CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Pascale's Wager: Would It Work?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pascale's Wager: Would It Work?

post #1 of 22
12/9/02 at 3:58pm
Thread Starter 
For those of you unfamiliar, here's the argument for being religious put forward by Pascale and used by many religious people as one of the best reason-based arguments for religion:

WRT the results of religious belief, there are 4 possibilities, or for these purposes 2 choices each with 2 possible outcomes:

1. You believe and
a)you're right.
b) you're wrong.

2. You don't believe and
a)you're right.
b) you're wrong.

After positing that, Pascale goes into a cost/benefit analysis of each possibility to determine which is the "best bet" (hence "wager"):

1. If you believe and you're right, you get eternal bliss and paradise. If you believe and you're wrong, you lose the hours you spent in church and the missed opportunities for doing evil with impunity.

2. If you don't believe and you're right, you lose nothing. If you don't believe and you're wrong, you're damned to hell forever in torment.

So obviously by this reasoning the best bet is to believe--even if you're wrong, all you lose is some time and some evil deeds, which is a small price to pay given the opposing possibility.

All this is drastically condensed, obviously.

However, I've always wondered, if you followed Pascale's wager and decided on this reasonable basis to believe rather than not believe, would it work?

What I mean is, it seems to me that if your only reason for belief is because you think it's a better bet than not believing, you're missing something in the sinner/God relationship--you know, that spiritual part of it. That is, you don't really believe b/c of religion, but because you don't want to risk hellfire. No religious experience, but a decision where to place your chips. Which it seems to me is not faith at all, but...well, gambling.

I could see God meeting someone who ascribed to this mode of thought and saying, "You know, that's not really good enough, sorry. Stand on that 'x' over there, would you? I'm just going to pull this lever..."

So, does anyone ascribe to Pascale's wager? Is it a viable argument for belief? Or is it just rationalization of a non-rational (note, I didn't say "irrational" ) experience?

Your thoughts, please.

Reply
post #2 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:16pm
Too bad for Pascal, there's more than one religion to choose.

The wager is stupid.
Reply
post #3 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:31pm
While the wager is not stupid per se, I agree that if you followed simply because of it you are missing out.
Reply
post #4 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:47pm
Quote:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
While the wager is not stupid per se, I agree that if you followed simply because of it you are missing out.
I agree with Adam. For this to make any sense you would have to have a first question listing every religion that has any kind negative afterlife that depends on your belief during life...which would throw the whole thing into the realm of bullshit. I mean, should you first roll a dice of which religion to believe in? Should you try to make as many fit your lifestyle as possible?
Reply
post #5 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:49pm
Quote:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
While the wager is not stupid per se
How is it not? For argument's sake, let's assume there's one religion, and you believe in it or you don't.

The way I see it, the wager is not how religion and belief in general should work.

Belief (in issues of faith) should be beyond logic. It's like love. Who would want to marry someone simply because the two of you have all kinds of common interests on paper, but there's no love there?

Belief in God is beyond rational and doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. But, if you're a believer, it shouldn't need to. In any case, to use the wager to determine your belief is foolish, as it's self-serving in the long-run, thus probably frowned upon by God (should he exist).

But, of course, the fundamental problem with the wager is that it assumes there is one type of belief that does not conflict with other beliefs. There is no way to believe in one without ruling out others, thus you're always putting your soul in jeopardy should you be wrong.
Reply
post #6 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:52pm
Thread Starter 
It should be said that Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher/inventor/scientist/all-around-groovy-thinker from the 1600s, and assuredly was only thinking of Christianity when he formulated the wager.

Reply
post #7 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:55pm
Pascal's Wager is a reflection of that era's religious arrogance. It is predicated on the existance of One True Religion; Roman Catholic. Judaism, Islam, and any other theologies salient to Pascal's Europe are, by definition, beneath his wager. Pascal offers only two choices; his God or no God.

Paley's Watch is a far more compelling exercise.
Reply
post #8 of 22
12/9/02 at 4:58pm
And what Dave said.
Reply
post #9 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:01pm
It is not stupid because no exercise that makes people think (even if it is to rip the argument apart) is stupid. It is too simplistic but as Scott pointed out it was colored by Pascale's experience and time.
Reply
post #10 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:17pm
Quote:
capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
It is not stupid because no exercise that makes people think (even if it is to rip the argument apart) is stupid. It is too simplistic but as Scott pointed out it was colored by Pascale's experience and time.
Perhaps, then, we should say the wager, itself, is stupid, but putting it forth as a debatable topic is not.
Reply
post #11 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:19pm
Indeed.
Reply
post #12 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:21pm
Again I don't like this word stupid. I will agree with simplistic. No need to be insulting.
Reply
post #13 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:26pm
The wager is insulting.
Reply
post #14 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:31pm
Have it your way.
Reply
post #15 of 22
12/9/02 at 5:35pm
Who's being insulted? Pascale had plenty of other achievements besides this.

If Blaise can see this thread from the heaven he got himself into via his "save my ass" style of belief, I'm sure he can console himself by knowing I'm totally wrong.

In the meantime, I think the wager is stupid (and, yes, insulting, as it does suggest that believers are somehow smarter than non-believers, rather than simply, y'know... believers).
Reply
post #16 of 22
12/9/02 at 6:16pm
I'll concede that the study of the wager is useful if seen in the right context (historical relevance, for instance). And it's interesting to bring up, especially in the sense that Scott did - as a way to analyze how belief works in terms of achieving redemption.

However, the wager, taken only as a question and without context, can be dismissed as stupid by any modern educated person, as it assumes far too much (1. There is one religion 2. Belief by way of logic alone can result in redemption 3. Non-believers will automatically commit sin, as there's no punishment to dissuade them).
Reply
post #17 of 22
12/9/02 at 6:17pm
Quote:
TheEyeOfSauron:
The very fact that he was able to address the idea that Christianity could be wrong during the 1600's and that he was able to apply this idea in a logical debate was groundbreaking. It may border on atheism and then run back fearfully to Christ, but it does still border on atheism, and that is its significance.
Hmm... I interpret the wager as suggesting quite the opposite, actually.
Reply
post #18 of 22
12/9/02 at 6:56pm
Just to clarify my stance:

i) Neither Pascal, nor the use of his Wager to Stimulate Thought are stupid things.

ii) The use of Pascal's Wager to make one's own faith sensible is a stupid thing.
Reply
post #19 of 22
12/9/02 at 7:00pm
Quote:
TheEyeOfSauron:
I didn't word that post very well...it's not that he truly believes that Christianity could be wrong but that he is able to conceive the possibility that there is no heaven/hell...addressing this possibility is a big step in developing a logical personal mantra. (Which Pascale cannot do for reasons previously explored.)
I am interested in learning how Pascal's Wager adresses the Heaven/Hell issue.
Reply
post #20 of 22
12/9/02 at 7:19pm
Quote:
TheEyeOfSauron:
Too bad we couldn't have one temporally consistent discussion with the ability for immediate clarification on certain points....I think we would agree more than we seem to on the boards...
Ah, one "argument" about They Might Be Giants and this little instance of misunderstanding hardly constitute a feud or anything.

Hell, I vehemently disagree with a lot of stuff Call, Delude, and capteucalyptus write regularly, but I think they're alright guys.
Reply
post #21 of 22
12/9/02 at 10:02pm
My apologies for that faulty interpretation of your words Sauron. I thought you saw a non-semantic point that I did not. Disappointing.
Reply
post #22 of 22
12/10/02 at 12:20am
Quote:
TheEyeOfSauron:
I'd say the level to which we can actually stretch this argument is disappointing...poor Pascale just doesn't hold up very well to modern discussion and dissemination...
What about Thomas Aquinas?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religion A-Z
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Religion A-Z › Pascale's Wager: Would It Work?