The quotation marks denote that these are my words. I don’t remember having written that and I can’t find them in either of my posts to this thread.
Dave: I’m pretty sure he was just paraphrasing your statement that “God will know whether or not you really believe, and if you claim to believe in God only as a hedge just in case there is one, God will know and He will get you for it.”
Of course, his paraphrase would be better applied to my response to your statement than to your statement itself.
Barry
Wow! That’s a lot of typing.
Firstly, my major objection is the one I raised in the original thread and one that Tyrrell McAllister raised again here, Pascal assumed that God was benevolent without due cause or argument, relaz this assumption and the very opposite conclusion can be derived using identical logic – it is shameful that Pascal never observed this gaping flaw in his argument.
Secondly, the apportionment of probabilities to the outcome of God’s existence is problematic, it is understood that under uncertainty we cannoy make rationale choices when presented with such a matrix.
Thirdly, the assigning of +infinity to God_Exists AND I_Believe and +infinity to God_Exists AND NOT I_Believe is based upon a prejudicial view of God, which cannot be supported by argument or evidence.
But, as has been pointed out, there is also a non-zero probability that God is “evil” and that professing one’s belief in him will result in eternal damnation.
“Intuitively far more likely,” eh? I’m glad that they acknowledge that the empirical evidence is “far from convincing,” but they don’t take this far enough. Not only is it “far from convincing” it is internally inconsistent. If you want to point to the scriptures, for example, as evidence as to the nature of God, then you have to pick and choose among the various conflicting passages. Are we referring to the God who saves by grace after all that man can do? Are we talking about the God who requires blood sacrifices and burnt offerings? How about the God who says that homosexuality is a sin? Or that women should not be allowed to speak in church?
As for historical reports of divine manifestations, the most these reports can do is provided evidence of the existence of some sort of supernatural force, not the specific type of God who requires you to do and believe certain things in order to receive eternal salvation. Remember – Pascal was a good Catholic, so in his mind one had to believe in the Catholic notion of God in order to gain the sought-after reward. Presumably, in Pascal’s opinion, simply “believing in God” wasn’t enough – you also had to, for example, be baptized in the right church.
[quote]
[li]Empirical evidence may still be of some help. If one examines the historical record closely, a stronger case might be made for one of the major gods than for another.[/li][/quote]
Or, perhaps the historical record will show that it is equally likely that NONE of the major Gods are any more likely than another, in which case one might as well follow the example of Joseph Smith and start one’s own religion.
So basically, we should pick whichever God we think offers the best deal for the least amount of work, which will most certainly be the wrong God, and hope for the best? The problem with that argument is that if God does exist, then there is a very large possibility (based on scriptural texts and other “empirical” evidence) that he will punish people who worship him the wrong way or who worship the wrong God. So selecting the wrong God is not simply “better than nothing” – it would actively guarantee us the penalty we seek to avoid. In other words, “failure” doesn’t just imply wasting one’s life in a vain attempt to please a nonexistent God; it also implies actively causing an eternity of hell (especially if you take the view that God is simply ambivalent toward nonbelievers, but actively punishes those who worship false Gods).
Perhaps Pascal should rephrase his wager thusly:
I would submit that the best choice in the above situation is ©, opt not to choose either door. If God really expects us to worship him and will punish us if we don’t, then he should either provide clear evidence of his existence or, at the very least, make it clear what, exactly, he wants us to do as far as worship goes. Since he has done neither, I can safely conclude that either he doesn’t exist or that he really doesn’t care whether or not we believe in him, nor how we choose to worship him.
Barry
P.S. Thank you VERY much for all the hard work there, amore ac studio!
Thanks, Amore. The 50/50 argument is indeed incorrect, since we must consider expected values, which are much higher for believing than not believing if there is only a God/no God choice.
Pacal’s wager appears to be a way of removing the requirement for empirical proof in order to have a reason to believe. The quoted section clearly indicates that the multi-god problem brings it right back. Their argument assumes that the payoff for believing comes straight from god, however it is easy to argue that the payoff comes from man, and the prophets of any religion have an incentive to inflate the payoff/penalty in order to use the wager as a recruiting tool.
So, if I were to start a religion, I’d be sure that my Paradise would be optimized for my audience, and my hell would be also (24/7 showings of Gigli?). The Christian would say prove it exists, I’d say the same to him, and we’re right back where we started.
Finally, before you offer a reward, you need to demonstrate that the reward exists. Since no religion does this, there goes the wager. If someone proved nirvana, even a moderately nice one, that would win out over an unproven heaven.
Isn’t also far more likely that our available historical records will have been compiled by those who believe in one of the “major gods?”
True, the victors tend to be the ones who wrtie the history books, and this is as true in religion as in any other global conflict.
Barry
The fundamental flaw in Pascal’s wager is that the person is doing this out self-interest. However, God is supposed to be right within himself; that is, not only is he always right and should not be questioned, true belief in him is the right way. To put it in other words, you are supposed to believe in God for the sake of believing in God. But this necessitates God being a self-justification. This means that a person must know that he is doing the right thing by believing in God. But how can he know? If we are to accept the Bible (or, for that matter, any other holy text) as a rule of God and believe in it (and him) then why doesn’t it always make sense (the supposedly good are sometimes punished, the supposedly evil are sometimes rewarded). The obvious counter-argument is that one cannot know what God knows, which is acceptable–to a point.
Seeing as how, in this day and age, people can agree that early experience is most influential in people’s lives how can one expect someone to believe in God when he has been raised as an atheist? Perhaps, he needs to be open-minded. But, then it is this open-mindedness that is being rewarded, not the belief in God. (Not to mention open-mindedness itself being the product of a person’s experiences.)
We could eschew the idea of conflicting idealogies by adding an existentialist wrinkle: that belief itself is more important (so that, as long as someone truly believes in their religion, and follows it, they are doing right). As Kierkegaard explained, it is better to truly worship a false idol than to falsely worship a real God (for the K-man this would obviously be the Christian god).
However, we must note that not everyone has the chance to influenced by any religion. What if a boy’s parents prevent him from having any contact with religion? Is it his choice? How can he know? Only if Belief is innate. But if it is really innate then there would be no such thing as an unbeliever since one cannot escape that which is a fundamental component of oneself.
Add this to my previous post:
One might say that it could be acknowledged or denied by a person. But if it is a fundamental component it is true in itself. Outside affirmation or negation of it by factors that are insignificant (if, for argument’s sake, we assume it to be true [that God exists and is fundamental to the human psyche] ) would necessarily be insignificant. Therefore, not only religion, but–much more importantly–choice cannot exist if there is a God. If it did, it would make no sense with any notion of a supreme being.
What if Pacal thought he would win the lottery without buying a ticket for the same “there’s no downside here” logic?
You’d still call him just flat wrong, wouldn’t you?
Just because there’s no downside in believing something doesn’t make it true.
I believe that the first point is the only important one, and have started a thread about this (Which religion is most likely correct? )
I believe that the second point here is irrelevant; in fact, the payoff may even be counter-indicitave of which religion is the correct one. Imagine if you were going to make up a religion: To get more followers, you’d make your version of heaven greater than any other religions. Therefore, the better the heaven, the less likely that it’s true.
That’s not really important or, for that matter, definitive. What is important is the whole idea of basing a religion on the possible number of members or whose heaven is best. Religion is supposed to be self-justifiable. It’s stupid to pick the most accepting or adaptable religion and say that that’s the best one. Each religion justifies itself and no one can say that one religion is better than another (and, yes, this includes “those crazy cults”). Who cares if Christianity is the most popular? If some sect of Theravada Buddhism works for someone how can anyone say that it’s wrong. There is the question of religion in general but that’s for another thread.
Err…forget that last sentence. I got the threads mixed up.
Hell no. You convinced me and I’m an ordained minister
of the Universal Life Church, Modesto CA.
Here’s a couple of old threads on this topic that y’all might be interested in: 1, 2. Worth reading, IMHO.
What? You mean I’m not the first person to ever start a thread on this subject? I’m shocked – simply shocked, I say!
Hmmmm… Maybe we need something called “Godzillatemple’s Wager” around here. It would go something like this:
I’d start a new thread to discuss my wager, except that I don’t want to risk the embarrassment of finding out that somebody else has already done so…
Barry