I never really understood Pascal's Wager. I've often heard that it is a bad argument. So, I decided to do some studying for myself on this argument. And I think the the objections to this fall a little short. So in this blog, I will be showing you why I believe the objections fall short and why Pascal's Wager isn't such a bad argument after all.
First, if a Christian wants to use Pascal's Wager, I encourage he or she to word it correctly. I often hear Christians say "Well, if I spend my life believing in God and you don't. When I die I'll go to Heaven and you won't". I don't think this agrees even with Christian theology. The Bible says that even demons believe yet the tremble when they hear God's name (James 2:19). So it's not a simple matter of believing and not believing. One has to come to repentance and be obedient to God in order to be "saved". So if an Atheist decides to start believing in God. This does not mean he or she is saved and will live in Heaven after death. And someone who spends there life believing in God and considers themselves a Christian still doesn't make them one. This still doesn't mean they are saved themselves.
But if you were to argue that a person who is truly saved by the God who truly exists will go to Heaven and doesn't waste there life like someone like an Atheist. Then it makes a point. Atheists, what if the Christian God does exist? What will you say on judgment day? Would you wish that you would of repented and believed? You may of lived a fulfilling life on Earth. You may of done all the things you wanted to do. But you missed the main and objective reason and purpose to life.
Now, unto the objections.
The first one I usually hear is that this argument is a false dichotomy. Granted. There are more than one possibilities when it comes to religion. Christianity would be wrong and the Muslims could of been right. I would of wasted my life following a false belief system. But I am willing to admit that. If an Atheist were to say that Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy, then he or she would actually be committing another logical fallacy. He or she would be going off topic. If a Christian and an Atheist were having a discussion and Pascal's Wager was brought up, the other religions would be irrelevant because the Christian is having a discussion about his or her faith, not any others. They would be discussion the Christian concept of afterlife and things of that nature.
Yes, the Christian is ignoring all the other possibilities. But the Christian doesn't need to worry about the other religions while in a discussion with an Atheist. Because you would be talking about if Christianity was right. Not any others.
Pascal's Wager goes around in circles if one religious person were to use it against another religious person. But it brings up a good point if it is used against an Atheist. The Atheist loses it all if ANY of religions are true. Unless there is a god that doesn't punish non-believers and allows them to still have a happy eternal life, then the Atheist has even a higher chance of wasting his life over any religious person. If Islam is true, then the Christian and Atheist will suffer. If Christianity is true, then the Muslim and Atheist will suffer. If some sort of New Age belief is true, and all the faiths lead to one God. The Atheist still falls short. It seems to me that any person belonging to any religion has a 1% more chance of not wasting there life.
And finally, what if no religion is true and the Atheists were right? That no God exists? Well, then I would of still lived a fulfilling life. I still could of done the things I wanted to do. And it was still fun to study my religious beliefs and believe in them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"If an Atheist were to say that Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy, then he or she would actually be committing another logical fallacy. He or she would be going off topic."
ReplyDeletePascal's wager is pretty much asking an atheist, "What if you're wrong?" replying back, "well what if you're wrong?" is a valid reply and does not go off subject. The subject here is 'should someone fear the wrath of a god they don't believe in' and the christian is involved in that subject as well.
"Atheists, what if the Christian God does exist? What will you say on judgment day?"
I think i'd say the same thing Dawkins would, "Why, god, did you go through such pains to hide yourself?" =)
"And finally, what if no religion is true and the Atheists were right? That no God exists? Well, then I would of still lived a fulfilling life. I still could of done the things I wanted to do. And it was still fun to study my religious beliefs and believe in them."
Aye, following a religion isn't even close to as bad of a punishment (or a waste?) as spending eternity in hell-fire for being wrong but, imo, believing in a god that doesn't exist is a waste. Our time in life is limited and every minute you've spent worshiping, praising and praying is gone. And you could have studied something like quantum mechanics or Einstein's theory's (time dilation is really cool).
"It seems to me that any person belonging to any religion has a 1% more chance of not wasting there life."
1% is insignificant. There have been many thousands of religions in human history, believing in one more (or one less) religion is insignificant vs the possible amount of hellfire you could face (1,100 possible hells vs 1,099 hells, really makes no difference)
In the end being a Christian because you're afraid of hell is a very weak reason (an invalid reason) and god would definitely be able to tell if you're 'just playing it safe' and would be unlikely to let you in.
And a couple of videos on the subject :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9WRG4e6m2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo
On a broader sorta pascals thing, but still interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-OUVSHEzRU
~Mystile
Mystile!
ReplyDeleteYou knew I would say "that is going off topic". And again, I will continue to say that. Answering a question with another question might not be the best solution. If I were to ask you a simple question. "What if you're wrong?", why not answer it? Why ask "what if you're wrong?". It's irrelevant to me. And to a certain point. It's a cop out.
Now, I don't mind answering that question. But you would have to ask it after you answer my question.
"Our time in life is limited and every minute you've spent worshiping, praising and praying is gone. And you could have studied something like quantum mechanics or Einstein's theory's (time dilation is really cool)." - you
This is true, if that god doesn't exist, that is. If that god does exist. Then I have spent my life studying something that was true, and I completely fulfilled my life by doing it. And even if I were to be wrong. That doesn't stop me from studying science. It doesn't stop anyone who is religious. It could be that they just simply don't have an interest. But if no religion is right, or one of them is. One day you will die and studying science would of not done anything good for you, personally. Just as much as studying a religion that was wrong.
"1% is insignificant. There have been many thousands of religions in human history, believing in one more (or one less) religion is insignificant vs the possible amount of hellfire you could face (1,100 possible hells vs 1,099 hells, really makes no difference)" - you
Anyone who belongs to a religion has a better possibility of NOT wasting there life (as far as studying something that might be true, that is) than an Atheist. Because an Atheist rejects it all.
Thank you for your response,
God bless.
"why not answer it? Why ask "what if you're wrong?". It's irrelevant to me. And to a certain point. It's a cop out."
ReplyDeleteRetorting with the same question should lead the theist to answer their own question. When they realize why they don't fear the wrath Zeus, Thor, Posiden, Allah, krishna or any other god they'll understand why the atheist rejects their god's hell.
I'd suggest again to look at the end of the christopher hitchens' video and see how he answers pascal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo
I'd add to it and say that I don't think the creator would be the kind of character to send some of our most loved/intellectual people to hell just for unbelief: Einstein, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, etc.
"And even if I were to be wrong. That doesn't stop me from studying science."
Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would disagree with you, I'd think. Their preconceptions keep them at great distances from understanding things like evolution, paleontology, geology, and cosmology. For example, as a geologist, you could not accept that the earth is under 10,000 years old.
That isn't to say it would stop you from studying science, as you seem more like a Neo-Creationist something to me, but to say "It doesn't stop anyone who is religious" isn't accurate.
"One day you will die and studying science would of not done anything good for you, personally. Just as much as studying a religion that was wrong."
It sounds like you're trying to say the atheist loses twice, if god exists I lose, if god doesn't exist I still lose. Just because there is no afterlife doesn't mean life is a waste. If i manage to do some good here in this life, that good isnt invalidated by me going to hell or ceasing to exist. And I think science has the potential to do much more good on this earth than religion (simply a HIV vaccine would save millions of lives). And BECAUSE my time is limited it is so very important to make the best of it and do the most with it.
"Anyone who belongs to a religion has a better possibility of NOT wasting there life (as far as studying something that might be true, that is) than an Atheist. Because an Atheist rejects it all."
Why not believe in everything then? Or believe in the most possible religions without contradicting yourself? Then, certainly, you'd have a better chance of not wasting your life and not going to hell.
IMO, this whole probability thing seems off topic. No one believes in a religion because it gives them a slightly better chance at not going to hell, and no one is an atheist because 1% is insignificant. I'm an atheist because of evidence, and you're a believer because of faith. Which reflects badly on Pascal's Wager since it doesn't seem to have persuaded people.
~Mystile
Another pascall video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czEfLn_ifIU
particularly the last 30seconds.
"Retorting with the same question should lead the theist to answer their own question. When they realize why they don't fear the wrath Zeus, Thor, Posiden, Allah, krishna or any other god they'll understand why the atheist rejects their god's hell." - you
ReplyDeleteYes, but you, as an Atheist reject ALL religions. I have my reasons to believe in Christianity. And people of different faiths may have reasons to hold there beliefs as well. But that doesn't mean they are equally valid or the same in any way. That is why debate is good between people of different faiths. But still, as an Atheist, you reject them all. And I'm convinced that Atheists cannot justify there Atheism.
"I'd add to it and say that I don't think the creator would be the kind of character to send some of our most loved/intellectual people to hell just for unbelief: Einstein, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Jefferson, Darwin, etc." - you
You have misunderstood what Christianity teaches on this issue. People don't go to Hell because of there unbelief. People go to Hell because they are dead in there sins, and they have not came to repentance. It doesn't matter how bright or loving you are, that doesn't make everything okay. Biblical Christianity teaches that everyone has sinned and fallen short from the glory of God.
"For example, as a geologist, you could not accept that the earth is under 10,000 years old" - you
Only if the religion teaches that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Then the person belonging to that religion might have problems with geology.
"Just because there is no afterlife doesn't mean life is a waste." - you
You can live a life of fulfilling what you want. It would only be very subjective and ultimately not matter, is what I argued. Go on, help the world. Find a cure for HIV. Get into charity work.
"Why not believe in everything then?" - you
I don't need to believe in everything. Give me a reason why I should.
"IMO, this whole probability thing seems off topic. No one believes in a religion because it gives them a slightly better chance at not going to hell, and no one is an atheist because 1% is insignificant." - you
You are right. But I never tried to argue that people should be religious because they fear that hell or that afterlife.
"I'm an atheist because of evidence, and you're a believer because of faith." - you
There is evidence supporting Atheism (a disbelief in a god)? That means you must of some sort of evidence against God's existence. I would like to hear it, if you don't mind.
And read my blog on the topic of "Faith". Faith is actually very reasonable.