Reason for belief: Pascal's Wager

[LikeMothsToFlame]

From Wikipedia:

It states that if you were to analyse your options in regard to belief in Pascal's God carefully (or belief in any other religious system with a similar reward and punishment scheme), you would come out with the following possibilities:

• You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
• You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
• You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
• You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.

From these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal deduced that it would be better to believe in God unconditionally. It is a classic application of game theory to itemize options and payoffs and is valid within its assumptions.

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Is this a valid reason for belief in a God? Maybe it's just me, but this is one of the best arguments for belief I've seen in quite awhile.

 

[Jaymes]

Insert any other deity in there. Is it any less valid?

 

[Aqualung]

Sure it's a good reason. But come on. Can you really just "believe" in something because if you don't, you might go to hell? Not really. You'd just be going through the motions of believing for your own well being.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Terrible reason. One, how do you know which god/goddess to worship? Two, were I a god, I would not much be impressed with a believer who believes because they figure it can't hurt. Three, believing, sincerely believing, really isn't something you can decide to do because you figure you might get something out of it. That's not belief, that's agnosticism (and nothing wrong with agnosticism, mind you) covering its bets.

 

[Pah]

Insert any other deity in there. Is it any less valid?

As Jensa insinuates, there is not a particular god assigned to the wager. It would be false for the god of Christianity if a Norse or Greek or Mayan god was the one you should bet on. The bet does not lead to certainty

 

[Darkdale]

As Jensa insinuates, there is not a particular god assigned to the wager. It would be false for the god of Christianity if a Norse or Greek or Mayan god was the one you should bet on. The bet does not lead to certainty

Excellent points, both of you. Another problem is that it is possible that there are two real gods, with two real heavens and two hells. Or three real gods, three real heavens and so forth. There is no objective reason why we should believe a single one of Pascal's premises, thus his conclusion is irrelevant.

 

[Katzpur]

Is this a valid reason for belief in a God? Maybe it's just me, but this is one of the best arguments for belief I've seen in quite awhile.

No, it's probably not "just you." I'm sure a lot of people would agree with you. I don't, because I don't see all (or even most) non-believers in God as going to hell. Also, I have a firm belief in God, but it's not because of I'm afraid of the consequences of not believing. I believe because I cannot convince myself that there is no God. It's just something I feel I was born with. Likewise, I don't think an atheist could talk himself into believing in a God just because of what might be his punishment for not believing.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I wouldn't wager on Pascal... it has to do with FEAR and perfect love casts out fear. Without a firm foundation in a love for Jesus, Christianity makes absolutely NO sense.

 

[JerryL]

Jerry's Wager:
There is a God and he hates theists so...

1. Believe in any God and this God exists burn in hell.
2. Believe in any God and he doesn't, be dead
3. Don't believe in any God and this Goddoesn't exist, be dead.
4. Don't believe in any God and he does, live in paradise.

See? I can suport Athiesm through the same type of wager.

 

[Buttons*]

I dont count that wager valid...
it's kind of a cop out for fear

 

[michel]

From Wikipedia:

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Is this a valid reason for belief in a God? Maybe it's just me, but this is one of the best arguments for belief I've seen in quite awhile.

It maybe a good argument, but I prefer the 'personal' touch......I don't need an argument.
Somehow (and please no one take this the wrong way), I think that if you need an argument to believe in God, then you're better offstopping in your tracks, and going back to square 1.

 

[Quiddity]

From a cost analysis point of view it would be the smart thing to do. At least with those theistic worldviews that have an after life with a hell. Otherwise, I don't use this argument.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

From a cost analysis point of view it would be the smart thing to do. At least with those theistic worldviews that have an after life with a hell. Otherwise, I don't use this argument.

Unless God doesn't like theists.

 

[Mike182]

pascals wager give a logical acount for belief, but if i was an athiest, and i read this, and chose to believe - how much would my "faith" count for? faith gained through fear is generally very frail, and prone to be shaken and broken

also, define God - this could be inturpreted to be the traditional god of christianity, or many other dieties - resulting in conflict over which "god" should be believed in

but yes, it does cover the basics for why we should believe - it just doesn't define what to believe!

mike

 

[Ex Machina]

Jerry's Wager:
There is a God and he hates theists so...

1. Believe in any God and this God exists burn in hell.
2. Believe in any God and he doesn't, be dead
3. Don't believe in any God and this Goddoesn't exist, be dead.
4. Don't believe in any God and he does, live in paradise.

See? I can suport Athiesm through the same type of wager.

I was about to bring up a similar point. What if God is actually testing us to see how gulable we are, or any other variation of that basic premise.

Pascal's statistics simply don't add up because he doesn' take into account the possibility of alternate Gods.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From my point of view, it is demonstrating quite the wrong reason for a belief in God.
First of all you believe in God because God has entered your life and you recognize that fact.
God is about love not fear. it is wrong to teach that you should obey God through fear of retribution.
God is not giving out Prizes and punishments at the end of a race.
God loves us all equally, and he sent Jesus not just to save us , but to teach us how to live.
He knows, just as we do, that we are sinners, but still he loves us.

If we love and try to obey God, our life is not a gamble it is a certainty.

Terry__________________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

From my point of view, it is demonstrating quite the wrong reason for a belief in God.
First of all you believe in God because God has entered your life and you recognize that fact.
God is about love not fear. it is wrong to teach that you should obey God through fear of retribution.
God is not giving out Prizes and punishments at the end of a race.
God loves us all equally, and he sent Jesus not just to save us , but to teach us how to live.
He knows, just as we do, that we are sinners, but still he loves us.

If we love and try to obey God, our life is not a gamble it is a certainty.

Terry__________________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

Hey Terry,

I was raised in church, but just don't "feel" it. What am I to do? Plus, are you saying that I have no need to fear retribution in the afterlife? If so, very groovy indeed.

B.

 

[muichimotsu]

The very reason Christianity even started was because other Jews that followed Jesus needed a new way to justify God and how he interacted with the human world. So from a historical standpoint, they turned Jesus into a form of God, making him the active God in a sense. Jesus' own words could have been misquoted however, or misinterpreted, thusly the true message potentially lost in the constant message of him as Savior, justifying the existence of God by proving the divinity of a being that was originally a mere human in the eyes of everyone, religious or not.

 

[greatcalgarian]

From Wikipedia:

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Is this a valid reason for belief in a God? Maybe it's just me, but this is one of the best arguments for belief I've seen in quite awhile.

You may not believe in God, and God exists, in which case you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.
It is this very last invalid statement that any person of reasonable intelligent will feel insulted. Even if God exists, and even if there is hell, the statement "you will go to hell" may not be valid, and there may be other alternatives.

Evangelist using this way for spreading the good news (Gospel) is not doing what Jesus want them to do.

 

[Popeyesays]

From Wikipedia:

Full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Is this a valid reason for belief in a God? Maybe it's just me, but this is one of the best arguments for belief I've seen in quite awhile.

As an argument it is still a non-starter. It was to me when I first found it in 1960 when I was thirteen.

I think it is the aptest application of some verses from the third chapter of Revelations as I know:
"13He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.


14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. "

As a wager it creates only a "lukewarm" belief.

Regards,
Scott