Atheists, whats wrong with Pascals Wager?

Question

Atheists, whats wrong with Pascals Wager?

Answer 1

Because it is an acceptance of ignorance and a way to avoid the argument. Then of course you would have to ask yourself the following question, "If god is all knowing and all seeing, then will he not know that your worship is disingenuous?"



And most importantly, you have to remember that Pascal was writing in the mid 1600's, when people knew nothing about geologic processes or the structure of the cosmos amongst almost every other significant scientific breakthrough in human history. So from his unenlightened vantage point, how can anything he says be taken too seriously? And to be honest, even if Pascal did believe and he tried to convert me, he would be unsuccessful. I will never alter my behavior or my thoughts to address all of the "What ifs?" in this world. And most importantly for me, the question of god's existence is not why I am atheist. I'm atheist because I know how Christianity arose and evolved from other religions and how religions are used to control people, so there is no reason Christianity deserves any less scrutiny than any other religion. The Hellenistic Greeks believed just as much in Zeus and Athena as modern people believe in Jesus, yet today we know that Greek religion is mythology. It will only be a matter of time before Christianity is also mythology. My only disappointment is that it won't happen in my lifetime.



My challenge to Mr. Pascal would be the following: This is most likely the only life you are going to get, so why would you waste it by paying lip service to something that may or may not be true? Is it not a mistake to let your life be dictated by a myth, especially if your choice is made just in case the myth turns out to be real?

Answer 2

Atheists are not alone in thinking that Pascal's Wager is foolish. It's not even good insurance. It makes the unfounded assumption that only the Christian God could be the 'real' God. What if it's really the Muslim God or the Hindu gods?



Unless you have some actual proof that A) your god exists and B) your god is the only possible 'correct' god, Pascal's Wager is just nonsense. And even if you could prove those two things, wouldn't your god know very well you were simply trying to keep your butt out of hell? Believing 'just in case' is not really believing, is it?

Answer 3

This is my normal response to christians who post it:







What if the god that really exists sends all good people to heaven and all bad people to hell except people who pretended to know for a fact another god existed? then all good atheists are going to heaven but YOU ARE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL. Why not repent when you still have time? Why risk eternity in hell?



What if god loves music and sends all musicians to heaven, but all other people to hell? How can you risk eternal torture by not playing at least four hours a day?



And how can you worship a sadistic god that tortures good people - most of the people who ever lived - for all eternity?



Pascal's wager:



"If god exists, it's infinitely better to believe, since you get heaven instead of hell for eternity. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter since you're dead anyway. So overall it's better to believe"



This is, of course, false.



Some of the problems with the argument:



* The assumption that there is an afterlife with a heaven and hell



* The assumption that the god cares about belief in him/her above all else



* The assumption that if you believe in a god, it will definitely be the same god that actually exists.



* The assumption that you lose nothing if it's false. Religious belief costs people plenty - money donated to churches, time spent praying, marriages ending because of religious differences, lives lost because of relying on prayers or refused medical care, wars... need I go on?



* The assumption that people can believe in something simply because it benefits them. Would you believe goblins exist for twenty bucks? Why not?



* The assumption that any god won't see through the "believing just to get into heaven" ploy.



For more:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html

Answer 4

Plenty:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#pascal

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/zacharias.html#pascal



In summary:



1) It still begs the question of which is the "right" religion or sect to follow. There are all sorts of denominations that claim everybody but themselves are going to hell, and none of them really have any more credibility than the next. You can use this to justify ANY other religion that makes a threat to those who don't conform.



2) It still begs the question of how, exactly, the "belief" is supposed to be carried out. Is it just believing in his existence? Following other rules? Dietary laws? Or do day to day actions play no role? There are different answers to these in the different religions.



3) In fact, you can use it to justify just about ANY claim in the form of "If you don't do X, then the undesirable Y might happen. You can't disprove it, therefore you should do X." Such as "Legend has it that if you don't give me $1000, you'll get eaten by the boogie man. You can't be 100% sure that he WON'T, therefore you should give me the money, just to be safe."



4) If the existence of God is assumed to at least be debatable, then why should the claim of "If he exists, he wants you to believe in him or he'll send you to a nasty place" be any LESS debatable?



5) It assumes that God is OK with people worshiping him for the same of avoiding punishment. Last I checked, most theists don't want to think of their god as somebody who rewards insincerity.



6) The claim that "you have nothing to lose if you believe and turn out to be wrong" is false. You might have wasted the one and only life you have, serving nobody and in misery.

Answer 5

Gambling is a sin. Also, a good gambler does NOT play roulette - odds are too high. So, considering how many gods you could (fake) believing in, and how many versions of each god - the odds are too high that you will pick the wrong one or the wrong version. No way to make it worth all the mumbo jumbo crap you have to do, memorize all the off-the-shelf ideas you need to replace your mind with and all the great stuff you have to miss out on.



Better to stick with being kind, loving and generous and think your own thoughts. Because, if there IS a god - my bet is that he didn't give me a brain just so that I could parrot other people's ideas.

Answer 6

Oh wow.



Pascal's Wager assumes I know what God wants from me.



If I knew that, I wouldn't need to bother with Pascal's Wager now, would I?

Answer 7

I use Pascal's Wager all the time to prove that Ra exists.

Answer 8

The following scenario is exactly as plausible as Pascal's original formulation: We are God, and for reasons of Our own We have decided to hide all evidence of Our existence from humanity. Every person who recognizes that there is no evidence of Our existence has used the intelligence which We have given, and will be rewarded with paradise, but every person who supposes Our existence, notwithstanding the utter lack of evidence of such, has deliberately refused to use his intelligence and will therefore be consigned to the fire.



There are, in addition to this, both logical and scientific flaws in the argument. For more on this, see reference.



Postscript: Pay particular attention to Dreamstuff Entity's response, above; it is apt and correct.

Answer 9

Islam has it incredibly is very own version of hell, yet there additionally are an excellent form of Christian communities who bicker over minor info and important doctrines that say in case you do no longer stick to their practices you will finally end up interior the "eternal hearth" or notwithstanding. the thought Pascal brings up is a incorrect dichotomy- he presumes that there are basically 2 techniques; believing in Christianity or no longer. even with the indisputable fact that there are various different non secular techniques, as nicely as different philosophies one ought to stick to. And Karmic religions have confidence that if somebody acts badly in this existence then they are going to be reincarnated as a decrease being, that is seen as a sort of divine punishment. I actual does no longer decide for to be caught in one thousand lifetimes as a salamander for eating the beef of a cow. yet because of the fact the authority of all non secular and non secular doctrines finally comes from something that some individual reported an prolonged time in the past to those that no longer exist, it form of feels fanciful to presume that the meant non secular threats they pose prepare to every person alive right this moment.

Answer 10

It assumes only two choices, the Judeo-Christian Biblical deity or "nothing". Why leave out the thousands of other gods that humanity has worshiped over time (that some people and cultures STILL worship)?



It assumes belief in ONE god is necessary for attaining a preferred afterlife. What if you need to believe in 5 gods? What if you need to believe in 10?



It assumes belief is necessary AT ALL. Who's to say that it cares/they care at all about your belief or lack thereof?



And even if we DO assume that belief is necessary, Pascal's Wager invites you to profess belief "just in case". If god does exist or if multiple gods do exist, wouldn't it/they KNOW that your belief is self-serving and superficial?? I don't think bogus belief is going to impress any deity that wants us to TRULY believe.

Answer 11

Pascal's Wager/Gambit

Why do you assume that atheists don't apply it?



Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't act in "Godless" ways.



One of the nicest people I know is the minister of my congregation (Unitarian Universalist) and he's an atheist.

Answer 12

Under Pascals Wager it would be better to become a member of all religions, something I don't think many people would want to do.

Answer 13

It's lousy insurance. The only way to justify it is to start by abandoning reason, have a lobotomy, and ignore the HUGE logical problems.



For starters, which branch of Christianity does one begin one's false dichotomy with?





Craigmn (above): thank you. That is exactly the sort of abandonment of reason I was trying to illustrate... You obviously haven't thought it through, or are incapable; either of which makes you a good poster boy for the "I know God is true 'cause the Bible says God is true and the Bible must be right 'cause God wrote it" line of illogic.

Answer 14

Even good insurance is worthless when the coverage is limited to what cannot happen. Why pay for insurance that does not cover the other 99% of reliigons.

Answer 15

Pascal's wager would be like me telling my wife I don't really love her, I just don't want to be lonely.

Answer 16

If you follow Pascal's wager to believe in God, you also have to follow it to believe in Allah and Waheguru and Jah and Zeus and Thor and Ra and Xenu.



I could keep going, but i think you get the point. plus, you'd already be dead with no johnson and some nike tennis shoes after you killed yourself for Hale-Bopp.

Answer 17

hmm well the fact that i dont agree with it for a start



if i was to believe in god which one should i choose?

which religion? there are many more open religions since that was therorised, and hence many more gods

thats whats wrong with it, he only 'wagered' on the one of them



so who is right? who knows

but if i was to beleive in one,i would have to then beleive in them all, but i cant

cos most religions dont allow multiple god worship, or following of other religions but their own

thats whats wrong with it



its only insurance as long as there is only the one god, the one god you chose to beleive in



also seems to me

he only really decided that after he had his brush with death, fear of death seems to me, not clear thinking and clear philosophical open mind



according to wikipedia his last words were

"may god never abandon me"



me thinks hed been converted before his death

hence rendering his theory on philosophy, now only religions notions

thats what wrong with it



i have no idea why people keep referring to this as if its some big thing, now i read up on it, it seems quite clear to me hed been converted

Answer 18

Do you believe in every God? If you don't, you're not taking up the wager. And if you do and a god does exist, you're still going to hell.

Answer 19

I'm with Icarus - WHICH deity should we believe in, just in case?



Do you think that a deity wouldn't see through your "insurance" and zap you anyway? Believing out of fear isn't true belief, no matter what the religion.

Answer 20

Is fear of hell the only reason that you are religious? Wouldn't it be better if everybody prayed to Allah five times a day just in case the Muslims are right?

But really. you cannot force yourself to believe something that you conceive as irrational.

Answer 21

It doesn't work. You can't make an atheist fool themselves into believing. That would be deceiving yourself, and whichever God you've chosen to believe in.

Answer 22

Who has the time to worship the over 8,000 Gods that man has created??

Answer 23

Worshiping a million+ gods is kind of hard.

Answer 24

It makes assumptions that a specific religion is correct.



Ergo, Buddhism is the only correct answer.



EDIT: Not to mention Faith at gun point, is hardly Faith at all.

Answer 25

Nothing is wrong with it, but that doesn't make it right either. It just goes to show how 'good' Xtians really are.

Answer 26

believing in a religion/god doesn't help your odds very much



as there are thousands, so your odds are basically the same as an atheist.

Answer 27

It's stupid and illogical. Do theists actually think their god would be so stupid as to fall for us pretending to believe in him "just in case" (and do they think we could make ourselves believe when we don't) ? Furthermore none of the theists who propose it ever consider bowing down to one of the other 2,850+ gods "just in case" so why do they insist we bow down to theirs "just in case"?





http://www.godchecker.com/

Answer 28

chooseing your religion just in case?! haha nice plan!



and how about this, which reliion should an athiest choose? maybe yours? how egocentrical would that be!

Answer 29

Exactly; if you want to have faith, do it properly - don't just use it as your failsafe.



I could be wrong ... but at least I would have been genuine.

Answer 30

Everything.

Answer 31

It is, if you're willing to convert to every religion that has ever existed.

Answer 32

For one thing, it's an AWFUL reason to have faith. And no faith based on fear is really faith anyway.

Answer 33

It's a disclaimer.

Answer 34

I despise insurance salesman... They are scum...

Answer 35

Athiests don't like it because the desperately need God not to exist



Allowing the possibility that He does.....Messes them up completely





In the inverse I would in no way allow that God does not exist...so I understand them, even if they are nutball crazy

Answer 36

Well, which god should you choose, for a start?