My favorite argument is Pascal’s Wager. I think it’s fantastic when debating the nature of religion and someone tries to say that I’m better off believing in God than not believing because if I die a believer and I’m right, I get to go heaven. If I die a believer and I’m wrong nothing happens.
What is the best rebuttal to this argument?
I just ask, why this only applies to the Christian God and not to every other god ever.
It is a seriously stupid wager. You can't just believe because you say you do. If these people's god existed, he would surely know that people who go for Pascal's wager are just being dishonest. I think if there were a god he would prefer honest atheists to dishonest theists.
I feel the same way about garden gnomes. We should believe in them just in case and maybe they'll also help weed my gardens.
The person who invents a garden gnome that weeds the garden is going to make a pile of money.
Often I invert it
What if all of Christianity is a Test like that of Job? What if God is testing the population of the planet to see who is so despicable that they would paint themselves in his own son's innocent blood to escape Justice?
What if, at the final Judgement, those covered in the innocent blood of the Lamb are condemned for lack of morals and ethics because they scapegoated his innocent child rather than accept personal responsibility as his child tried to teach?
What if you have it backwards Christian?
How could you ever know with the perfect God conducting the test?
This is a new perspective. Thank you!
If one believes they can scam an omniscient being in order to get into heaven then they need to look up the definition of omniscience.
Fuck Off!! Normally Works.
LOL! As tempting as it is, that would betray the spirit of good debate. Depends on who you are having the conversation with
About the best Pascal's Wager deserves is a little chuckle.
I think it is an opportunity to exercise critical thought. Many very intelligent people apply critical thinking to every other facet of their lives except religion.
@AmorousAdam -- Sorry, but I started the Pascal and other arguments approximately 60 years ago. The frequency with which these lame arguments come up has not changed in all that time, even though they have been critically thought into shreds years ago. The unwavering xtian mind has grown tedious, so I'll leave the energy expenditures to the youngsters who haven't been down such a long road.
So we lowly humans should claim a false belief to save our souls from a wrathful overlord because we are afraid of eternal hellfire. I am not afraid.
I suppose I'm kind of proud that I came to the same conclusion as Pascal before I had even heard of him. But at the time, I didn't realize the flaws of the question like I do now. I see that all of my points have already been covered, so I list them for emphasis.
I found that people who pull Pascal's Wager (including myself) already believe. Since they believe themselves, they figure it's easy for anybody to believe. They aren't cognizant of the fact that you can't just force yourself to believe. I could hope for God's existence, but I can't believe it. Just like I can't simply believe in an invisible bridge when I'm driving toward a chasm. I'm always going to slam on the brakes.
And besides, do they think that God is easily fooled? How would God feel about such an empty belief? That you believe in God only because of a risk assessment and not out of sincere love?
Then there's the fact that the wager only works for one god. It's a better bet for me to believe in Jehovah. It's also a better bet for me to believe in Allah. But I cannot do both. I have a low chance of receiving my reward and a high chance of being punished.
While there are many believers whose faith coincides with their own lives, a lot of believers will give up parts of their lives to conform to the religion: They may fight against their homosexuality, they may be complicit with apathy through prayer, or they may prioritize the church for the expenditure of time and money rather than their families. So to say that you'd lose nothing by believing is not necessarily true. What you lose may be miniscule in comparison to the reward you get, but considering how unlikely that reward is, I could achieve the same effect by putting my family in the poor house in order to scratch off that winning lottery ticket.
So I wish I realized these things when I "invented" Pascal's Wager, but I learned from my flaws. We all have them.
I really love your answer. For me it has boiled down to the maxim, Be True to Yourself. If I decide to believe because I'm afraid of the consequences of not believing then my life is a mockery, which in my eyes is a total waste. To me Pascal's Wager is sort of like being a fence sitter and not using your inherent discernment to live your life fully.
@AmelieMatisse I cannot speak for others, but for me, Pascal's Wager was not a determinant. I didn't live life as a Christian because of the wager. I used it instead to justify my belief and as an argument to try to convince unbelievers to convert. It's probably because it was only a validation of my beliefs that I didn't recognize its flaws, so I had no idea how ineffective it was when used against nonbelievers.
And that may well be what Christians think when they try to use it on us. Maybe it's not really an argument for them but simply validation of their beliefs. Perhaps they are just as ignorant as I was about how impotent that argument really was.
Pascal's wager is fallacious logic in the form argumentum ad baculum. That is it appeals to fear. This is the main tenet of religeon. Fear of death.
For those who follow religion peacefully, as a personal challenge to better themselves, it’s perfectly fine. Personally, I don’t have a fear of what happens after death such that I am driven to seek everlasting life. Life is tiring when it’s not fun and enjoyable, who wants more of that?
If that's their reason for believing, then it sounds to me like what they really believe in is self-interest, not God, or any other spiritual or enlightened notion. I would call theirs Unenlightened self-interest.
First you need to know what deity you're taking a bet on. Choose the Abrahamic god only to find out the Norse gods were true could be embarrassing and awkward.
Any god worth their salt, being all omnipotent and all knowing would see through such a cynical scam and surely know you're hedging your bets rather a genuine belief/worship.
Pascal's Wager doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's a feeble attempt at an insurance policy which is invalid by design.
If I'm wrong I will go to hell, but I'll have plenty of company.
A great song, 'In hell I'll be in good company" by The Dead South.
@RDaneel love the video
Generally speaking, if it can be assumed that an almighty being exists and desires the worship, I would imagine said being would view this argument as bordering on blasphemous hedging of one's bets spiritually speaking and would probably take offense to the absence of actual devotion to the worship. A sentient creator would resent being followed as a supernatural insurance policy.
There are thousands of gods and thousands of religions. If there is a god/gods the chances that you picked the right one/s are pretty slim. If there isn't a god you wasted your whole life devoted to a fairy tale.
You didn't waste your whole life but you did lose a lot of time, enjoyment and money. It's like willfully living in a mental cage because you're afraid of what's outside.
@TheMiddleWay Except only a fool goes into a casino and places all his money on one number of a roulette wheel with a thousand numbers on it. Except betting on a god is even worse because you are betting on a game that there is not one shred of proof that the game even exists. Pascal's wager relies on a black and white fallacy. It's a false dichotomy. Mutually exclusive religions use the same argument proving its uselessness. Furthermore the first premise of the argument is a lie. I can't remember the exact translation but to paraphrase " belief in God costs you nothing". This is completely false. It requires time, energy, money, enjoyment, etc. Also Pascal's wager relies on the premise that you choose your beliefs. This is false. You can't just make yourself believe in leprechauns. You are either convinced by evidence or you aren't. Pascal's wager is one of the worst arguments apologists use and yet 350 years later it's still here.
@TheMiddleWay I point out the logical fallacies the argument relies on. I demonstrate that the premises of the argument are false. Pascal's wager is not a logical argument. I don't even understand what you are arguing at this point.
@TheMiddleWay I'm repeating the standard rebuttal for this argument. Your counterpoint s "some people are gamblers". I "think" you are playing devil's advocate but it's a horrible counter argument. As far as my analysis, Pascal's wager and its logical fallacies are one of the first things I leaned in intro to philosophy. It's not a sound logical argument. It just isn't.
Any argument that relies on logical fallacies and false premises is not logical by definition. I understand the argument for Pascal's wager. I understand that Christian apologists in certain university's philosophy departments "want" this argument to work but this argument like the ontological, unmoved mover, and cosmological arguments relies on logical fallacies. By definition of logic these arguments are NOT logical, NOT sound, NOT reasonable.
If there are things like heaven and hell- and there is a god who created a place like hell, I would rather go there than spend eternity in heaven with such a monster.
The god of the Abrahamic religions is certainly a monster for more than just “creating hell,” in quotes because, well, we probably both don’t believe it exists.
In their Bible it says even being luke warm about your belief in Jesus is not enough to get you to heaven. Only full true belief. So, believing for the sake of belief isn’t a true belief. Your hell bound unless you truly believe. That’s the problem Pascal’s Wager has. That’s my rebuttal anyway.
A good rebuttal it is, but will anyone professing the faith and offering Pascal’s Wager as a reason why truly admit that they don’t really believe?
That’s not true because if you live your life by rules that don’t matter that you don’t want to live by and if you spend time in a community you don’t want to be a part of going to services you don’t want to be in....you’ve wasted all of that time in your one life just to “hedge a bet”.
Like what Marcus Aurelius said:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
I can’t say it better!
@CarolinaGirl60 wise man, Marcus Aurelius.
The multitude of religions, the fact that a deity should be able to see through false faith, the unwillingness to worship a god that would be so petty, and the fact that a god that is omnipotent and allows the suffering we see in the world is evil or nonexistent seem to be enough. If there is a god, I would hope that reasonable doubt would be rewarded. I would also have some questions.
I tell them that even if I did believe I couldn't possibly worship. Looking around this planet I don't see anywhere god is good if it were real.
Right!? African children get to starve to death just because of where they are born? Where is god?