to go for Pascal's Wager.
:)

[SSanf]

True, I have known it to work! ;)LOL!! I believe it. Some people are so easy that you wonder how they breath in and out without getting confused.

I try to post helpful information. LOL!

[SSanf]

Here are some interesting thoughts on Pascal's Wager from SoldierInGodsArmy who tells us, "Stop all this foolishness and just convert already." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYzPMufca2s

[Vigdisdotter]

Well this sentiment is based on choice...being better to believe than to be punished by some higher power when you die basically, from what I gather.

And it's a false choice at that one: Belief in the CHRISTIAN god or not. There are MANY other gods with their own mythos and "punishments" of non-believers. So this argument fails very quickly.

[Philosophia]

There's no evidence for the existence of any particular deity, so I don't think it makes any sense to go for Pascal's Wager.
:)

But there is no evidence to prove that the deities don't exist. :)

[SSanf]

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

[gwendar]

But there is no evidence to prove that the deities don't exist. :)

Generally, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. I don't claim god/s exist or do not exist. I just lack belief, therefore I'm an atheist. :)

If I say there's an invisible pink unicorn who looks out for me, should I provide evidence of her existence, or should you provide evidence that she does not exist? ;)

[Windsmith]

Generally, the burden of proof falls to the one making the claim. I don't claim god/s exist or do not exist. I just lack belief, therefore I'm an atheist. :)I think about this a lot, and I think it's one of the reasons that theists and non-theists are probably going to keep arguing for, you know, ever.

To a non-theist, the claim that god exists is the extraordinary claim. To theist, the claim that god doesn't exist is the extraordinary claim. Each side therefore believes that the other side is the one required to do the proving. And around and around it goes.