Pascal's Wager: is God a safe bet?

Blaise Pascal - Mathematician and philosopher
Italy
January 2, 2008 7:50am CST
Do you know the famous argument known as Pascal's Wager? I will recall it briefly:Believing in God is a safe bet: if you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothig; but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will be damned for the eternity. Therefore is safe and "smart" just believing in God. I think the argument is flawed because it states a bet is safe without saying on which "horse" you should bet in order to maximise gains. There are many incompatible religions ot there. If you follow a religion, you could end up in another religion's version of the Hell!So it is not so safe believing in, say, a christian God, if Baal turns out to be the real lord of afterlife (then punishing you for having worshipped his untrue rival)!So, provided you want to believe as a wager (which sounds absurd yet to me), you should believe in ALL gods, but this is not possible because different relgions are contradictory betweed themselves. What do you think about Pascal's argument?
7 people like this
10 responses
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
2 Jan 08
You -can- believe that all Gods are just faces of the power behind the universe without believing in ALL the teachings of all said religions, plenty of people do it. I do it, in my own, prolly strange way. After all, I know that most religions have been around for millions of years...and I know that power corrupts and there was probably a point where it wasedited...or, translated wrong, 'cause no one's perfect, an error coulda been made in writing something down, et cetera, et cetera. I know that, all life is a gamble. But I agree with you, Pascal's wager is flawed. His logic is assuming that christianity's the only safe bet, when really...if we're to follow his logic at all, the christian God's just as unsafe a bet as the rest. Still...the important choices aren't always safe. And the only thing any of us can do, is to follow what we each feel is right. I feel that all the Gods and Goddesses are simply faces of the power that runs the universe, because something so many claim to be "imcomprehensible" in my opinion, must be strange enough and a paradox within and of itself, to be that. For a long time I struggled with the idea that the deity that runs anything was only one being, or only one gender, or even had one at all, et cetera..but after awhile I thought about it and came to the conclusion that this made the most sense, heh. Frankly, who's right or wrong (and basically, believing in every God(dess) in that sense could be just as wrong as an Athiest's say, believing in no God(dess) could be, so it's just as much as a gamble as everyone else), means little to me. I'll find out for sure when I find out, you know? And until then I'll live fully and happilly, so that IF I'm wrong, I'll have happy memories in hell..or else I'll simply cease to be, and that's not really such a terrible thing, I think.
2 people like this
• Italy
2 Jan 08
By believing in the "power behind universe" as you say will cost you the Hell if christian or muslim doctrine turns out to be true! It is a matter of damnation or salvation. You can believe in some strange religious spirit, or something different, but what matters is : you are not actually believing in salvation (or damnation) in any of the different religions sense! The logic behind a salvation is : behave like this and you will be damned, behave like that and you will go to heaven. If you want to ACCEPT this logic, pascal's wager is not safe! If you don't accept it, you don't believe your behaviour will cause your damnation/salvation, so you have no use of Pascal's and everyone else's wager. Thanks for your stimulating comment!
• United States
2 Jan 08
You're correct, and I don't have any use for his wager except that it as interesting to think about. And I don't mind being different 'cause even if I'm "damned" or "saved"...or neither, or something else altogether, it'll be an educating experience..and eternity should be a sufficient amount of time to ponder said thing, lol. And that's all I really care about. Different religions should feel free to think me evil or horrible for it, but I'm a seeker of knowledge at heart. And sure! Thanks for posting such an interesting discussion! I don't find many posts on here of the like, so you get major props I reckon ^_^
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Jan 08
"I know that most religions have been around for millions of years" That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Modern humans haven't even been around for 200,000 years! *lol*
• United States
2 Jan 08
Certainly, belief in God is a safe bet. However, organized religion is a sucker bet. The question has been asked,"Who can look skyward on a clear starry night or at a baby's smile and not believe in God?". Thinking on this question and witnessing the other similar simple miracles we all can see for ourselves everyday, of course, I believe in God. Observing the toothy phoney smiling, glad handing, fast smooth talking, fund raisers posing as pastors while pushing religious mythology on the guillible, of course, I reject organized religion. So, there you have it. God exists as the creator of the universe we know for sure. The universe is here isn't it? Those who pretend to know the rest of the details of this mystery are liars. It is a very safe bet to ignore those people.
1 person likes this
• United States
2 Jan 08
Yes, you are right with your arguement concerning the existence of the universe not requiring a beginning. It is possible that it always has been without beginning or end. True again that if the universe has to have a creator, then God would have to have a creator. Basically, my position is that which is without beginning or end, is God. Everything else is his creation. As to the rest of the details of what I believe, I maintain that except for the tiny amount of details science has worked out, mankind knows almost nothing about life, creation, or the mysteries of the universe. What do I believe? We have a lot more to learn.
2 people like this
• United States
2 Jan 08
All random interjections of a non hostile inquistive nature are welcomed and encouraged. Yes, the universe may not exist or be in existence of such short duration in the larger meta-universe that it is of no consequence. I really hope our passage from this existence (such as we know it) is not the end. I really want to know these answers and there is no other way we are going to find out.
• Italy
2 Jan 08
This is out of topic but, the fact the universe is here doesn't mean it has the need of a creator. If you come to conclude that a creator exists, he will need another creator for having created it and so on... Every belief in this sense is equally legit, but since you believe in God, I should ask you... which god? Do you really have an idea of what you are believing? Or you just believe in "anyone/anything is there"?
1 person likes this
@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
2 Jan 08
There are a couple of major problems with this idea. One is the one you mentioned, that there are many religions and so believing in just one doesn't guarantee you anything. The other major issue I see is that if you don't TRULY believe, it doesn't matter what you claim to believe. You can say you believe in God because it's a safe bet all day long, and unless you develop a real faith it's not going to do you any good, even if that religion turns out to be the right one. What kind of God would reward hypocrisy? Personally, I believe in the Gods and Goddesses that I do based on my personal experiences, not on what is a safe bet or what could help me out later. I focus on what my Gods already do for me, not what they might or might not do for me in the future. The Goddess who first offered me comfort and strength will always be first in my heart, no matter what, because I have real love for her, not because of any kind of "bet".
@lecanis (16647)
• Murfreesboro, Tennessee
3 Jan 08
Thanks, xParanoiax!
• United States
3 Jan 08
Oh, you hit the nail on the head there, Lecanis. I couldn't quite grasp the other thing that was ..off about Pascal's wager.
1 person likes this
• Italy
2 Jan 08
Do you only believe in gods and goddesses that concretely do something for you? What do they do, exactly?
1 person likes this
@ltmoon (1008)
• United States
3 Jan 08
Depends on your use of the word "god".
• Italy
3 Jan 08
I mean a personal god: one who decides upon our fate and intervenes onto the real world. Do you have any contact with such an entity? How?
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
2 Jan 08
Hi kundalini444, I know that there are people who think that way, even today, but of course it makes no sense at all. If someone is a person of faith, no matter what religion, it is fine, and probably a great comfort to them, but to say we believe in a God or Gods, just because "it might be so", is ridiculous. For one thing, it assumes that this God cares whether you believe in him or not. Why should he/she? If it is so important to believe in just one way, why have we been getting all those mixed messages over the centuries? To hope for something beyond this life is quite natural, but most people give their God the same traits as humans, that is anger, jealousy, etc. Any God who would condemn someone for not believing in the "right" way is not worthy of our belief. Blessings.
@Pose123 (21635)
• Canada
4 Jan 08
Good thinking. Always be honest with yourself. Blessings.
• Italy
2 Jan 08
This makes another good point. Pascal's Wager is not something that one can substitute for faith. I listen those arguments a lot because I am an atheist and believers use that argument in some conversion attempts. "Believe in our God" - they say - "even if you think he doesn't exist! Just in case it turns out to be the right thing to do". But, to me, the right thing to do is what you feel. So, actually, only PRETENDING to have a faith is possible / a safe bet not just MAKING oneself have it.
1 person likes this
@theprogamer (10534)
• United States
2 Jan 08
Ah! Now this takes me back Kunda. As for Pascal's Wager it is a bit lopsided. If other religions are correct then yes, one would have to wonder what would happen to the faithless. Of course the gods could be merciful and still allow you a better afterlife. Then there is a possibility that no mortal has conceived yet (some being, or beings running the show not yet mentioned). What happens then? If I take my other argument maybe mercy will be shown to the deserving. But with things of faith its just a stretch, and one can easily say all mankind is doomed to the abyss (or something worse). What of believing in multiple religions or at least parts of them? In real life that would be the "wimp bet" of roulette. But lifestyle wise I do not disapprove of it, everyone is sovereign and will believe as they wish. I still bring up the point that even this belief may not save one from damnation. Again, I refer to if there is another entity or entities running life/afterlife. It'd be like making a flawed all red and black bet at the roulette wheel (the player forgetting there are two green slots). I have no answers here, but hopefully some of what I said gets people thinking.
1 person likes this
• United States
2 Jan 08
I think it is silly because I'm pretty sure if there is a god he will be able to tell if you were believing in him just to hedge your bets or if you really believed because of faith. Pascal's Wager actually goes against faith which is what most religions are based on so it is just silly.
@adnanezzi (243)
• India
2 Jan 08
religion and faith i believe cannot be justified on the basis of winning and losing.nor it is a game winner is rewarded and the loser is punished. i believe the religion is a way of life as everybody chooses.
@johnrp (69)
• United States
2 Jan 08
The wager doesn't make sense because even if God exists, who's to say that He is going to damn people to hell for all eternity for not believing in Him. I wouldn't damn people to hell for not believing in me. Would God be less magnanimous than I am?
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
3 Jan 08
Pascal's argument falls flat on its face for several reasons. The biggest reason among them is one that you mentioned--Pascal falsely assumes that "the Christian God exists exactly as Christians define him" and "there is no god or gods of any kind at all" are the only two possibilities. This is absurd. There are more valid criticisms of the Wager on this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Criticisms