Pascal's Wager
Pascal’s Wager was created to show that it is optimal for people to believe in God. Pascal wager focuses on the two decisions one to believe in God and the other to not believe in God. Four outcomes happen during Pascal's wager.
1. If God exists and the person believes in God they will go to heaven and receive infinite pleasure.
2. If God exists and the person does not believe in God they will go to hell and suffer infinitely.
3. If God does not exist and the person believes in God they have some disadvantages in life because they are restricted to a certain life.
4. If God does not exist and the person believes in God then they do not have to live a restricted life.
Pascal’s wager is flawed because there are more options than believing in the Christian God there are also other religions that we would have to take into account. But the greatest flaw is that the logic is built on fear. The possibility of going to hell incites people to believe in God it is all fear-based. The reason why this is problematic and an issue is because the belief is not genuine and instead of believing in God for the values that they offer. For example, many environmentalists will use fear-based tactics in order to cause many people to panic. This causes a wave of people using metal straws and buying reusable water bottles. But they do not understand that this action will not truly help the environmental situation. They have been feared to make desperate and not logical decisions. Similarly to this, we can compare Pascal's wager. One might abandon all other logical choices when it comes to God in order to soothe their thoughts of not wanting to suffer for eternity. Although the person will believe in God they are doing so because of fear and not because they believe in the values that God provides.
1. If God exists and the person believes in God they will go to heaven and receive infinite pleasure.
2. If God exists and the person does not believe in God they will go to hell and suffer infinitely.
3. If God does not exist and the person believes in God they have some disadvantages in life because they are restricted to a certain life.
4. If God does not exist and the person believes in God then they do not have to live a restricted life.
Pascal’s wager is flawed because there are more options than believing in the Christian God there are also other religions that we would have to take into account. But the greatest flaw is that the logic is built on fear. The possibility of going to hell incites people to believe in God it is all fear-based. The reason why this is problematic and an issue is because the belief is not genuine and instead of believing in God for the values that they offer. For example, many environmentalists will use fear-based tactics in order to cause many people to panic. This causes a wave of people using metal straws and buying reusable water bottles. But they do not understand that this action will not truly help the environmental situation. They have been feared to make desperate and not logical decisions. Similarly to this, we can compare Pascal's wager. One might abandon all other logical choices when it comes to God in order to soothe their thoughts of not wanting to suffer for eternity. Although the person will believe in God they are doing so because of fear and not because they believe in the values that God provides.
Comments (51)
Once waves of people start using metal straws and reusable water bottles, who knows where it could lead? They might begin frantically recycling paper or growing vegetables. Calming the situation down could take many years.
Quoting stressyandmessy
Thanks for the heads-up. I will chuck out my metal straws and reusable bottles and go back to single-use plastic. But I want to truly help. What should I do?
Yes, and I think they truly feel the former but try to promote the latter as the 'real reason' for their faith.
But this is something I can't prove unless it is admitted on a theist by theist basis. Admitting that your theism is purely fear-based is rare, as long as your theism perpetuates. The memory of Its fear-based origin can fade over time for the committed, life-invested theist.
There he is, Pascal's wager! Thanks!
But the fear is justified. That's not the case with gods punishing us in the afterlife. Who says there is an afterlife? Probably we just get reincarnated.
:lol: but remember! shhhhhhhhhh!
I remember! Shhhhhhhhh.... :wink:
RIP Blaise Pascal :flower: :death:
Quoting stressyandmessy
Making a decision based on fear is a common and rational reaction.
Quoting stressyandmessy
You're right. That is a problem. Can we just decide to believe something? Sometimes I think we can. People have tried to rationally justify a belief in God at least since the ancient Greeks. I guess Pascal is just a theological pragmatist. That's probably a good reason to reject his argument.
I am sure Putin would agree with you!
Raitionally justifying belief can help you if you're seriously consider the belief. I doubt it'll help at all if your intution tells you the item at hand is nonsense (i.e. if it doesn't make sense to you). Raitional thought can sway doubt, or function as a tiebreaker. It can get rid of "obstacles" (you believe X is wrong because of Y, but you find yourself convinced that Y is untrue).
A pragmatic approach, such as the wager, might motivate you to consider the item at hand, but only if the item at hand has a minimum amount of credibility. I'm an atheist, and I can't make enough sense of the concept of God to motivate myself to even think "yeah, I should belief." Pascal may talk about infinite gain and infinite loss, but it's all so abstract and alien to me that I just can't feel the loss, not even hypothetically. If it did, I could, for example, decide on a fake-it-till-you-make-it approach, or some such method. I can't guarantee success, of course, but I can try. However, abstract talk about infinite gain/loss isn't exactly experience-adjacent to this atheist mind. I don't long for heaven, and I don't fear hell, and no amount of rational argument is going to make it. What it'd take is a major upheaval in my world view. And I'm not sure what it would take to get there.
Quoting Dawnstorm
I was serious when I said "Sometimes I think we can," and it was "fake-it-till-you-make-it" I was thinking about.
I intend this as a serious question and not at all as a criticism of what you've written - If that's how you feel, why get into this particular discussion at all? Most atheists here on the forum have a bone to pick. You don't seem to.
I always say that I am not a theist or that I'm not a follower of any religion. I don't say I am an atheist. I come to discussions about God for two reasons. 1) It's a place where people who call themselves rational come to show off their ramshackle rationality. Their arrogance pisses me off. And, more importantly 2) There is an aspect of humanity's relationship to reality that is at least acknowledged by religious or spiritual understandings that is denied by more rationalist approaches.
I think you nailed it for the most part.
No one can choose to believe in something, you either are convinced or you are not convinced.
Running with this kind of narrative any god/s who run a mafia boss style protection racket - 'believe and you will be saved' - are worthy of scorn and shunning, surely?
Quoting Dawnstorm
I think the idea of god/s are incoherent too. Above and beyond all the arguments in both directions, I lack a sensus divinitatis so belief is not really possible in my case.
A full reading of the Pensées shows the wager is not simply placing a bet on a yes-or-no proposition but is a reflection of the human condition in which change is possible. It is not bound up with reciting a creed but looking for guidance in the circumstances of our lives. From that perspective, fear is one of things that has to be understood:
I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious nonsense to me can be believed by so many people. I think to get to bottom of it, you'd have to peel back your world-view, but the more you peel back the less is left to do the peeling. It's not really just about God, it's just the most prominent and most frequent topic. I feel similarly about topics like "free will", for example, but the topic doesn't have as much real life relevance.
Take Pascal's Wager: if your attention is on God a lot, and God's a central piece in your world view, it makes much more sense, even in the face of all of its incosistencies or logical short comings. The motivation you need is just to go on as you have, or to open up a little if you come from the other side. Basically, the contents of your mind have a believe-this-or-not structure already. Pascal's Wager makes a lot less sense if you have yet to build or consolidate that structure. A loss you can't even imagine isn't going to feel like a loss.
All those proofs of God? I think they're incomplete if you only consider the logic of the argument. There's always something behind this; something you either live or don't, some sort of intuition. For example, I'm the son of Roman Catholic christians, but I never fully grew into a belief in God - I left that behind with the Easter Bunny, and as I was zoology geek as a kid, I never believed in the Easter Bunny either. I came out as an atheist fairly early and never felt like I had any disadvantages for it. If I have no bone to pick, it's because I've never been given one. My situation is also different from ex-theists who at some point experienced a change of mind. Such people might have intuitions I lack.
Quoting Tom Storm
Pretty much this, except I probably wouldn't phrase it as "the idea being incoherent". What I'm talking about when I say that "God doesn't make sense" is more personal and more intuitive. Certainly, any idea of God I can come up with is incoherent. And as a result, I can't seriously make Pascal's Wager. A gain I can't imagine isn't a gain, infinite though it may be.
So we need gods so that people can go to war about which is the true god and give the universe meaning.
Before you can make this statement, I think you should submit some proof that the universe either should have, needs, or is somehow dependent on having a meaning.
You cannot state that it would be meaningless without mankind's gods unless it is actually supposed to have a meaning.
No, we don't. All gods are true gods. But if people wanna fight about it, it's up to them.
Quoting Sir2u
The universe can't exist because of natural laws only. It must have been created. So it has a divine spark in it. Without that spark it would be meaningless.
Let me say it another way, I do not have a problem with a specific logic that applies to one thing rather than another. Example: I create a logic that pertains to me rather than other people to help me better understand myself. I create a logic that helps strengthen my own faith in God rather than a logic that other people will use to strengthen their own faith in God. I create my own personal prayer to use that might not seem fruitful to other people who pray. I create a logic for a lifestyle that works for me but might not work for others.
I do not have a problem with fear. I see a big bear and run away, and then I get to tell the story to my children one day. I see a movie that is really scary and I turn off the movie because I don't wanna get nightmares. It looks very dark out in the woods so I bring a flashlight so I do not get bit by an animal. I follow a law that I do not think is very important, like very low speed limits even though everyone on the road is going 20 miles faster. The reason I follow the law is because I do not want to get arrested. If I saw a cop flash his lights I would probably be scared that I was speeding and then get a ticket.
I do not see anything wrong with a logic that only applies to Christianity nor a logic based on fear. What I think is more important though, is how you think a logic is wrong based on your preferences. Are you saying that any logic can never be personal or particular, but rather must be universal in every possible way? Or were you looking for more of a formal modus ponens logic? What exactly makes Pascal's wager wrong, outside of the scope of your preferences?
I find the idea of God interesting also. Although I don't follow any religion, I find that the idea, the experience, of having a personal relationship with the world a natural one. On the other hand, I have no trouble seeing why people reject the idea. I'm not sure how free will fits into that mix.
Quoting Dawnstorm
Whatever God is, I don't think there's any rational way to show it exists. You say "some sort of intuition," I say God is an experience. I think we're probably talking about the same thing.
Likewise, I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious sense to me cannot be believed by so many people
And I suppose that the benevolent gods sit on the sidelines cheering their team on as well. But I suppose you answer that the gods gave them free will to do as they please.
Quoting EugeneW
And how exactly do you now this? Maybe you could share the evidence you have, I am sure that many of us here would love to see it.
The gods play their own game, not worrying about the games played here.
Quoting Sir2u
The fundamental laws of nature and the stuff acting conformly to them contain no recipe how they came into being.
I once knew a gentleman that spent more than 30 years building a miniature railway in his basement. He used to work at two jobs and get in as much overtime as he could in both and spent most of his money on pieces to build it.
Just looking at the love and dedication put into building all of the thousands of tiny trees, buildings, roads with signs, lakes and so many other details made me want to cry for joy. To see the cars and trains moving around was like watching scenes from real life. He could run about 8 or 10 trains at the same time the thing was so big and on so many levels.
So some religions see mankind as made in the image of their god and think that we were created to be like him.
The man I knew was mentally retarded to a certain degree, never married, no kids and lived in his mothers house. A truly gentle man.
But there is no way in hell he would have just let the fucking neighbor's kids come in and start smashing things up and making a mess of his creation.
But I suppose that if one could create the universe in just seven days or get a turtle to lay an egg or any of those other creation stories why should you give a shit about it. When it breaks, just create a new one.
Quoting EugeneW
Which fundamental laws are we talking about here? Maybe you could give us an example.
My granny's potato cakes never had a recipe for them either, but they were delicious every time.
Just because something has not been explained does not mean that there is no explanation for it. It just means ignorance still exists.
Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created. Modern man is on its way to destroy the beauty that evolved from it. By building railroads, energy plants, factories, etc. Just like that man did for 30 years. Problem is that those building it in the real world are not retarded.
I have still not seen any proof of that. Are you going to provide any evidence or just continue chanting the same sentence with different words. Repetition of a mistake or untruth does not make it right or true. Conclusions prove nothing, it is the evidence that is used to reach a conclusion that counts.
Quoting EugeneW
And the gods are OK with that? If so, then there is the proof that mankind was not made in the image of a god. Because no one I know would let someone into their personal home to destroy it.
I think you must have missed the part where I explained about that. Lots of people feel no remorse about the way the planet is treated, but tread on a flower in their garden and they get pissed off. It is their creation, their personal piece of ground. Just as the earth is said to be gods personal creation that he does not seem to give a damn about..
It is also interesting that you used the word evolve to talk about a creation, but we can let that slip unnoticed I believe.
:up:
Bad idea!
Boring as hell as well. :worry:
I agree!
The very existence of the universe constitutes the proof. Not in your very limìted sense of proof but in the broader sense that everything that has no scientific explanation for its existence is a proof of creation. There are no gaps in my fundamental, scientific understanding of the universe. It's eternal and infinìte and the laws are too dumb to create themselves. So they can only be created. Including the basic stuff in it, which is dualistic matter.
Yes. Boring argument! "How can the gods let that happen?" I've heard it 1000 times now. WTF should they care what and how we fuck up?
Free will has nothing to do with God, in that sense. I don't actually find the idea of God interesting in itself; it's something I'd just shrug off and ignore. What I find interesting is that something that's obviously central to many a world view has no place in mine.
Free will is a similar concept. Plenty of people seem to think it's an important concept, and my reaction was originally "why?" Then, when I thought this through, I found that I didn't even quite understand what free will was supposed to be. It now feels like an oxymoron.
It's difficult to say what I'm actually interest in: concept formations, I suppose. And communication? It's a bundle of disparate topics. Basically, I'm more interested in human behaviour than spiritual beings.
Quoting EugeneW
That's good to hear. There are people out there who deny its possible to not believe in something so obvious, and thus all atheists are liars.
How else can it be? A physical explanation doesn't explain why the physical is there in the first place.
Quoting Dawnstorm
It's possible not to believe. You wouldn't be a liar but a denier.
If Pascal's Wager shows that not believing in God is something to fear, then people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear).
Pascal's Wager shows that not believing in God is something to fear.
Therefore, people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear).
This argument is valid, yet I do not believe it is sound. Premise 1 seems incorrect. To start, fear is only part of what Pascal's Wager shows. You laid out the four scenarios that Pascal's Wager reveals. (The scenarios are below this paragraph for reference.) It is true that if you believe in God because of 2, then you probably believe in him out of fear. (Scenarios 3 and 4 give reason to not believe in God.) However, if you choose to believe in God because of scenario 1, you do not believe in God because of fear but because of hope. Perhaps, it is a matter of perspective. Let's say the net value of believing in God is 5, and the net value of not believing in God is 1. I should choose the Net value of 5 either way, but I can choose 5 because it is the better option or because 1 is a worse option. Both are true, but the first reason is because you want to experience net value 5 whereas the second reason is to avoid net value 1. In the case of Pascal's Wager, choosing to believe in God so that you can go to heaven is hope-based, whereas choosing to believe in God to avoid hell is fear-based. For these reasons, Pascal's Wager can show that not believing in God is something to fear, yet people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager do not always believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear). Therefore, premise 1 is false.
1. If God exists and the person believes in God they will go to heaven and receive infinite pleasure.
2. If God exists and the person does not believe in God they will go to hell and suffer infinitely.
3. If God does not exist and the person believes in God they have some disadvantages in life because they are restricted to a certain life.
4. If God does not exist and the person believes in God then they do not have to live a restricted life.
That is basically the reason they say that Columbus discovered America, because there was no proof of it existing before he got there. And we all know what kind of bullshit that is.
Once again no scientific explanation being available for something does not mean that there is not a scientific explanation for it.
There was once a time, and not to long ago, that man could not explain what all of the "stars" in the sky were. Many believed that they were all stars in the cluster that came to be known as the Milky Way. It turned out, about a hundred years ago, that many are separate galaxies.
Time is needed to find the properties of the universe and work out the details to explain it.
Quoting EugeneW
Maybe you should try reading a science book or two. There are some very good ones made for 5th, 6th graders that explain a lot of things about the universe. Are you really sure that you need the greatness of a god to create dumb laws for the universe? You make it sound like he did it as a hobby.
Quoting EugeneW
Yes, I have heard it used many times as well, but I figured out why it keeps happening. Because no one has been smart enough to give an answer. It is impossible for anyone with half a brain and a teaspoon of intelligence to reconcile a kind, loving, supposedly super intelligent creator of the universe with the shithead that does not seem to care about his own creation.
Quoting EugeneW
Some people cannot explain why their kids exist, that does not mean that there is no explanation.
But what exactly do you mean when you say "physical explanation"? An explanation would surely have to be contained in some form of communication method, so I am guessing you mean a book or something similar. If there is still no known explanation of how the universe came into being, would it not be surprising to find a "physical explanation" of it in the library?
Quoting EugeneW
Actually no, you are wrong.
I don't believe in the Spaghetti Monster so I am not a believer. But I do not be a denier either. I would just be someone that does not give a shit about it. Action is implicit in being a denier.
I say if the final explanation is given. I have a final exllanation of matter and space. But do you think I know where the eternal universe comes from? No.
I am happy for you, I really am. I just hope that they make the discovery of the origin of the universe after you have passed on to the better life. It would be a shame to have your dreams shattered and find that it was not there to go to.
Thanks! I'm writing a book about it. There are a lot of areas in physics involved. There is a series of big bangs. The end of each expansion being the sign for a new one to occur behind it. There is no beginning. Just partial ones. But where does this eternity come from? It had to be created. The laws of nature are just to stupid to create themselves.
Unsupported semi-scientific theories used as evidence for a creator, what the hell is the world coming to.
If only you would understand the science in it.. But you don'...
How do you know that? Or did an angel whisper it into your ear.
Because I was told to get the first look in nature's fundamental workings. God whispered that in my ear...
Good bye.
Afraid your ignorance shows? Good bye.
Not really, I recognize it and embrace it and work hard to overcome it.
But I am scared shitless by yours.
Don't be afraid. One day you will understand...
Ignorance is a curable malady, so I am not at all afraid. But stupidity is incurable and deadly.
I know that one day I will understand, because scientific investigation will explain things.
I hope your god does something about your problems though.
That's why there is little hope for you my dear friend... But hey, life is incurable and deadly. And in the next big bang we'll live again. Maybe that offers solace. Take care!