rhutchin

It sounds like you have a weird notion of what "belief" is. The basic thrust of the Wager is to lead the person to make a decision. For simplicity, let's assume that there is only one god (the Biblical god) and this god is God. This God has made it known that each individual must stand before Him and give account of his behavior and those who have disobeyed His commands will not be allowed entry into heaven. Thus, they will have to endure eternal torment.

The Wager provides a means for a person to evaluate his situation because he doesn't know that all this is true (maybe it's a fairy tale). What action should the person "decide" to take? Should he seek try to escape this imagined eternal torment or ignore it as if it was not real? The Wager analyzes this for him. Given the infinite nature of the alleged eternal torment, it becomes clear that if the person seeks to escape eternal torment and that torment turns out to be a myth, he loses nothing of significance. However, if he ignores eternal torment and it turns out to be real, he loses big time. The rational course of action, following the analytical procedure set forth in the Wager, is for the person to decide to escape eternal torment. Having made this decision, the person then turns his attention to the method through which he can escape eternal torment. Since we are dealing with only one god, the Biblical God, the only way to escape eternal torment is to seek this god. Thus, the person decides to seek God.

We find that the person has decided that it is in his best interests to avoid eternal torment and he has also decided that it is in his best interests to seek God as the means to avoid eternal torment. Both are sound rational decisions. By making these decisions, the person has chosen to believe that the risk of eternal torment is such that he should seek to escape it and he has chosen to believe that seeking God is the only way to escape eternal torment. His decisions reflect that which he has come to believe. The original question posed by Pascal was, Should a person believe in God or not. The conclusion is that a person, after making some simple decisions, ends up deciding to believe in God.

Now, if we let the term, God, be a variable so that there are multiple options for escaping eternal torment, the analysis is basically the same. The person still decides that it is in his best interests to avoid eternal torment. The person still decides that it is in his best interests to seek God in order to escape eternal torment. The added complication is that he must now identify God from among the multiple gods that are alleged to be God.

rhutchin

Pascal's analysis is built on the need to address assumptions that cannot be proved. It is the uncertainty of the situation that calls for a risk analysis. If one could prove the assumptions, why would one need to do a risk analysis?

Once one works through the analysis using a simple binary framework, it is easy to expand the anlysis to consider multiple choices. That is not a big deal.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Are you suggesting that a person believe that it is more probable that the God of the Bible will send believers to heaven than any other possibility? If so, what specific evidence caused you to become a Christian as opposed to choosing some other world view? Isn't it true that it is not really the evidence of God's existence and supernatural powers that motivates you, but your own self-interest? In other words, if all of the evidence of God's existence and supernatural powers were exactly the same with the single exception that he will send everyone to hell, wouldn't you not only have rejected Christianity, but also have gone out of your way to disprove it, and have chosen some other world view that promised you eternal comfort? If God told you to murder babies, steal, and lie, would you do it?

Sauron

However, such analysis is done by focusing on only one unknown. Instead of doing that, pascal's wager (and your defense of it) permit the entry of multiple unknowns. The error comes in when pascal (and you) simply assume those other unknowns away, and by fiat declare them to be certainties so that you can proceed with your binary model.

But the assumptive nature of that act must be paid for; it doesn't just go away because have a urgent need to drive towards a binary model.

Until you start nailing down these other unknowns, the entire pascal exercise is invalid.

I'm afraid it's a bigger deal than you realize. You are, in effect, cheating on the model by assuming these other unknowns to be certainties, merely to keep your model streamlined.

Not to mention the fact that the model doesn't account for the multiplicity of deities, as already mentioned.

rhutchin

I don’t see where that should be an issue unless you are saying that the unknowns are not mutually independent (although it seems to me that any assumption of uncertainty incorporates any interdependencies).

The primary unknown is whether there will be a judgment and eternal torment. Given the uncertainty of that, the rational conclusion is to behave as if it could be true. Thus, one pursues a course of action to escape eternal torment. This is as far as Pascal went with the Wager.

The second unknown is what specific course of action to take. One is faced with many voices suggesting many ways to escape eternal torment. One evaluates the information available and makes a choice.

On to the next unknown (whatever that is). What unknowns are being assumed away that cannot be addressed in order of significance?

I am not sure what you mean. Maybe you could be more specific.

The problem with multiplicities of deities (or belief systems) is not a major issue from what has been explained before by others. That issue comes logically after one has determined that it is beneficial to seek one of these deities (or belief systems) in order to escape eternal torment.

Wiploc

Pascal's wager only works if the odds of going to Hell for non-belief are higher than the odds of going to hell for Belief. Since there is no reason to think non-belief is more dangerous than belief, the Wager fails.

crc

Barefoot Bree

On the contrary, rhutchin, I think it is YOU who have a weird notion of what "belief" is. You seem to paint belief as a cold calculation of odds and a purely mental decision, roughly the same as deciding to take State Road 53 to work rather than I-283, because the traffic reporters said there was a nasty accident on the interstate.

That may work for your morning commute, but it just doesn't cut it for religious belief.

Real belief in god is something that must well up naturally from one's experiences. It is based on all the times one went to church and experienced the common love and devotion from one's fellow worshippers; on reading the holy books and feeling the "truth" of the words therein; on listening to ministers and hearing their words resonate within; on feeling the joy of belief when one "sees" god's hand in everyday miracles; all the ten million and five little bitty experiences in a lifetime. It is a gut feeling, rooted in emotion, and simply cannot be commanded by the intellect or chosen by the mind.

Disbelief actually comes from the mind, not belief. It comes from going to church and seeing the backstabbing, hypocritical actions of one's fellow "worshippers"; reading the holy books and seeing the contradictions, misrepresentations and outright evil acts committed therein; listening to ministers and seeing their hypocrisy and self-serving actions; on feeling the wonder at the vastness and complexity of the natural universe, while recognizing that finding a good parking spot is simple random chance, not a miracle, and all the ten million and six everyday occurences with not a god in sight.

What you describe is simply going through the motions. One can go to church, say the words, even do good works; checking all the squares off on one's checklist of "belief" - but if one doesn't truly feel it, one doesn't believe. And what I've been trying to say to you is any god worth their heaven will be able to discern the difference and know what is in one's heart.

rhutchin

According to the Bible, it is absolutely certain that God will take those whom He saves into heaven. Since the bible tells us that the devils believe in God but are not allowed into heaven, then not all believers will get into heaven. What the probabilities are can't be determined as far as I can tell. Technically, all human believers would go to heaven if doing such was the result of a rational decision. However, many people get emotional about God and refuse to do things His way. Such people will not be allowed into heaven.

It is God who saves people, so the cause of me becoming a Christian would be God. However, if a person were to examine the existing world views, I suspect that he would find that none provide the level of certainty of escaping eternal torment as does the Biblical god. I have looked at a few and that is what I have found to be the case.

If the Bible said that all were going to hell and there was no way to escape that outcome, then it's eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die. The unique part about Christianity is that it provides a specific way for a person to escape hell. Take that away, and there is no reason to pursue God.

Fortunately, God has not done that and will not do so. However, if murder, stealing and lying were required in order to escape eternal torment, I think the rational action is to do it. A lot of people who claim to serve God actually do those things as they approve of abortion, refuse to tithe, and tell lies about the manner in which God saves people.

rhutchin

Whatever "belief" is finally determined to be, it is not the what you describe. These things may be expressed or experienced as a consequence of belief, but putting them first is putting the cart before the horse. Your last sentence is utter nonsense.

Disbelief is an emotional reaction to the Bible, where a person irrationally says that he will not obey God just so he can get into heaven. It has nothing to do with people acting like people.

That is why God gives a person a new heart (a new perspective, so to speak) when He saves them.

EverLastingGodStopper

This can't be true, there are millions of people who have both never heard of the bible and also do not believe in the Christian god.

And people acting like people do disbelieve in all sorts of gods, rendering this last sentence meaningless.