Why Pascal's Wager Sucks
Offline A friend forwarded a message received from a xian attempting to use Pascal's Wager. The reply is classic.
The message:
Someday, you'll understand. I feel sorry for you. Just promise me one thing, IF you were to hypothetically end up burning in hell or something, don't curse the religious for not saving you int time. Just consider that if my beliefs are wrong, so what, I'm worm food or whatever, no big loss. But if you're wrong, you're screwed. But you still have tons of chances to get it. Believe it or not, God loves you and when you meet your maker, you'll remember this and regret not taking it seriously. Good luck on your road of life, maybe our paths will cross someday.
My friend's reply:
Hey, Bud! Thanks for your thoughts. When you sent your notice of pity, it would have been a lot more helpful had you mentioned which God I should avoid being screwed by.
There’s Allah whom the Muslim vehemently deny is triune; who say that Jesus is just a prophet, who say your Bible has been corrupted and so on. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.answering-christianity.com
www.muslim-responses.com
http://www.islam-guide.com
Or, how about the Jews. They say that Jesus at best was a good (if not problematic) Jewish Rabbi, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.com
Or, how about the Mormons who say that there are a multitude of gods and we can become one through acts like believing in their holy books and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.farms.byu.edu
www.fairlds.org
Or, how about the Jehovah’s witnesses who deny the trinity also. They say that Jesus was just a man and that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force. They say he is not omnipresent, that we are annihilated and not condemned to Hell and that Jesus has already come secretly. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.elihubooks.com
www.jehovah.to/index.htm
Even the Roman Catholic Church, who while saying they have the same God as you, say also that you can by God’s grace (through the sacraments and other good works) earn salvation. They believe such go to Purgatory when they die and one should do nearly every act of worship toward Mary that you do to Jesus, just don’t call it worship. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.catholic.com
www.catholicapologetics.org
www.envoymagazine.com
It seems partner that “god” has “left you without a witness.” Anyway you slice it, you are just as screwed as I am! But don’t worry! Look at these passages:
Deuteronomy 20:10-17 "When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."
Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God gives then [the enemies] over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them..."
Numbers 31:7, 17 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male…[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."
I Samuel 15:1-3 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"
II Kings 2:23-24 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out from the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
Looks like we didn’t have to worry about God being all that loving after all.
I hope that the Pascal Wagerer felt that bitch slap!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why immaterial?
Okay, so it could be a material, supernatural being?
Why omnipotent. He wouldn't have to be all-powerful, just more powerful than humanity.Why? He wouldn't have to be all-knowing, just know more than we do.
You're right. He does not have to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. That's simply how the argument is usually presented.
But, if you want.
- If this being is more powerful than humans.
- If this being knows more than humans.
This is slightly better, as it doesn't contain the extra assumptions that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are meaningful terms that a being can possibly possess.
Why absolute morality? It doesn't have to be absolute morality, just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them.
Right. This is how the argument is usually presented.
But, if you're saying that we should obey him even if he's not absolutely good, simply because he'll punish us if we don't, then you're illustrating a point I often make, which is that Pascal's Wager is more like a threat than an actual argument. It's completely an appeal to consequences.
And why omnibenevolent? Why not just basically a good guy?
Okay, then.
- If this being is "basically a good guy."
But, why does he have to be a good guy at all? You said, "just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them." Doesn't this imply that his goodness is inconsequential?
I mean, wouldn't any good person attempt to save someone who was dying?
I don't see how that's relevant.
Persons in positions of authority usually expect obedience. That's not a big assumption.
Sure it is. You can't compare human rulers to some hypothetical being. Unless you want:
- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.
That's not an assumption than the idea that nothing happens when we die. The only people who know are unable to tell us.
Oh, I beg to differ.
Consciousness is purely a product of physical states. All the evidence suggests that when we die, we're gone, just like any other animal.
Well, I included that wager in my statement. Logic shows that leaders reward obedience and/or punish disobedience. Even those that don't reward obedience, still punish disobedience, so it's a perfectly logical assumption that we have a better chance of gaining God's favor if we are obedient.
Again:
- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.
This is where you prove your lack of knowledge of the bible. God does not punish disbelief. He punishes transgressions against His perfect law. As do we humans when men break our established laws. So if you are implying God is wrong for this, then you must also assume that men are wrong for enforcing their laws.
It doesn't make any difference. It's just a apologetics semantic game of exchanging punishment threats with positive reinforcement. There is no way to atone for sins except through belief, so all nonbelievers are punished. Nonbelief is effectively a transgression against his law.
Men are wrong for enforcing unjust laws. To say that God's actions are good, you have to assume that his laws are just, and I don't think his are just. A much better way to atone for sins would be to simply do good things or be punished in the afterlife for a finite amount of time, not to cling to some arbitrary scapegoat.
Btw, if you talk about God's perfect law, then you must assume there is some inherent good that transcends God.
Yes, they are religions. And Pascal's wager is a good reason to look into any religion, including those.
You said, "but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc." Is this just a typo?
I know. I said that, in not so many words.
Oh, okay then. We might fundamentally in agreement on this.
But if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and follow His teaching, as a by-product you will be a good person, and that might be enough to get you into heaven according to other beliefs.
Sure, but this would then be an argument for being a good person, not for subscribing to Christianity.
Virtue naturally follows belief. One could argue that if there is no virtue, there was no belief. "Good trees produce good fruit."
That's just bullshit. There are many people who believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that are not virtuous; cognitive dissonance is easy. They could even use the Bible to justify immoral acts. Unless you define a Christian as a good person, all you can do is pull an ad hoc.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline But, if you're saying that we should obey him even if he's not absolutely good, simply because he'll punish us if we don't, then you're illustrating a point I often make, which is that Pascal's Wager is more like a threat than an actual argument. It's completely an appeal to consequences.
According to the bible, there are consequences for sin. And if you wish to forego those consequences you must play by His rules, and that rule is faith in Jesus Christ as savior, according to Christianity anyway.
I don't see how that's relevant.
Because with regard to Christian salvation, God is basically throwing us a life-jacket when we are drowning. Any descent person would do that, if it was in their power to do so. You don't have to be perfect to do something like that.
Sure it is. You can't compare human rulers to some hypothetical being. Unless you want:- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.
Typically atheists are the ones who try to say God is irrational because He doesn't fit our human model of what a Deity should be. I'm just trying to play by your rules here. God is certainly not human and not subject to the laws of human nature.
Oh, I beg to differ.Consciousness is purely a product of physical states. All the evidence suggests that when we die, we're gone, just like any other animal.
But clearly in many other ways we are far above all other animals. So maybe the same rules don't apply to all of us. Prove to me that consciousness is a purely a product of physical states. Or give me a reference that proves it.
- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.
What other example do we have at our disposal?
It doesn't make any difference. It's just a apologetics semantic game of exchanging punishment threats with positive reinforcement. There is no way to atone for sins except through belief, so all nonbelievers are punished. Nonbelief is effectively a transgression against his law.
Yes, but all men have transgressed His law even if you don't count "unbelief" as a sin.
Men are wrong for enforcing unjust laws. To say that God's actions are good, you have to assume that his laws are just, and I don't think his are just. A much better way to atone for sins would be to simply do good things or be punished in the afterlife for a finite amount of time, not to cling to some arbitrary scapegoat.
Much better according to you. But ask 50 different people, and you'll get 50 different answers. Maybe God's way is best, and we just can't comprehend it until we've experienced it.
Btw, if you talk about God's perfect law, then you must assume there is some inherent good that transcends God.
Why? If God is perfect, why wouldn't his laws be perfect? But take "perfect" out of the equation if you want. Just say God's laws.
You said, "but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc." Is this just a typo?
It's a valid reason to consider any religion. But it's not a valid reason to join said religion. Kinda like a good commercial might be a good reason to test drive a car, but it's not a good reason to buy one. If you are smart, you will do some research on said car before buying, and the results of your research will either be the reason you by it, or the reason you don't.
Sure, but this would then be an argument for being a good person, not for subscribing to Christianity.
No, because just being a good person may cut it with other religions, but it doesn't cut it with Christianity. So if you believe in Jesus and as a result become a better person, you are covered under Christianity and other do-gooder religions. Whereas if you just do good, you are only covered under the do-gooder religions, but not Christianity.
That's just bullshit. There are many people who believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that are not virtuous; cognitive dissonance is easy. They could even use the Bible to justify immoral acts. Unless you define a Christian as a good person, all you can do is pull an ad hoc.
And how can you prove that those supposed Christians actually have faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior? Becaue they said so? That doesn't really prove it. People can sometimes not even know what they believe or why.
Anyone can say they are a Christian, but that doesn't make it so. Christians are those who follow Christ. Christ did not commit immoral acts. If you do, then you're not following Christ, are you?
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
- Login to post comments
Pascal's wager is also assuming that any actual God is necessarily 'good', and would not punish us anyway, or perhaps might actually reward people who used their 'God-given' reasoning poweres and expressed honest disbelief.
Pascal was one of the more reason-impaired of philosophers, which is saying a lot.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Is that such a large assumption?
Let's see.
If God exists, and tells us to obey His every whim.
If we obey His every whim, we at least have some chance of gaining His favor, whereas if we rebel against Him we lose whatever chance we had of gaining His favor, and His wrath becomes less of a possibility and more of a certainty. So the wager stands.
I disagree with the wager for other reasons.
Faith cannot be given as a precaution. There is only one reason for faith, and it is either genuine or fake. There is no in between.
So Pascal's Wager is a very good reason to look into Christianity (or any other religion for that matter), but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc.
And being a devout Christian would cover you for several beliefs actually. Any religion which tells you to be kind and good to your fellow man, Christianity also tells you that, so your odds go up.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Most gods, including the Christian God, are rather capricious bastards who enjoy changing their minds, ignoring and or fucking with people. I think it is an unlikely assumption that a deity who could create the world as we know it is at all interested in the human concept of 'good'.
The point is Pascal assumes to know the desires and nature of God when there is clearly no way to know such a thing, unless you operate blindly under the assumption that whatever cultural religion you grew up with is true by default, and proceed to modify your concept of 'good' to meet the 'evidence' in your cultures popularly accepted religious stories.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yes, it's a huge assumption. Pascal's Wager contains perhaps a dozen absurdem quod non sequiturs.
- If a supernatural, immaterial being exists.
- If this being is omnipotent.
- If this being is omniscient.
- If there is absolute morality - if this being is omnibenevolent.
- If this being created this universe, including humans.
- If this being wants humans, specifically, to obey him.
- If there is an afterlife.
- If this being will reward us in the afterlife if we obey him. If this being will punish us in the afterlife if we don't.
- As part of the omnibevolence requirement, if this being is good even though it punishes people simply for not believing in Him (btw, if this being, despite being immaterial, is male).
It is probably the worst argument for God ever conceived.
- If this being is the Christian God!
Huh? Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism are not religions?
Pascal's Wager is an equally good reason to look into any afterlife belief that potentially includes a reward/punishment system, which would include Judaism and Islam. It would include anything anyone could imagine that fits the premises, including a God that rewards atheism.
Lol. Being a good person is not part of the wager. The wager is whether or not you believe in the Christian God. This is simply irrelevant; you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person anyways.
Also, it's a bit ironic that you would say that, since your own religion usually emphasizes belief over virtue.
"He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God." John 3:18
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- If a supernatural, immaterial being exists.
Why immaterial?
Why omnipotent. He wouldn't have to be all-powerful, just more powerful than humanity.
Why? He wouldn't have to be all-knowing, just know more than we do.
Why absolute morality? It doesn't have to be absolute morality, just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them.
And why omnibenevolent? Why not just basically a good guy? I mean, wouldn't any good person attempt to save someone who was dying?
Ok.
Persons in positions of authority usually expect obedience. That's not a big assumption.
That's not an assumption than the idea that nothing happens when we die. The only people who know are unable to tell us.
Well, I included that wager in my statement. Logic shows that leaders reward obedience and/or punish disobedience. Even those that don't reward obedience, still punish disobedience, so it's a perfectly logical assumption that we have a better chance of gaining God's favor if we are obedient.
This is where you prove your lack of knowledge of the bible. God does not punish disbelief. He punishes transgressions against His perfect law. As do we humans when men break our established laws. So if you are implying God is wrong for this, then you must also assume that men are wrong for enforcing their laws.
If it truly had all those requirement, I would agree with you. But it clearly doesn't.
See below. I included other religions.
Yes, they are religions. And Pascal's wager is a good reason to look into any religion, including those.
I know. I said that, in not so many words.
But if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and follow His teaching, as a by-product you will be a good person, and that might be enough to get you into heaven according to other beliefs.
Virtue naturally follows belief. One could argue that if there is no virtue, there was no belief. "Good trees produce good fruit."
It's because you sinned that you need to believe for salvation. If you never sinned you wouldn't need salvation.
It's like a man who jumps off a ship at sea, and is drowning. And another man throws him a life-jacket. But the drowning man refuses to put it on.
Would you say that he's drowning because he jumped off the ship.
Or would you say that he's drowning because he refuses to put on the life-jacket.
Both are true, aren't they?
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18