You should have thrown more religions at him/her.

Maybe it's best for the next response. 

This is fantastic! I've heard the basic refutation before, but not only is this well presented (the repitition of "authority" is beautiful) but citations abound! Thank you very much for posting this!

Actually if you give all religions plus ones never invented, not to mention atheism, it comes out to near 0. Picking Christianity vs Everything else at 50/50 is a flase dichotomy.

This is true, but best from whose standard? Even if we try to objectively measure the worth of a religion, we're going to have to pick a god so that we can have a standard by which to judge the religions. If you want to say that we have intrinsic knowledge of what is best, then we don't need the religions anyway, and the point is moot.

And you are being dishonest by not admitting that you don't have intimate knowledge of every religion that exists now. Your choice was as lazy as any other theists.

We like sources around here. Would you mind citing your source for this assumption. First hand evidence, please.

Secondly, the point is somewhat irrelevant. Even if this is how Pascal intended us to use his wager, it doesn't mean that his intention corresponded to the actual degree of use the wager has. If it applies to one religion, it applies to all of them unless you can demonstrate that one religion stands separate from the others. Since you have to presume that one god exists before you can do this, you're just running in circles. 

If he believes Christianity is a 50/50 proposition, then he needs to take a class in logic.

To be perfectly fair, I can see the logic where Pascal's Wager would be the "tipping point."  A theist could say, no, you can't force yourself to believe, but Pascal's Wager is the last piece of the puzzle for some people, and they believe because of the perceived logic of the statement.

Weak argument, I know, but I'm sure it's worked that way for lots of people.

I recently watched this video, which retaliates with a Pascal's Wager of its own:

I thought this was both witty and wise. 

I like Homer Simpson's Wager:

"But Marge, what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making god madder and madder!"

LOL

Pascal's wager doesn't work because is assumes the choice is binary, which it isn't.  It's pretty obvious to those of us outside the paradigm of theism, but hardcore Christians do see it as binary.  That's the problem.  They see the world as being made up of two types of people:  Christians and non-Christians.  They barely acknoweldge the distinction between different types of non-Christians.  For someone stuck in that mindset, Pascal's Wager seems to make sense.
The irony is that the logic of Pascal's Wager does apply very well to some things, such as global warming.  Think about it.  It just doesn't work when talking about God.

The premise of Pascal's wager works though, doesn't it? I'm not sure but I think that Christianity is the only one that condemns you to hell for not 'accepting Jesus into your heart' and most other religions let you in based on 'a good life'. Granted, i'm just thinking of the major ones.

That was great. Old Blaisey was a fruit. I think I will accept them all and include the tooth fairy and Santa, just in case...lol

Sacrafice the only organ more important than my penis or accept religion and be a jackass and not be able to use either? Hmmm.

All Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Rastafari, Baha'i, and probably a few more) condemn you to hell for not believing and being bad. Hinduism condemns the atheist as well, claiming that none can be virtuous while not believing in god. Sikhism also condemns us. I'm not sure about the other major religions (there are 22 "major" world religions of 500,000 followers or more, though this includes non-religion, Unitarian Universalism, Juche, and Scientology, which has been accused of inflating its numbers) 

Actually Sikhism does teach that no matter how good the person is, all atheists will be cursed with reincarnation, and all theists (no matter what religion) will merge with god. So it does condemn atheists to a different idea of hell.

 (Edited for confusion with doctrines.)

this is incorrect. brahman/nirvana is a state of being, not a person. brahman is not a deity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

hinduism posits that suffering is bad, and that ignorance leads to suffering. deities are not required. in fact many people call hinduism "pantheistic."

the terms theist or atheist don't make much sense in the narrative tradition of hinduism or other dharmic religions. (rather, dharma and adharma) admittedly, i have not read anything deeply about sikhism, but here is a general article on dharmic religions (as opposed to abrahamic religions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmic_religions

the basic assumption of dharmic religions, is that there is such a thing as "truth" and one can find it. truth also would not be considered supernatural or separate (like a divine deity). and, there's no punishment for not finding it.

can i ask both of you what your sources are on your understanding of hindu metaphysics?
[edit: forgot a link]

I suggest reading the Bhagavad Gita if you want a good metaphysical grounding for religions in the dharmic tradition.

reincarnation in this narrative tradition is not punishment inasmuch as there is no separate thing or person (deity) doing the punishing. reincarnation is an explanatory mechanism, not one to inspire fear or piety. From wikipedia

"After many births, every person eventually becomes dissatisfied with the limited happiness that worldly pleasures can bring. At this point, a person begins to seek higher forms of happiness, which can be attained only through spiritual experience. When, after much spiritual practice (sādhanā), a person finally realizes his or her own divine nature—ie., realizes that the true "self" is the immortal soul rather than the body or the ego—all desires for the pleasures of the world will vanish, since they will seem insipid compared to spiritual ānanda. When all desire has vanished, the person will not be reborn anymore.^[3]

When the cycle of rebirth thus comes to an end, a person is said to have attained moksha, or salvation.^[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

I think reading this all the way through provides some good perspective.

I'm not sure about Hinduism (especially since there are so many different variations and schools) but Sikhism teaches that Christians will be saved, so it doesn't go with Pascal's Wager.

You are right about variations. What we've been saying may not apply to all. However, Pascal's Wager is specifically aimed at atheists, and Sikhism teaches that atheists aren't saved. Therefore, the wager is still applicable. 

You're right, mostly. Several sects (I love that word) of Sikhism disagree with this, though. Some say all religious folks get the same reward, some think that only Sikhs do. 

Sam Harris Pascal's Wager

tried to make this shorter...

[MOD EDIT - changed URL into link] 

I am confused as well. I always thought that Pascal's wager answered an existential question as it pertains to the meaning in life.

In other words, if in this life I have found the thing that makes me happy, and the atheist is correct, there is no God. I havent lost anything.

If the point of life is to find happiness, then in this life like the atheist I have found it and I have not lost the wager.

However, if in this life I (the christian) am correct, I have found the thing that makes me happy in this life, and afterward I will find the fulfillment of that which gives me joy, what does the atheist find if the Christian is correct? Something far different.

In fact there be no recovery at that point. The point of the wager is this, in both cases the Christian loses nothing.

How other religions answer that question is irrelevant to the wager itself.

Let us add a third demension to the wager. Islam.

If you and I believe our perspective beliefs, but Islam is right, then we're both screwed. Your failure to realize why the wager is moronic is because most people can't realize the fact atheism and christianity as just two options of many. You say it has to relevance? What if you're a Muslim and Islam is the "correct" religion? Then the christian and the atheist would be equally screwed. To not recognize there aren't just two choices is idiocy, because there aren't two choices, there are many. 

Belief from fear is not true belief.  

In any event, the wager could only justified to say it's safer to have a religion then not have one. Which of course, is asinine. Even when I was a christian, I always beleived this.

 If there was a God, he would be concerned about your actions as opposed to your beliefs. Assuming someone lived a near perfect life, (Note near) and they were apologetic to anyone they hurt (sincerely) but were atheist, I've heard conflicting accounts from preachers saying they would, or would not go to hell. I made the assumption include they were always doing good, and not doing bad. Etc. This oddly enough did show any pattern based on church (Baptist, Methodist, or otherwise) or on any particular kind of Christianity (Liberal or Conservative).

So, I find the wager irrlevant  based on the fact that it's solely on belief, and not on action. There is not action in the equation, and therefore the odds aren't true regardless. I judge people by what they do as people, not what they believe. If I know someone raped and tortured 50 children, I'm not going to like that person. If I know someone saved a bus load of 50 kids and gave their life doing it, I'd respect that person, regardless of (most) mistakes in their past.

 To me, it works like this. I'd rather be a good person to myself and "burn in hell", then be a shitty person and "go to heaven", for no other fact than "believing in God". I'm good to others for the sake of being good to others, and not some pathetic reward of "heaven". 

Aside from the tangent, I think the wager has had it's ass kicked three or four times now, right? 

Tis a sensational reply by your friend, but I tend to think the shorter and more concise, the more impactful a rebuttal.

There are a LOT of different ways to refute Pascal's Wager. Why so many? Because it's so fundamentally flawed, and the ONLY reason why it is compelling to some people is because it appeals to EMOTION rather than LOGIC. That is what I call intellectual dishonesty/laziness/ineptitude (depends on whether it was deliberate). Propaganda anyone?

To get a nice cross-section of the refutations of Pascal's Wager, you can refer to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

The popular and sensational refutation by questioning whether Christianity is the only religion to make such a claim, as done fantastically in your friend's email, actually dignifies Pascal's Wager by implicitly conceding to the suggestion that there is a God. All the better to not fall into this dishonest trap and instead nip it early in the bud, hence elevating the following simple rebuttal my personal favorite, and arguably the best fundamentally:

    I haven't reached a decisive conclusion on whether Pascal's wager works, but I do think many of the typical objections raised against it aren't as fatal as atheists take them to be. Moreover, analytic philosophers and decision theorists have distinguished different versions of Pascalian wagering, some less vulnerable than others. So it doesn't follow from the fact that an atheist takes himself to have refuted one that he's thereby refuted all. Here's a version that relies on the Principle of Expected Value. (Readers who don't have a lot of background in philosophy or who are unfamiliar with the notation to follow may consult just about any introductory textbook on decision theory or inductive logic and probability. Feel free to PM me for resources.)

    According to the Principle of Expected Value, an agent should act so as to maximize expected value. The expected value of an act A (hereafter Exp(A)) is Σ [Pr(C_i)U(C_i)], where C is a consequence of the act, and U is the utility of the consequence. Thus, where B is the act of placing oneself in circumstances that conduce to theistic belief formation, and where G is a state of affairs that includes God's existence, Exp(B) = [Pr(G)U(G)] + [Pr(~G)U(~G)]. So Pascal's suggestion is that since Exp(B) = (0.5)(+∞) + (0.5)(-n) and Exp(~B) = (0.5)(-∞) + (0.5)(+n), it follows that Exp(B) > Exp(~B). So this version of the argument may be formulated as follows:

(1) Exp(B) > Exp(~B)

(2) The Principle of Expected Value.

(3) Therefore, choose B.

    The problem with this argument, one might well suppose, is that agnostics can object to Pascal’s assignment of 0.5 to Pr(G). (To an agnostic, Pr(G) is inscrutable.) Another version relies on the Principle of Dominating Expectations. According to this principle, an agent should perform the act that has a dominating expectation. Exp(A) dominates Exp(A₁) iff (if and only if) (i) there is at least one state of affairs with a nonzero probability assignment where Exp(A) > Exp(A₁)_, and (ii) there is no state of affairs with a nonzero probability assignment where Exp(A) < Exp(A₁). As long as there is a nonzero finite probability of God’s existence, then Exp(B) > Exp(~B). So this alternative version may be formulated thus:

(1*) Exp(B) > Exp(~B) in at least one state of affairs with a nonzero probability assignment, and Exp(B) < Exp(~B) in no state of affairs with a nonzero probability assignment.

(2*) The Principle of Dominating Expectations.

(3*) Therefore, choose B.

        As a general objection against Pascalian wagering, one may point out that humans can’t simply choose to believe in God at will, no matter how much Pascal’s wager convinces them that they should do so. But this objection is notoriously off-target, since Pascal does not argue that one should believe in God at will, but rather that one should place oneself in circumstances that will conduce over time to belief in God. At this point the objector can say that humans simply can't engage in such behavior modification, but this is prima facie implausible; we modify our behavior all the time -- even in ways that would seriously alter our doxastic habits -- when certain circumstances in life call for it. So, someone who is convinced by some version of the wager can regularly perform certain behaviors that will conduce to her belief in God.

    Another popular objection is the many gods objection. According to a weak version of this objection, Pascalian wagering is rendered useless by the variety of religions on the scene today. Which God is it in whom we should believe? However, this weak version is not fatal to the wager, given that the wager still works for those who are only seriously considering Christianity and atheism as live epistemic options, say. There is a stronger version of this objection raised by Richard Gale. According to Gale, since there are infinitely many logically possible deities, the probability of any one of them existing is infinitesimal. The product of an infinitesimal and an infinite utility is still 0, so the expected value of believing in each deity is 0. But as other philosophers have pointed out in response to Gale, it doesn’t follow from there being infinitely many possible gods that the probability of each god is 0. Each god may be assigned some nonzero probability, and then Gale’s objection fails.

Other objections depend on exotic deities, such as the deity who offers you infinitely blissful icecream cones, the deity who rewards you with infinite bliss if the total number of cracks you step on during your life is odd, or even the atheistic deity who rewards you with infinite bliss for not believing in him, and so on. But these are not a problem if we adopt simplicity as a guide to theory adjudication: when confronted with several equally confirmed hypotheses, choose the simplest one. The simplest hypothesis is the one with the least amount of primitive terms. Some philosophers, like George Schlesinger, claim that the Anselmian theistic hypothesis would be the simplest, then, because it can be expressed with the use of a single predicate (i.e. absolutely perfect). Thus, according to these philosophers, we should choose to form the belief in an absolutely perfect being over exotic and less simple beings.

Now, as I say, I have not reached any decisive conclusion on the strength of Pascal's wager. But atheists (and even theists) who wish to attack the wager should be more careful than they usually are; it's not obvious that the wager fails so easily.

Cheers,

W. Gavagai

Tooth Fairy's Wager:

If you believe in me, you will get a hundred dollars for each tooth you lose. If don't believe in me, you will be missing out on a fortune!