Gosh, by those words I meant to say if we keep talking we might find an even better argument. How do you know there will not be a ‘more convincing’ argument? Perhaps if we let people talk we will find out. Is there something wrong with that plan?
I do not understand why so many people are willing to slam the door shut on other who have not yet spoken. I on the other hand, have an excuse. I have to feed the cat and get ready for bed.
Actually, the kosher joke is more of a lead-in to the main point of that soliloquy:
Ned: Why me, Lord? Where have I gone wrong? I’ve always been nice to people. I don’t drink or dance or swear. I’ve even kept Kosher just to be on the safe side. I’ve done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.
Emphasis added. There are so many conflicting interpretations of God even within single religions (plus variations that deal with multiple gods or spirits or what have you) that even in Pascal’s time there wasn’t a clear God/notGod choice.
What did “God” mean to Pascal? I dunno, probably some conventional 17th-century French Catholic interpretation mingled with some anti-Jansenism (the intensity depending at what stage of life he was at), sprinkled with who-knows-what. I suppose you could play it safe and just go with the blandest, most generic possible God, if you see the need.
It’s been proven to be a faulty wager all around-how can there be a “better argument” than that? It’s as if you are trying to find a new way to show that 2+2=4 because basic math just isn’t good enough for you.
Duplicate post.
Well, but if people misrepresent what Pascal himself was trying to argue, and then other people reject it based on objections that only apply to those misrepresentations, that doesn’t make Pascal’s Wager itself a “dead letter”!
There have been some legitimate objections brought up in this thread. But “You can’t choose whether or not to believe something” isn’t one of them, because the Wager as originally stated by Pascal isn’t about whether or not to believe. Rather, it starts with the assumption that one cannot determine on the basis of reason whether God exists or not, so you have to decide whether to live as though God exists or as though God doesn’t exist, and either way, you’re taking a chance: making a wager.
Note that Pascal’s Wager has been thoroughly discussed here before. The thread from last December-ish went to 14 pages.
Out of interest, would it be possible to summarise his thoughts on those topics? If it isn’t possible to condense from hundreds of pages to anything readable, feel free to say.
Sums up most of the arguments pretty well. Pascal’s Wager is a fool’s errand.
I didn’t mean to imply that you were. I was trying to support your view that the thread still had some meat and that in addition to the reasons given there might be other alternative flaws to Pascal, and do so by giving a flaw that was very different from those presented previously. 
Paul, another link for you.
Right - but the OP is not discussing what Pascal may have meant.
ITR quoted me because I stated: “The other problem is that you’d have to believe that God wasn’t omniscient in order to believe that he’d be fooled into your false faith.”, not because of the ‘you can’t choose your faith’ argument.
Again, this thread isn’t about what Pascal may or may not have meant or argued.
Okay.
Because it is nothing more than an appeal to irrational cowardice. If somebody claims that if you don’t believe in Bugs Bunny, Darth Vader is going to choke you to death with the Force, you’re not going to take the threatened actions of a fictional character seriously, are you?
How about if they claim that if you don’t believe in Darth Vader, Darth Vader will choke you with the Force? Does changing the fictional character’s terms make the threat any more credible?
How about if they claim that if you don’t believe in God, God will make you burn forever?
Czarcasm, how on earth does this put you out? Because Paul has different beliefs than you? Because he is more interested than you are in dissecting the variety of arguments and counterpoints that have been raised in relation to Pascal’s thought?
If you’re not interested in the topic, then just stay out of the thread. But it is patently threadshitting to say “Well, it’s been disproved, so nobody gets to talk about it anymore.”
Frankly, you’re coming off as a little Grand Inquisitor staving off threats against your precious orthodoxy.
I think the logical flaws of the argument are well pointed out in this thread but, even still, as a Christian myself, I think it’s greatest flaw lies in the motivation behind the argument itself. That is, it is an argument that one should either have faith, or try to develop it, out of hope for reward or out of fear of punishment. This is an appeal to one of the most base forms of morality that can not only potentially be countered with cost-benefit analysis, and thus devolving into an argument over how to weight these values, but it utterly misses the entire point. Jesus consistently spoke out in favor of love, giving selflessly to others, and such things.
To put it another way, this argument is like telling a child he shouldn’t take from others because if he gets caught he’ll get punished, when the child should be learning not to do it because it will hurt other. Thus, I think that even if the argument didn’t have logical flaws, it would at the very least be undermining the lessons.
Consider what would happen if you accepted the argument. Ok, so belief in Yahweh is better than nonbelief. So you decide to follow Yahweh. Then another missionary comes and says “Well if you believe in Yahweh and you’re wrong, that’s pretty bad, but if you don’t believe in Sezhasa, he’ll do even worse things than send you to hell!”
So then by the terms of the argument, you’re forced to believe in Sezhasa in order to minimize your cost. But then another missionary shows up and says “You think Sezhasa will punish you? Hah! Wait til you hear about what my god has in store for you! It’s even worse.” So then you’ve got to go with that god instead.
Before you know it, you’re determining truth based on the cost of being wrong. It should be intuitively apparent why that fails. You’d end up saying " 'The existence of pink unicorns would be better than a world without them. Thus, pink unicorns exist."
So it’s not really costs of believing or multiple gods that breaks Pascal down. It’s the leap from “It’s better to be this way” to “therefore, it is that way” that does in the Wager. We have a term for such thinking - self-delusion.
Since Terry Pratchett has already come up, I’m surprised no one has posted this quote yet:
It doesn’t work in faith based religions, such as Protestant Christianity, and, subject to some argument, Christianity as a whole. Beliefs can’t be chosen for expediency. You can falsely and publicly profess belief in a God, but you can’t choose to believe.
It would work with works based religions, where a person’s salvation depends on what they DO, not on what they BELIEVE. E.g. if, according to a religion, a person can be saved solely by donating 10% of their income to religious leaders, not committing murder or adultery, or else paying $1000 to religious leaders for each murder or adulterous act to obtain forgiveness, then you can follow that religion and pay and still hope for salvation if it turns out to be true.
Here is the best explanation I’ve ever seen on why it doesn’t work.
I consider myself a Deist. You can’t talk me out of it so don’t try.
Here’s what I think. An intelligent force created all this in pursuit of a sort of hobby. In other words, we are God’s terrarium. God is indifferent to worship, if not a little amused by it, and does not become involved in our personal lives any more than we would settle disputes between ant colonies.
There is no afterlife.
We are sitting on a celestial shelf or a credenza somewhere in extra-existence.
Thank you all for your excellent comments. I suppose the Wager is one of those things I never really thought about, and I can now see its weaknesses clearly. I appreciate it.
I can’t wait to spring some of these on some of my friends. Talking about things helps us understand them.
Because it’s blatantly false.
First, it’s anthropocentric, making the existence of humans commanding the attention and interest of a divine entity a fundamental quality of the universe. That alone makes the proposition worthless of discussion.
Second, the proposition is logically false, and it’s very likely he was aware of that fact. If he is willing to accept the existence of a supernatural being that has control over his life, then he should accept the existence of all possible supernatural beings, just to be on the safe side. That’s just idiotic and utter nonsense.