# Pascal's Wager **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323 "2010-11-29T20:50:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/41 "2010-11-30T16:52:04Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Really? Why? Other than a few outcomes not mentioned by Lewis (biblical mistranslation, whole fabricated myth, misinterpretation of teachings) why is it logically _worse_ than Pascal’s Wager? It contains more false premises (it presumes the accuaracy of the Gospels as to Jesus’ own words, as well as Lewis’ own preferred interpretaton of them. In addition, what he claims as contradictions are not contradictions), and it’s just so _strident_. Lewis is so damn confident in himself without any idea how totally fraudulent his argument really is, The Trilemma is not countered by Biblical mistranslation, by the way. The translation can be accepted as accurate, and it’s easy enough to consult the original Greek if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/42 "2010-11-30T17:16:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not as bad as Lewis’ Trilemma, though, which I think is the worst popular apologia ever devised. I think we’ve discussed this before: the problem is not so much in Lewis’s own presentation of the “trilemma” as in how it has been used by later popular apologists. IIRC, Lewis himself was answering those who claimed to respect Jesus (meaning, Jesus as he appears in the Bible) as a great moral teacher but who didn’t have anything special or divine about him. Lewis’s point is that **the Jesus who appears in the gospels** can only be understood in a limited number of ways, and “ordinary human who was very wise and moral” is not one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/43 "2010-11-30T17:18:22Z")
He’s wrong about that too, though. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/44 "2010-11-30T18:24:13Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > IIRC, Lewis himself was answering those who claimed to respect Jesus (meaning, Jesus as he appears in the Bible) as a great moral teacher but who didn’t have anything special or divine about him. Lewis’s point is that **the Jesus who appears in the gospels** can only be understood in a limited number of ways, and “ordinary human who was very wise and moral” is not one of them. I read _Mere Christianity_ where Lewis proposes this trilemma - it’s been a couple of years, but I’m pretty sure that he was _not_ answering the unbelieving Jesus-respecters, but explaining why belief in Christianity is justified. He spent the first third of the book arguing for why there _must be_ a god - mainly the argument that since a universal morality exists, that can only be because a god put it in us. The second third of the book is where the trilemma is. He builds on the first part, where he demonstrated that a god must exist, and then explains why Christianity has to be a reflection of the True God because Jesus just had to be telling the truth about his divinity. The last third was about how a Christian should behave. I was able to plough through the first 2/3 of the book, but when he was just droning on and on in this last part I bailed out. The whole thing was an exercise in name-that-fallacy. I actually felt embarrassed for Lewis having made these arguments in public. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/45 "2010-11-30T18:28:16Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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? Pallas Athena. Obviously. All other deities are either subordinate to Her (e.g. Artemis), rebels who must be crushed along with their followers (e.g., Morrigan), or complete fictions (e.g., Zeus). ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/46 "2010-11-30T19:00:02Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. **The “many-religions” flaw.** This claims that since there are so many religions, even if there is a god, we will probably choose the wrong religion anyway, so it’s not worth taking a guess. I can’t understand how this undermines Pascal’s Wager. He is arguing that we should choose either the religion that has the most proof, and if they are all equal in our eyes, then we should at least flip a coin on the matter. there is no proof of any religion anywhere at all, absolutely zero evidence for the existence of any god at any time past, present, (or future). until you understand this there is nothing anyone can say to convince you of anything when it comes to religion. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/47 "2010-12-01T05:25:38Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. **The “many-religions” flaw.** This claims that since there are so many religions, even if there is a god, we will probably choose the wrong religion anyway, so it’s not worth taking a guess. I can’t understand how this undermines Pascal’s Wager. He is arguing that we should choose either the religion that has the most proof, and if they are all equal in our eyes, then we should at least flip a coin on the matter. I don’t believe that is the case. I think the point being made is that the potential results are in themselves something worthy of including. So, for example, if we had two religions to choose from, Religion A having the most evidence but no “punishment” for not believing, and Religion B having less evidence but having vast punishment for not believing, then Pascal’s Wager suggests we might think about going with Religion B. The results themselves are as worthy, per the wager, of inclusion as the evidence. So the problem remains. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/48 "2010-12-01T06:06:13Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Pallas Athena. Obviously. All other deities are either subordinate to Her (e.g. Artemis), rebels who must be crushed along with their followers (e.g., Morrigan), or complete fictions (e.g., Zeus). What about Discordia, Skald? Not so much a rebel as an equal-and-opposing force. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/49 "2010-12-01T06:24:28Z")
A little problem with the Right God/Wrong God concept. Unless there is a God who gave us the Bible or Greek Mythology, etc., then we don’t really know what God we would are believing in, and any God doesn’t know if we believe in him either. This is akin to saying you like someone you don’t know, have never met, seen, heard, or even know that person exists. How do you know you like that person? Maybe you like someone else and have mistaken their identity. Maybe there isn’t anyone at all. And if that person heard you say you say you liked them, how would they know who you are really referring to? Pascal’s Wager seems more oriented to those who can’t resolve their belief, or those who claim disbelief as an excuse for immorality. Those who don’t believe at all should find the question absurd in it’s nature, because there would be no benefit from believing in something that didn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/50 "2010-12-01T17:38:44Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > What about Discordia, Skald? Not so much a rebel as an equal-and-opposing force. I’m sure you meant to type _seemingly nearly eequal in the eyes of mortals, but in fact vastly inferior and conscious of that and consquently filled with jealous rage_, so I shall forgive you. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/51 "2010-12-01T18:45:46Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 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. I don’t take him seriously at all. I think Hopkins stops him late or wins on points. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/52 "2010-12-01T18:58:20Z")
Have a hot dog bun, Skald. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/53 "2010-12-01T18:59:55Z")
One of the many, many flaws of Pascal’s Wager is that he completely misrepresents non-Christian faiths. Reincarnation, for example. Pascal presumes that if reincarnation is true, then your actions in this life don’t matter, because you get to come back and do it all over again. This is patently false – _every_ reincarnation-based faith asserts that this life’s actions _absolutely do matter_, and will directly affect what your next life will be like. (FYI, the Buddhists do believe that [“hell” exists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka) – albeit not for all eternity, just 100 billion years or so.) Pascal’s Wager achieves the false conclusion that it’s best to believe in Jesus Christ, primarily because you’ll potentially burn in hell for eternity otherwise. 'Tis a pity that Pascal lived before Isaac Newton’s time, because then he would have understood that the concept of eternal hellish suffering is a direct violation of Newton’s 1st Law of Thermodynamics – The Conservation of Energy. Presumably, “God” is a source of infinite energy, and the human soul (if you believe in such a thing) is comprised of pure, limited energy; if a soul burns in Hell, out of sight from God’s replenishing soul-source, how can it burn forever? Simple answer = it can’t. You may suffer for a brief period of time, but _not_ forever. Therefore, Eternal Hell cannot, and does not, exist…QED. Which basically renders Pascal’s Wager entirely moot. Therefore, the most logical course of action is to ignore ALL religious faiths, and carry on with your life in a manner which is most true to yourself, and who you are as a person. If you’re the kind of person who enjoys doing good deeds, your actions _will_ be rewarded – even if your reward is no more than that warm, fuzzy feeling you get from donating to charity. On the other hand, if it’s in your nature to become a serial killer…hey, knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/54 "2010-12-01T20:48:50Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Pascal’s Wager achieves the false conclusion that it’s best to believe in Jesus Christ, primarily because you’ll potentially burn in hell for eternity otherwise. 'Tis a pity that Pascal lived before Isaac Newton’s time, because then he would have understood that the concept of eternal hellish suffering is a direct violation of Newton’s 1st Law of Thermodynamics – The Conservation of Energy. Presumably, “God” is a source of infinite energy, and the human soul (if you believe in such a thing) is comprised of pure, limited energy; if a soul burns in Hell, out of sight from God’s replenishing soul-source, how can it burn forever? Simple answer = it can’t. You may suffer for a brief period of time, but _not_ forever. Therefore, Eternal Hell cannot, and does not, exist…QED. > . What the deuce has Isaac Newton to do with the laws of thermodynamics? Newton formulated the laws of motion, devised the calculus, and innovated in optics. The laws of thermodynamcs were formulated till the 1800s, when he was roasting in hell for his persecution of Leibniz. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/55 "2010-12-01T21:24:57Z")
As so many here have so couthly pointed out, Pascal’s Wager is certainly flawed, but I still think he presented a very musing idea. To satisfy the teeming skeptics, lets boil the wager down to this–you have either two choices, that no God or gods exist, and that no religion on earth was ever right, or that some God or gods do exist, and at least one religion on the earth was right. With, in my estimate, at least 70% of people who have ever existed(and thats a conservative measure) having claimed to have religion, and having claimed a personal experience with some higher form of spiritual being, then the odds of there being no spiritual power existing becomes pretty slim–that would mean over 70% of the worlds polpuation that has ever existed are all liars and/or schizophrenics. From there we could get into all sorts of pantheist and deist debates, all of which really stand no contest to some form of concrete theism if atheism was no longer an option. We would have to get ourselves to believe that there is some higher power that made us but for some reason doesn’t care about our happenings, isn’t able to intervene in the world, or is malevolent–none of which really add up at all. Pascal’s wager is really not a good argument in the arena of Religion vs Irreligion, but I think its a good enough argument for both sides to consider the fact that these things need to be considered. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/56 "2010-12-01T21:26:52Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > As so many here have so couthly pointed out, Pascal’s Wager is certainly flawed, but I still think he presented a very musing idea. To satisfy the teeming skeptics, lets boil the wager down to this–you have either two choices, that no God or gods exist, and that no religion on earth was ever right, or that some God or gods do exist, and at least one religion on the earth was right. With, in my estimate, at least 70% of people who have ever existed(and thats a conservative measure) having claimed to have religion, and having claimed a personal experience with some higher form of spiritual being, then the odds of there being no spiritual power existing becomes pretty slim–that would mean over 70% of the worlds polpuation that has ever existed are all liars and/or schizophrenics. > > From there we could get into all sorts of pantheist and deist debates, all of which really stand no contest to some form of concrete theism if atheism was no longer an option. We would have to get ourselves to believe that there is some higher power that made us but for some reason doesn’t care about our happenings, isn’t able to intervene in the world, or is malevolent–none of which really add up at all. Pascal’s wager is really not a good argument in the arena of Religion vs Irreligion, but I think its a good enough argument for both sides to consider the fact that these things need to be considered. I would estimate that well over 70% of all persons who have ever lived believed that the speed an object falls at is dependent on its weight. That proposition is still untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/57 "2010-12-01T21:33:50Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I would estimate that well over 70% of all persons who have ever lived believed that the speed an object falls at is dependent on its weight. That proposition is still untrue. Ah…but if they all asserted that some invisible guy whispered in their ear that that was case, well…then, I guess it would kind of turn into a different argument…which is exactly what my OP was. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/58 "2010-12-01T21:39:27Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > As so many here have so couthly pointed out, Pascal’s Wager is certainly flawed, but I still think he presented a very musing idea. To satisfy the teeming skeptics, lets boil the wager down to this–you have either two choices, that no God or gods exist, and that no religion on earth was ever right, or that some God or gods do exist, and at least one religion on the earth was right. With, in my estimate, at least 70% of people who have ever existed(and thats a conservative measure) having claimed to have religion, and having claimed a personal experience with some higher form of spiritual being, then the odds of there being no spiritual power existing becomes pretty slim–that would mean over 70% of the worlds polpuation that has ever existed are all liars and/or schizophrenics. Boiling down to two choices simplifies it too far. The world is full of religions and each is different. It there was but two it might make some sense, but it does not. And no simply because the majority believed in a deity does not make it any more likely that any deity exists. AT one point most thought the world was flat. > [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > From there we could get into all sorts of pantheist and deist debates, all of which really stand no contest to some form of concrete theism if atheism was no longer an option. We would have to get ourselves to believe that there is some higher power that made us but for some reason doesn’t care about our happenings, isn’t able to intervene in the world, or is malevolent–none of which really add up at all. Pascal’s wager is really not a good argument in the arena of Religion vs Irreligion, but I think its a good enough argument for both sides to consider the fact that these things need to be considered. I believe you missed the point of the wager completely. The point is if you don’t believe you might as well try to bluff the Christian god. What is there to lose? The two problems are there are many religions and any entity powerful enough to be able to create a hell and condemn you to it based on your behavior surely could tell the difference ad your bluff would fail. ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/59 "2010-12-01T21:40:28Z")
I will focus on a few of the points mentioned, though not all for the sake of brevity. 1. Critical1 suggested that there is no evidence for any religion. If, indeed, there is ZERO evidence for all the religions, then (in my opinion) the Wager should not apply. HOWEVER, I can’t imagine how anyone can claim that there is “zero” evidence for specific religions. For example, I am Jewish, but I still admit that there is some evidence for the truth of mormonism. It is a weak form, a repeatedly-fallible form, of evidence for the truth of mormonism: one man’s word, Joseph Smith. Do I think he’s lying? Yes, I’m 99.9999 percent sure that he is lying. But I can’t claim that there is zero evidence. On the other hand, there is litteraly zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. 2. My reference to Maimonides wasn’t meant to imply that his opinion is binding. I was merely suggesting that those who presume that if God exists he would rather you worship nothing rather than some false god is one which Maimonides would disagree with. If you present evidence for your case, that paganism is “worse” than atheism, I would take it seriously, notwithstanding Maimonides’ opinion. 3. Diogenes: Of course you can’t choose to believe in god or not. But you can choose to follow the other mandates of God, such as observing the Sabbath or performing the Islamic prayers. 4. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/60 "2010-12-01T21:47:56Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > I will focus on a few of the points mentioned, though not all for the sake of brevity. > > 1. Critical1 suggested that there is no evidence for any religion. If, indeed, there is ZERO evidence for all the religions, then (in my opinion) the Wager should not apply. HOWEVER, I can’t imagine how anyone can claim that there is “zero” evidence for specific religions. For example, I am Jewish, but I still admit that there is some evidence for the truth of mormonism. It is a weak form, a repeatedly-fallible form, of evidence for the truth of mormonism: one man’s word, Joseph Smith. Do I think he’s lying? Yes, I’m 99.9999 percent sure that he is lying. But I can’t claim that there is zero evidence. On the other hand, there is litteraly zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. > > 2. My reference to Maimonides wasn’t meant to imply that his opinion is binding. I was merely suggesting that those who presume that if God exists he would rather you worship nothing rather than some false god is one which Maimonides would disagree with. If you present evidence for your case, that paganism is “worse” than atheism, I would take it seriously, notwithstanding Maimonides’ opinion. > > 3. Diogenes: Of course you can’t choose to believe in god or not. But you can choose to follow the other mandates of God, such as observing the Sabbath or performing the Islamic prayers. > > 4. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). It would seem that last point invalidates the wager. I can not simply change my heart. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=4)