Do you like to gamble?

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Of course when you were a kid, it is what I meant when I said it is aimed at frightening the naïve and gullible. Whoever put that to you as a child was doing something despicable, even if he/she genuinely though it might save you from the eternal flames of hell.
It was put to me but I didn't say that I bought into it.


Really dude? I presume you are talking about the Christian god in this context? However, what flavour of Christian god do you mean? The Catholic Jesus? Many Protestants will tell you Catholics aren't true Christians, so they are going to fry anyway. Conversely, there are Catholics (probably few these days admittedly) who would claim the Catholic church is the one, true apostolic church, and salvation can be reached through no other source. Then there are the JWs who will tell you the Protestants and Catholics have both got it wrong, they may be fewer in number but Jesus said few would be saved right? I could go on listing other Christian groups who would claim to have a monopoly on salvation, but I think I've made my point. Spin that wheel and hope you get the right Jesus!

[/QUOTE]
I think Pascal was hinting at making a practical choice when the outcome is uncertain. Your discussion of Christian flavors highlights this point perfectly. In the end, everyone makes a choice that allows them to sleep at night.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

Hedging is done to protect one's investment. Where there is no investment, there is no need to protect it.

How about an investment with a longer time horizon than the longest term Canada Savings Bond (because you are in Canada)? Your soul.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What does anyone think about Pascal's wager?

It's the same 'just in case' argument used for global warming- also global cooling, also works just as well for building defenses against an attack from Mars!

Not a great way to determine the actual truth of the matter, since it focuses on a response to something without tackling whether it's real

I'd say a better probability argument for God, is the higher probability of the universe being created by design v chance...

 

[Nakosis]

What does anyone think about Pascal's wager?

I don't like to gamble. So what religious folks are doing is picking the one God out of all the possible gods to bet on. With no real knowledge that they are correct. Maybe they picked the wrong God. No way to really know.

If/when a God shows themselves to be a sure thing, I'll accept the truth of that. Until then, it's best not to gamble on man's claim of knowledge about a God which can't be verified.

If you're making a decision based on a lack of knowledge you are very likely to be wrong. If you with hold making any decision until you have verified information it's much more likely that you'll be making the right choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps, but I think Pascal might have been saying (as a practical matter) it is better to choose one than choose none.

It's better to not make a choice at all until you have a good reason for making one.

There's been 8000-12000 gods worshiped through out history. You odds of picking the correct one are not good.

Problem with Pascal's wager is he assumed you had to make a bet.

 

[Willamena]

How about an investment with a longer time horizon than the longest term Canada Savings Bond (because you are in Canada)? Your soul.

With no belief in a soul, there is nothing in which to invest. Similarly if the investment is salvation from death.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

We can't sincerely choose a belief based on an intellectually hollow gamble.

If you sincerely believe in whatever god, then pascal's wager doesn't apply to you. If you are applying pascal's wager, then you don't sincerely believe in whatever god. Either way, it's nonsense.

Sure you can. There is a saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. In that case, fear = sincerity.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It's better to not make a choice at all until you have a good reason for making one.

There's been 8000-12000 gods worshiped through out history. You odds of picking the correct one are not good.

Agreed but those odds are higher than if you chose no god.

Problem with Pascal's wager is he assumed you had to make a bet.

Agreed until you run out of time to "faites vos jeux". In that case, you would be following in the footsteps of Emperor Constantine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What does anyone think about Pascal's wager?

If there is a god that cares, there is probably nothing more offensive than faith being degraded to a wager.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. In that case, fear = sincerity.

Yeah, that's pretty much false. Of course there are atheists in fox holes. Just because a theist would start to pray as a response to fear doesn't mean an atheist automatically does. It's just as pathetic as Pascal's Wager, and nothing more than theistic arrogance to assume there are no atheists in a foxhole. Is atheism so hard to accept that you have to insist it doesn't actually exist when push comes to shove?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sure you can. There is a saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. In that case, fear = sincerity.

I can only assume you have absolutely no idea what it is that I'm saying.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

If there is a god that cares, there is probably nothing more offensive than faith being degraded to a wager.

Probably. I would apologize once I get in.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It's the same 'just in case' argument used for global warming- also global cooling, also works just as well for building defenses against an attack from Mars!

Not a great way to determine the actual truth of the matter, since it focuses on a response to something without tackling whether it's real

I'd say a better probability argument for God, is the higher probability of the universe being created by design v chance...

This "just in case" has a much lower cost and you can change your mind as often as you wish. So, in that way it is different. You also do not have to think about the truth of the matter. You just have to have a handle on your risk tolerance.

 

[Father Heathen]

What does anyone think about Pascal's wager?

It's fallacious. It incorrectly assumes that, if there is a god, it proves that the Christian religion is correct, ignoring the possibility that any of the thousands of other religions might be correct, or the possibility that none of the religions got it right. What if there is a god, but doesn't actually torture people for eternity, especially not over something so petty and arbitrary?

Besides, if you believe simply as an insurance policy, don't you think god would see through that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This "just in case" has a much lower cost and you can change your mind as often as you wish. So, in that way it is different. You also do not have to think about the truth of the matter. You just have to have a handle on your risk tolerance.

What risk? Pascal never even proved the premises of this afterlife and worshiping god in the first place. To be valid, it has to be proven there is a god that cares if we worship him or not, it has to prove there is an afterlife, and it has to prove there is eternal punishment or damnation we are judged to. It also has to prove what god exactly does exist so we don't end up betting on Jehovah when our chips should have been placed on Osiris.

 

[Nakosis]

Agreed until you run out of time to "faites vos jeux". In that case, you would be following in the footsteps of Emperor Constantine.

If you assume life after death, Then a God would have the opportunity to make themselves known at that time if they haven't before hand.

If there is no God then there never was any reason to place the bet in the first place. If a God wants to be believed in, then it's up to that God to make themselves known. If they fail in that then my lack of belief is not my fault.

If there is some form of consequence involved, then that consequence will be because of God's failure not mine.

If said God is going to punish me for their own failure then it's likely not a God I'd want to be worshiping anyway.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

If there is no God then there never was any reason to place the bet in the first place.

Agreed. However, the idea of the wager is that you do not know if God exists. That is the starting condition.

If a God wants to be believed in, then it's up to that God to make themselves known. If they fail in that then my lack of belief is not my fault.

Agree 200%! However, how many times have we had to pay the consequences for something not our fault? You seem to imply there is some sort of fairness. I'm not sure it works that way.

If there is some form of consequence involved, then that consequence will be because of God's failure not mine.

If said God is going to punish me for their own failure then it's likely not a God I'd want to be worshiping anyway.

Again, God's failure your consequence. Not a nice outcome.

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

What risk? Pascal never even proved the premises of this afterlife and worshiping god in the first place.

Agreed.

To be valid, it has to be proven there is a god that cares if we worship him or not, it has to prove there is an afterlife, and it has to prove there is eternal punishment or damnation we are judged to. It also has to prove what god exactly does exist so we don't end up betting on Jehovah when our chips should have been placed on Osiris.

I think your comment falls outside the parameters of the wager. I think the existence of God was always conditional in the wager (i.e. never proven).

 

[D. Ellis Overttun]

It's fallacious. It incorrectly assumes that, if there is a god, it proves that the Christian religion is correct, ignoring the possibility that any of the thousands of other religions might be correct, or the possibility that none of the religions got it right.

I don't know if his point was to try to prove if Christianity was right. I think he was just trying to advance the study of probabilities. (Don't quote me on that.)

What if there is a god, but doesn't actually torture people for eternity, especially not over something so petty and arbitrary?

The point of his wager was you don't know that.

Besides, if you believe simply as an insurance policy, don't you think god would see through that?

Agreed. Somehow you would have to come to the conclusion that it would be in your best interest to believe and then work on being sincere.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps, but I think Pascal might have been saying (as a practical matter) it is better to choose one than choose none.

He was, but it was from a position of cultural certainty.
If you accept the premise that not only all different religions, but also the denominations within them are meaningful, it's akin to choosing which raindrop is divine.

It's also a horribly cynical way to approach life, and assumes it is possible to 'choose' belief, which is a pretty big assumption in its own right.

Surely God prefers authenticity?