The Problem with Pascal's Wager

[IntoTheVoid]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

If you all think Pascals Wager is nonsense then I won't continue the discussion. (Please note I'm not saying god or Christianity is nonsense this is purely about the idea of Pascals Wager)


If you believe it carries weight then we'll talk.

 

[Starcrash]

I'm confronted with Pascal's Wager often myself, and I think it's strange that this is even offered. I believe that Christians hold their belief because of upbringing, need for community or inner change, and even a reasoned balancing of the evidence for and against its truth (although this is probably quite rare). But I've never been told by a Christian (yet) that their belief is "fire insurance -- just in case". In fact, this is often frowned upon by their fellow Christians. So why is it presented as such a good idea to us?

 

[1disciple]

No. I do not believe that Pascal's Wager holds any weight. It is a rationalist approach from an if/then proposition, and Scripture never has an if/then scenario. Scripture has an is/what proposition for the definition of Faith.

εστιν δε πιστις ελπιζομενων υποστασις πραγματων ελεγχος ου βλεπομενων -- ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 11:1

 

[CoooCaw]

pascal's wager is simply the implementation of a more general rule he devised;

calculate the odds of winning multiply by what you can win

comare that with the odds of losing multiplied by what you can lose

eg

it costs me $100 to throw a die
but if i throw a 6 ie win I receive $1000

so $100 <> $1000/6

$100 <> $166.66

therefore place the bet

if the win was 500 ie

$100 <> $83.33

then DONT place the bet


so what do you conclude when you are betting, not money, but your entire existence?????????

 

[Angela53510]

I know that Pascal's Wager sounds like a good idea in theory. But when I was an atheist, why would I care about an eternity I did not believe in?

It took God calling me, and then confronting me with my sin for me to become a Christian.

Now perhaps there are people who would like some fire insurance. I suggest they call an insurance company. There are no "get out of hell" free cards with God. Only discipleship and following Jesus!

 

[JimJimmers]

I agree, I would never suggest that an atheist believe in God to avoid Hell, as that isn't even the way to avoid Hell.

Now, I think many atheists are foolish for not trying to find out, but that's a different subject. I offered to pray for one agnostic, that God would give him irrefutable evidence in His existence. He wouldn't deign to take me up on it.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

I like Pascal's wager, but maybe that's 'cause I'm not certain how it was worded (maybe I rephrased it in my mind). How I think of it is as this.

If you are an atheist/agnostic content in your unbelief and enjoying the pleasures of this life, consider the possibility that life does not cease at death and goes on forever into eternity (as Jesus describes). Now, Christianity holds that if you die in your sin, you will be in terrible torment from that day until eternity. So unless and until you can prove that salvation through Christ is impossible (i.e. has a probability of 0), it is unreasonable to go through life simply hoping everything will be okay. Further investigation is warranted.

That is, Pascal's wager is not a reason for an atheist to become a Christian. It is a reason for an atheist to give salvation through Christ consideration, until he is certain in his mind of his choice.

 

[crossnote]

It might be effective if Pelagius was right. Otherwise I believe 'choosing God' is a work of God on a persons heart. But who knows, it may start the wheels turning.

 

[reject-tech]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

Many people do. But not me.

Pascal's wager has this problem, it supposes that the outcome is based on simply believing or not that God exists.

God would rather you not believe He even exists and treat people right, and see in the end that He is real and you were following Him without even knowing, than to believe He exists and do hurtful things in His name.

Esau was agnostic. He believed his birthright was no more than a theory of Jacob. If he had cared about an inheritance, he wouldn't have been out in the woods learning to go solo. But he was hungry and that porridge was for real. And Esau returned a multiplied and deal-less compassion on Jacob years later.

We should be careful, some atheists follow Christ and don't even know it.
But some people think God is this stupid - to doom a person just because they don't cry "uncle" under a steeple.

Some live His name without ever having heard the word "Jesus"
Some think you all you gotta do is pronounce it right for a free ticket to heaven.

 

[breno785au]

I dont agree with this Pacals wager logic because we don't turn to Christ to avoid hell.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I dont agree with this Pacals wager logic because we don't turn to Christ to avoid hell.

wanna bet?

 

[T_Laurich]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

If you all think Pascals Wager is nonsense then I won't continue the discussion. (Please note I'm not saying god or Christianity is nonsense this is purely about the idea of Pascals Wager)


If you believe it carries weight then we'll talk.

If there is no God, then I pity myself... I would have wasted my whole life... So thank God He does exist

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

If you all think Pascals Wager is nonsense then I won't continue the discussion. (Please note I'm not saying god or Christianity is nonsense this is purely about the idea of Pascals Wager)


If you believe it carries weight then we'll talk.

It's irrational, IMO. People aren't initially saved through reason; they are saved because GOD opens their spiritual eyes. After that it becomes rational and reasonable to believe.

 

[T_Laurich]

It's irrational, IMO. People aren't initially saved through reason; they are saved because GOD opens their spiritual eyes. After that it becomes rational and reasonable to believe.

I wouldn't be saying that... I was saved through reason... To say you can only be saved through 1 way is limiting God's power...

 

[IntoTheVoid]

If someone wanted to adopt Pascals Wager just to save themselves then what they really should do is look at all religions and gods and see which one has the most severe form of punishment for not believing and then believe in that one, just to be sure lol.

 

[Kreation]

If someone wanted to adopt Pascals Wager just to save themselves then what they really should do is look at all religions and gods and see which one has the most severe form of punishment for not believing and then believe in that one, just to be sure lol.

LOL you are funny.

 

[thecreationtutor]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

If you all think Pascals Wager is nonsense then I won't continue the discussion. (Please note I'm not saying god or Christianity is nonsense this is purely about the idea of Pascals Wager)


If you believe it carries weight then we'll talk.

I would say not really

People just cant' "believe" on their own, they have to be born again - they are slaves to sin, and cannot know God apart from God, People make up their idea of God on their own all the time - If we are talking about the real God.

I also think it's important to know the generation and people group that pascal was writing too - a lot of people going to church because for the most part it wasn't that socially acceptable not to go. A lot of people going to those churches were not actual believers, just pew sitters

Scripture and Jesus make it clear that there are wheat(real Christians) and tares(false Christians) in the church. I wish people who are unbelievers would realize this - many times they attribute something done to wheat, rather than tares - we ultimately may or may not know who the tares are till the end of the age.

 

[Starcrash]

pascal's wager is simply the implementation of a more general rule he devised;

calculate the odds of winning multiply by what you can win

comare that with the odds of losing multiplied by what you can lose

eg

it costs me $100 to throw a die
but if i throw a 6 ie win I receive $1000

so $100 <> $1000/6

$100 <> $166.66

therefore place the bet

if the win was 500 ie

$100 <> $83.33

then DONT place the bet


so what do you conclude when you are betting, not money, but your entire existence?????????

From a mathematical point-of-view, Christianity does appear to present a "positive expected value". But what it fails to account for is hidden costs; nobody here believes that a simple prayer makes one a Christian forever, as that would make me (an atheist) a Christian, having prayed for salvation in my youth. It also pretends that there aren't several mutually exclusive religions making the same claim for "your money"... gambling on Christianity means that you can't gamble on Islam (among many others).

But the most important factor is additional information. Being a poker player myself, I know that it is a good bet to continue betting when the hand odds exceed the pot odds (that is, I stand to win more on average than I'm putting into the pot, as you described above)... unless I notice that an opponent is giving off tells that show me that his or her hand is already a sure thing. While Pascal's Wager could be a good bet if there was an even chance of salvation being correct or incorrect, the fact that I don't observe many things in the world that should be true if God exists makes it a sucker's bet.

 

[JimJimmers]

[T]he fact that I don't observe many things in the world that should be true if God exists makes it a sucker's bet.

I'm genuinely curious here, what are you talking about? How could someone objectively determine what "should" exist?

 

[Blain]

This gets thrown at me on the various sites I frequent. Basically I'm told I'm better off believing in god just incase he exists, therefore I'll avoid hell.

Now does anyone agree with this logic?

If you all think Pascals Wager is nonsense then I won't continue the discussion. (Please note I'm not saying god or Christianity is nonsense this is purely about the idea of Pascals Wager)


If you believe it carries weight then we'll talk.

Well I suppose if you want a fake faith then believe this person, however believing in God merely in case you go to hell is not how you save your soul. If you are going to believe in him it has to come from your heart not fear