I believe, 100%, in one true religion (I have tried to argue the point in the Kuzari thread). However, I am simply not sure if I believe in Pascal’s Wager. I am agnostic regarding the Wager, leaning (very slightly) towards accepting the argument of Pascal’s Wager.
Of course, no one can force himself to believe in God. However, one can force himself to perform the various obligations required by a specific religion. For example, I can’t force myself to believe in Allah, but, for the sake of Pascal’s Wager, I could force myself to perform the actions required by the Koran, such as praying five times a day.
Why do you accept (or don’t accept) the validity of Pascal’s Wager? Furthermore, assuming you don’t accept the Wager, how sure do you feel you need to be regarding the truth of a certain religion for you to take Pascal’s Argument seriously - 5%, 10%, 51%.
Thank you for enlightening me with your arguments.
Pascal’s Wager is not an argument for belief in God. I have read Pensees and found it to be an excellent book. The chapter entitled ‘on the necessity of the wager’ functions as a part of the book and I have no complaint with it, but presented by itself and not as an integral part of the entire book it’s not gonna’ convince anyone.
The problem is that there are an unlimited number of deities that someone could make up and believe in. So according to Pascal’s wager, you’re going to commit your life to bet on one specific scenario out of a near-infinite set. How do you know which one to choose?
Even if we limit the number of possibilities to a million, that gives you a one-in-a-million chance of picking the right one. I realize that eternal torture is a big disincentive, but would you really throw away the only life that you know you’re going to have on that chance?
And here’s a bigger issue: out of those million, you’re betting on only one being right, but a bunch of those possible religions would involve a God who would punish you for not using that wonderful brain that he gave you. So if you believe in Christianity or Islam, you’re taking a one in a million chance of being rewarded, but risking a thousand in a million chance of being punished.
That’s the trouble with Pascal’s Wager - with such undefined terms, you can craft scenarios that seem to mandate that you do all kinds of conflicting things, depending on which made-up things you accept.
I do not accept the validity of Pascals Wager because it makes the unproven assumption that there is only one god, and presents a false dilemma. It claims the choice is between ‘god’ or ‘no god’ when the choice is actually between Jehovah, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Shiva, Ra, etc, or ‘no god’. Choosing the wrong one out of thousands usually has bad consequences, so your odds of picking the correct one whether you are faking it or not is not in your favor. The argument is valid, but not sound.
I do not accept Pascal’s wager because it starts from the premise that God is a jealous asshole. So in the best case scenario, all you’ve done is brown nose to a douche.
That doesn’t satisfy the wager. Pascal’s Wager is about belief, not performing obligations. I think you’re operating according to the criteria of your own faith here, but many religions place a greater emphasis on faith than Judaism does.
Because it’s logically inconsistent and condescending nonsense.
Something tells me, given the historically vengeful nature of our god(s) - if in fact one (or more) does exist - that said deity/ies wouldn’t look particularly kindly on types who try hedge their bets regarding their existence to try exploit loopholes regarding eternal damnation relating to the repercussions issuing from their disblief.
Moreover, I think it may be taken as quite an insult by a ‘god’ to pressume their omni-everything self to be so oblivious as to what’s going on in their own play pen that a simplistic, fretful fence-sitter’s idea like Pascal’s Wager would be a get-out-of-hell-free ticket for thsoe who in their all-seeing eyes are ‘infidels’…!
Spit ballin’ about drivel sure is fun!
I am a Christian, but I also reject Pascal’s Wager with no context, not because it’s an unconvincing argument (though it is), but because I think it emphasizes the wrong aspects of religious belief.
I don’t murder people, not because I’m afraid of going to jail or getting the death penalty, I don’t murder because I believe it is wrong. Even if I were 100% certain that I could get away with murder and not get caught, I wouldn’t do it. Or to use an example from the recent news, soliders don’t (or at least shouldn’t) risk their lives in the hopes of winning a medal, they should do it because of they believe it’s their duty, because they value the lives of the others in their unit, because they value what they’re fighting for, etc.
I apply this same principle to my religious beliefs. I don’t believe in Christianity because I want to go to heaven or am afraid of going to hell. I think anyone who follows the rites and believes in Christianity for those reasons is missing the real purpose. It’s about establishing a connection with God, it’s about learning how to love your neighbor, etc. In fact, I prefer to try to live my life as if there is no afterlife and I want to do the right things, not because of hope for reward or fear of punishment, but simply because they’re the right things to do. If any reward should follow, great; if not, oh well.
Wait, we’re talking about Blaise Pascal, thought to be one of the greatest minds in history? And he came up with that nonsense? I hope my kids are smarter than that when they’re in their teens. He should have just stuck to math!
Seriously, that just shows us how being constantly bombarded by religion can brainwash even the best minds. If one hears about something enough, it automatically gains credibility regardless of how idiotic it is. This also explains Sarah Palin.
How come it is acceptable for people to make statements like this? This is wrong, just as much as saying “let’s silence this group of people for the greater good”.
People who study this stuff their entire lives, who get brainwashed in the wombs and have it beaten in 'til the grave, they can’t even agree on what these obligations are. How on earth is someone just going through the motions supposed to do it?
"God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won’t tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."
Pascal’s Wager is really a cost benefit analysis. If you think an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being is going to be fooled by your act good luck. If it isn’t an act you really didn’t have a choice in the first place.
Not only that, but the Pensees isn’t really a book, but rather a set of notes, fragments, and (literally) thoughts that Pascal intended to assemble into a book. (Though I agree that what we do have is well worth reading.) So not only is the Wager often presented out of context, we don’t really have the full context that Pascal intended for it.
The Wikipedia article gives some indication of the context, and describes some of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Wager.
Here’s one thing I think is right about the Wager: there are some areas in life where we can’t be sure: some propositions which reason cannot tell us for sure whether they’re true or false—but on which, nonetheless, we cannot remain completely neutral. We have to take sides; we have to choose whether to act as if they’re true or they’re false. In such a case, it makes sense to consider, not only the probability of truth, but the reward/penalty for guessing right/wrong.
I think that falls foul of the point Blaster Master makes; you can’t really have religious faith (or, at least, most religious faiths i’ve heard of don’t work like this) if you’re doing so as a matter of weighing up pros and cons, trying to figure out the best angle for yourself. I agree with you that there are some areas of life where that might be appropriate, but I don’t think that religion is one of them. It sounds more like negotiating a contract (“Right, if I sign on the dotted line, I get what? What insurance do I get if I make the wrong choice?”).
