Pascal's Wager?

[Deidre]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

 

[McBell]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

What happens if you choose the wrong god?

Let us say that you did happen to choose the right god.
Do you really think that said god would be fooled?
And if said god is fooled with Pascals wager, could it really honestly be called god?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

First you'd have to decide which god to live for. Personally, I'm not convinced anyone can even have a clue as if there really is a god or not, but on top of that you have to somehow find out which god's standards to live by, which I don't think there is any way to accurately do this. Pascal also assumes that if there is a god, this god would have some issue with us not being able to know, understand, comprehend, and would have a problem with us making mistakes that we really do not know how to avoid. If there really is a god, I doubt this entity would be that petty and vindictive.

 

[gsa]

I don't think it is likely to prove the panacea you might assume.

First, Pascal's Wager is not just restricted to Christianity, but operationally it is also restricted to Catholicism. Pascal was operating under the assumption that salvation was only guaranteed through the Catholic Church. Yet a Protestant from the same era who formulated their own version of the wager would have a conflicting belief about salvation. Muslims would have still another belief, particularly when you get into Islamic beliefs about the Christian trinity.

Second, and very difficult for atheists, Pascal assumes that you could eliminate your rational objections to the Catholic religion by engaging in ritual. This might be possible, particularly if you were surrounded by other people who were going through the motions. But I strongly suspect that you would still have a nagging feeling, in the back of your mind, that you were engaged in theatrics.

I recently lost my grandfather, who was my only surviving grandparent. It has certainly forced me to take a long look at my beliefs and to revisit this question of joining a religious community once again. But my atheism was revised several years before his death, and several years after dealing with the unexpected and early death of another close relative. Even today I have difficulty describing myself as a "theist," because what I believe is a) radically different from the mainstream of the theistic religions, b) the result of certain inexplicable experiences and c) subject to my own uncertainty, agnosticism and willingness to revise in light of science and reason. I often question if I truly believe, or if it is simply something that I arrived at in the hope of an afterlife.

A relative of mine who was a pretty adamant atheist, in response to death #2 referenced above, converted to Catholicism. She was also extremely conservative so I have a feeling that there was a perfect storm of grief, community and a desire to believe that helped solidify her religious beliefs. So I have some anecdotal evidence that would suggest it can work. But her husband, who went along from the ride, seems much less ecstatic with the move from atheism to Catholicism, even if he goes through the motions. But would you really want to commit yourself to something like Catholicism, which comes with so much baggage? Or even to the Christian communion itself, which is so ridiculous? Would you be willing to take the plunge for Islam? Judaism? And does the wager even make sense in the latter, or in dharmic traditions?

I think that participating here is a good way to work through some of your own thoughts, along with reading. You seem to have a pretty good grip on it. But I will say this: I don't think that you can easily move from atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, to any kind of traditional religious belief. I think that if you arrived at your atheism outside of a gradual drift from tradition or act of rebellion, and you understand things like natural selection, you are unlikely to return to the fold as a true believer. Some things can't be changed.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think Pascal's Wager was ever meant to be taken seriously.

Believe in God if it suits you, but the Wager is not a reason to.

 

[fantome profane]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

What you are saying is that you find yourself drawn to this concept out of some need for emotional comfort. That is fine, and I don't mean to diminish your feeling or to oversimplify the situation. But it seems to me that Pascal's wager is irrelevant. You are drawn to this concept because of your feelings, not because of Pascal's wager. You don't need Pascal's wager. And if you weren't feeling this way Pascal's wager would have no impact on you.

Personally I find it impossible for me to accept this kind of a "God" concept. So I cannot "wager" on God, even if I wanted to. For me it is impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

Let me put it this way:

In my religion, Penguinism, Hell is just as bad as Christian Hell and Heaven is just as good as Christian Heaven. There are two main differences:

- believers in Penguinism not only go to Penguin Heaven themselves, but their best friend gets saved too. Of course, non-believers AND their best friends get sent to Penguin Hell.

- there's only one requirement: among the followers of Penguinism, they have to make sure my lawn gets mowed or my walk gets shoveled, depending on the season. If we get enough Penguinists, each one will only have to do this once in their life (kinda like the Hajj ).

According to the logic of Pascal's Wager, Penguinism dominates Christianity in every way.

... so should I sign you up?

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't make the wager anyway. I don't believe in any gods, & would have to pretend to believe. An all powerful supreme being type would see thru my ruse.

 

[Deidre]

What happens if you choose the wrong god?

Let us say that you did happen to choose the right god.
Do you really think that said god would be fooled?
And if said god is fooled with Pascals wager, could it really honestly be called god?

Yes, very good points. I've thought this too about PW. I think however, that he had the best of intentions when he devised it...for he was a man of faith, and wanted others to be, as many Christians feel called to do. He thought he could look at faith in the same way he viewed other things in life, I guess. lol So, not so much that God would be fooled, as much as ...maybe you would come to love God, if you 'went through the motions.' I'm wondering if at the end of the day, that was what he meant.

First you'd have to decide which god to live for. Personally, I'm not convinced anyone can even have a clue as if there really is a god or not, but on top of that you have to somehow find out which god's standards to live by, which I don't think there is any way to accurately do this. Pascal also assumes that if there is a god, this god would have some issue with us not being able to know, understand, comprehend, and would have a problem with us making mistakes that we really do not know how to avoid. If there really is a god, I doubt this entity would be that petty and vindictive.

Gosh, I think so much like you on this! Leaving Christianity, and following a path to atheism...I don't logically believe there is a god, but subjectively...emotionally...I'm open to the idea. It brings me comfort, in an odd kind of way. Despite, logically knowing I cannot prove that a deity exists.
Thank you for your reply!

 

[Deidre]

I don't think it is likely to prove the panacea you might assume.

First, Pascal's Wager is not just restricted to Christianity, but operationally it is also restricted to Catholicism. Pascal was operating under the assumption that salvation was only guaranteed through the Catholic Church. Yet a Protestant from the same era who formulated their own version of the wager would have a conflicting belief about salvation. Muslims would have still another belief, particularly when you get into Islamic beliefs about the Christian trinity.

Second, and very difficult for atheists, Pascal assumes that you could eliminate your rational objections to the Catholic religion by engaging in ritual. This might be possible, particularly if you were surrounded by other people who were going through the motions. But I strongly suspect that you would still have a nagging feeling, in the back of your mind, that you were engaged in theatrics.

I recently lost my grandfather, who was my only surviving grandparent. It has certainly forced me to take a long look at my beliefs and to revisit this question of joining a religious community once again. But my atheism was revised several years before his death, and several years after dealing with the unexpected and early death of another close relative. Even today I have difficulty describing myself as a "theist," because what I believe is a) radically different from the mainstream of the theistic religions, b) the result of certain inexplicable experiences and c) subject to my own uncertainty, agnosticism and willingness to revise in light of science and reason. I often question if I truly believe, or if it is simply something that I arrived at in the hope of an afterlife.

A relative of mine who was a pretty adamant atheist, in response to death #2 referenced above, converted to Catholicism. She was also extremely conservative so I have a feeling that there was a perfect storm of grief, community and a desire to believe that helped solidify her religious beliefs. So I have some anecdotal evidence that would suggest it can work. But her husband, who went along from the ride, seems much less ecstatic with the move from atheism to Catholicism, even if he goes through the motions. But would you really want to commit yourself to something like Catholicism, which comes with so much baggage? Or even to the Christian communion itself, which is so ridiculous? Would you be willing to take the plunge for Islam? Judaism? And does the wager even make sense in the latter, or in dharmic traditions?

I think that participating here is a good way to work through some of your own thoughts, along with reading. You seem to have a pretty good grip on it. But I will say this: I don't think that you can easily move from atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, to any kind of traditional religious belief. I think that if you arrived at your atheism outside of a gradual drift from tradition or act of rebellion, and you understand things like natural selection, you are unlikely to return to the fold as a true believer. Some things can't be changed.

You have no idea how this has helped me, and yes...this forum is very helpful. I sometimes wish I never left the faith (Christianity)...for what you don't know, won't hurt you. My reason for leaving it was that I simply no longer believe that the Bible is based on truths. So, yes...how could I ever 'go back?' I'm not looking to Christianity really anymore, but I miss my prayer life. I miss the comfort that an imaginary being once gave to me, whether it could ever be proven or not. If that makes sense. Your comment about the perfect storm, hits home...with my grandmother's recent death. She loved me unconditionally, and that was a love I once thought God provided to us all. There's a lot of beauty in atheism...in relying on self and reality.

Pascal created the wager mainly for the intent to get believers who were on a fence, to make a choice, without making a choice. But, I don't think it would prove to be a genuinely healthy way to make a decision FOR faith. I have to agree.

 

[Faybull]

Take from Wikipedia as to give a clean, concise definition:

Pascal's Wager posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website. Coming from the vantage point of an atheist, I didn't think it made much sense to 'wage' one's life on assuming a deity exists, but now...I'm not so sure I consider myself an atheist. I've had this deep void over this past year, a God-shaped hole if you will, ever since my grandmother's health began to decline about a year ago. She lived to be in her 80's and died last week. It isn't so much concerning myself over an after life that I feel torn between not believing and believing...but I was once emotionally attached to my faith, it gave me great comfort in believing that a god was looking out for me and those I cared about. There is much joy to be had in this life, as an atheist, and I've experienced it, but there's something I still miss about faith life.

Having said this, Pascal's Wager was never intended to recruit atheists to Christianity by the way, but rather to get lukewarm Christians 'off the fence' so to speak.

Looking at it from this new perspective, I can't help but wonder if Pascal was right, after all. If I'm undecided...would it be so bad to live my life as if a god existed? Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

Truth, or rather, what is "true", is absolute. Pascal wasn't aware of this.

 

[Deidre]

Truth, or rather, what is "true", is absolute. Pascal wasn't aware of this.

hmmm...really? you think so? I've never thought of that.

do you mean objective truth? do you believe that he thought God was an absolute truth?

 

[Faybull]

Consider, this: horror vacui.

He argued against it, yet there is no void, everything is in relationship to a thing, which negates there is a void at all. There is no vacuum.


Aristotle was correct.

 

[Mequa]

Interestingly, I wrote a blog about Pascal's Wager when on an atheist website.

I have that blog saved if you are interested in re-posting it. It's no longer available online on Google's cache.

Title: "Pascal's Wager: Your Fate is a Crapshoot"

 

[LuisDantas]

I can only guess that he meant it as a joke.

 

[Deidre]

I have that blog saved if you are interested in re-posting it. It's no longer available online on Google's cache.

Title: "Pascal's Wager: Your Fate is a Crapshoot"

hahaha I was wondering if you'd chime in.
No, that's ok...only because now, I actually think I understand Pascal. Even though his wager isn't practical.

 

[sun rise]

I find Pascal's Wager a fun intellectual exercise.

But when it comes to life, I think the question is what do you believe in? Compassion? Truth? Justice? What is worth pursuing because it has intrinsic value for you?

It's not to me necessary, but if you view those as aspects of God's nature, then it's how I see them.

 

[Mequa]

In order to rationally wager against a threat (e.g. eternal torture in Hell, in this case), the threat has to be probable.

There are no empirical grounds for believing that anything like the Christian Hell exists, nor to suggest that everyone who does not adhere to a particular dogma will be tortured there forever.
So rationally speaking, there is no probable threat to wager against.

Pascal's Wager commits the consequential reasons fallacy. Belief in a proposition in rational terms should depend on whether it is true or false, not (primarily) on supposed bad consequences arising from belief in it. It is not rational to believe in something due to supposed bad consequences for not believing in it. Particularly when there is no empirical evidence for the supposed negative consequences, or threat.

Like the superstitious ideas of divine judgment, punishment and suffering after death.

These are, as some ancient philosophers observed, merely stories designed to frighten children. Abusively, at that.

 

[columbus]

Pascal was pretty specific as to ''which'' god, though. He was a Christian man, and favored Christianity of course.

So, is it foolish if one is undecided, to buy into Pascal's Wager? What do you think?

Long ago I heard a more sophisticated version of this.

Pascal lived in a more morally primitive era, absolutely dominated by Christianity. There was no humanism. Fundamental morals like kindness, honesty, faithfulness, industry, etc.were considered Godly. The real wager was trusting that these values would likely produce the best temporal life, with no fear that your final moments will be wracked with regret and worry about the afterlife. Then if there is a God you will have a glorious ever after. What you might miss out on in this life won't matter.

I'm not claiming to know if that's what Pascal meant, but it makes more sense.

Tom

 

[Faybull]

Long ago I heard a more sophisticated version of this.

Pascal lived in a more morally primitive era, absolutely dominated by Christianity. There was no humanism. Fundamental morals like kindness, honesty, faithfulness, industry, etc.were considered Godly. The real wager was trusting that these values would likely produce the best temporal life, with no fear that your final moments will be wracked with regret and worry about the afterlife. Then if there is a God you will have a glorious ever after. What you might miss out on in this life won't matter.

I'm not claiming to know if that's what Pascal meant, but it makes more sense.

Tom

And even in Pascal's wager, there is still life, so there is no void.