John A. Broussard

Given the question of god's existence (and, presumably a concommitant afterlife) certain obligations are imposed on the believer if there is a differential reward based on behavior in this life.

Obviously, what I'm dealing with here is Pascal's Wager. For those of you not thoroughly familiar with it, here is the core of the Wager in Pascal's own words.

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

The point to this OP is that Pascal's Wager states, unequivocally, that there is nothing to lose by believing in god.

I wish to point out that there's a great deal to lose, and that the losses are self-evident though I've discovered they don't appear to be so to others.

As pointed out by a theist in this forum, that flaw in the Wager is not self-evident to him since he said, "Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life)."

But that is exactly the point. Sin, as envisioned by a believer, may be--and very likely is--a necessary part of enjoyment of life.

Let me cite just one example. In this instance, let's assume that a married Catholic couple wish to limit the number of children in their family to how many they can support. To do so, the only really effective birth control methods are contraceptives. They can use them, but if they believe in an afterlife and they follow the teachings of their church, then they have committed a mortal sin and will be punished for it with eternal torments in hell.

In other words, a belief in an afterlife imposes an obligation upon them--the refraining from the use of artificial birth control methods.

Not believing, for them, would allow the effective control of their family size without causing pangs of guilt and fear of hell by doing so.

I leave it to others to bring up similar "sinful" situations in other cults.

I hope this OP will stimulate some thought, and I also hope we can limit the discussion to just this point--that there is a great deal to lose if one wagers that god exists.

As has been claimed, Pascal's Wager is a form of fire insurance. Like fire insurance, it may be a good idea to have it, but the overwhelming majority of insurers never have a fire, and so never come out ahead on all the premiums they've paid.

On the other hand, the fire insurance companies reap enormous benefits from those who pay for fire insurance. The payers lose. The insurance company wins.

That fires do happen is besides the point.

The odds that the payer will come out ahead are very, very slim--and that's the point.

steamer

One odd thing I've noticed is that atheists are not obliged to think of the god concept as a justice-handicapped evil tormentor. Although I'm just imagining a god, I find that the one I imagine is better than the one most religions claim. How can my imagined god be more loving and more just than their god? If my imagined god is better in any way, then the real god must be better still if he is indeed perfect. I think these religious folk need our help to define their gods. Their gods seem like losers in comparisson to what I can imagine.

Their gods are less loving than most mothers.

Squirrel

Thank you for bringing up this issue, I think it is a very important one. First, I am a Christian but I do not agree with the position of the Catholic church on birth control, so that issue is virtually eliminated for me. However, many people who do not believe in Christ seem to have this idea that if they were a Christian life would become unbearably miserable, that there are all these arbitrary rules that God calls us to follow that lead to a miserable life. Morality seems to be the enemy. The idea is that Christians are following all these rules hoping for eternal bliss in Heaven while living miserable lives on earth.

But I will argue the completely opposite position that the beauty and greatness of life is only known in a relationship with Christ. That you lose far more if one wagers that God does not exist. For instance, without God there is no truth or meaning, no ultimate purpose to life. All reality either boils down to the personal or the impersonal. Life is really either all about chemicals or all about a Personal God. Without God, we must posit that life is ultimately about hydrogen and oxygen and dirt, but with God life is really about love and relationships and truth, in the sense that personality is more ultimate than impersonality. Without God what hope can you give to people who are suffering, or in poverty, or dying? Christians can say that though you struggle now through Christ all the wrong will in the end be made right. Without God there will be no final justice. The wrong will never be made right. As a believer I can enjoy sex with my wife, enjoy food, play sports, talk philosophy, have purpose and meaning and joy and a relationship with the God of the universe, what exactly am I losing by believing in Christ? What are the things I am missing out on? It seems to me that if one wagers that there is no God, joy would ultimately be destroyed. Humanity would ultimately have come from nothingness and would be going to nothingness.

IgnorantBliss

Pascal's wager assumes there is only one God on which to place your bets. When, in fact, there is an infinite number of gods and religions... I'm reminded of a south park where a devout catholic (or something) gets into heaven and is sent to hell for believing in the wrong religion. Outraged, the catholic demands to know the "right" religion to which the angel replies, "Uh, yup... Mormonism. Mormonism was the correct answer. Sorry."

So, its not just one or the other, its one of infinity or the other that is to be chosen and because religions are mutually exclusive you cant do them all at once. Period - you only get one, or you're not really practicing that religion in the first place.

My dad gave me the best advice I've ever heard regarding this puzzle, "Well, I figure if I just lead a good life I'll be ok. Because, if there is a heaven, hopefully I'll get in for leading a good life. And if there isn't, well, at least I had a good life in the first place."

John A. Broussard

What you are dealing with here is an old, old dilemma which has little to do with Pascal's Wager.

Let me point to an ancient story from far back into the remote past of Hindu philosophy.

A respected wise man, while pondering the mysteries of life, is walking along with a companion when they see an old woman, smiling and happy, who is worshipping at a shrine.

The companion asks, "See that old woman? She doesn't have a problem in the world. She's happy. She believes blindly. You question all this. You doubt the existence of god and keep pondering these matters, while she has no doubts at all. Wouldn't you exchange places with her if you could?"

The wise man, unhesitatingly, said, "No."

So, I would say, there is no Wager for you. You believe. It makes you feel comfortable. It gives "meaning" to your life. Fine.

Pascal's Wager is for those who don't believe. It offers them a choice. All choices have pluses and minuses. What Pascal's Wager does not consider is that a conscious choice to believe does in fact have minuses. At the very least it means forcing oneself to believe something one doesn't "believe."

So, if you believe, without having to weigh alternatives--if you are comfortable with your belief--no problem. Also, no Wager.

Stephen T-B

A flaw in Pascal's Wager is the assumption that god-belief is open to calculation; that somehow one can decide by sheer will power to believe the unbelievable. Which is, of course, nonsense.
A person can only believe that which he considers believable.

Having said that, I wonder if the Wager wasn't in fact intended for people who already believed in a god of one sort or another.

If you can believe in Zeus, why not believe in Thor?

If you can believe in the god specified by your own culture, why not believe in the god specified by that of the Roman Catholics? And especially why not if, by believing in it you will avoid the possibility of proking it into punishing you for all eternity.
Blaise Pascal lived 1623-1662, and when he wrote his Penses, atheisim, I dare say, was less of an issue than the other sects into which Christianity was dissolving.

AZSuperman

One of the problems I see with Pascals Wager is what goes along with believing in God. (The Roman Catholic God in particular, since Pascal was a Roman Catholic.)

• Believing in the RC God means believing in the Bible.
• Believing in the Bible means believing in a 6000 year old Earth.
• Believing in a 6000 year old Earth means believing all scientific methods used to date the Earth and the universe beyond 6000 years are faulty and misleading.
• Believing in the Bible means believing illness is caused by demonic possession.
• Believing in supernatural causes for illness means you also need to believe medicines and vaccines are useless, and medical explanations for illnesses are faulty.
• Believing in the Bible means disbelieving in all other holy books.
• Disbelieving all other holy books, while believing the Bible, means other religions who report miracles are being lead by Satan.
• Believing in the RC God means believing all non-Catholic family members are buring in Hell.

Unless you're talking to a deist, there is usually a plenthora of accompanying beliefs which go along with believing in God. For another religion the list may be different, but it's most likely going to have more than one absurb required belief on the list.

Barefoot Bree

I think it's time once again for the Wildernesse Lecture.

AZSuperman, your list of beliefs are required for fundamentalism. However, fundamentalists make up only a part, and I believe it's a small part, of Christians as a whole. The vast majority of Christians are liberal, open-minded (and regretably quiet these days) individuals who, if you must, "cherry-pick" which the parts of the bible they take literally, and which parts are alegorical or other. Anyone can take them to task for this cherry-picking on moral grounds, but to insist that all Christians believe your list, and therefore are fundamentalists, is factually wrong.

mdarus

AZSuperman's list is an amazing compilation of non sequiturs, and a ton of other logical fallacies . Not even the most rigid fundamentalist would follow it all the way down.

mdarus

The part I don't like about Pascal's Wager is it seems all about the advantages that belief can have for me. It seems that true religious belief and devotion should be willing to endure at least a little discomfort for the sake of the cause.