Spherical Time

As touched on in the OP, the best refutation of Pascal's wager is that it becomes absolutely meaningless in any situation with multiple contradictory and exclusive religions. If Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity could both be correct, then why is one better than the other?

pob14

The ultimate reply to the wager:

Kissing Hank's Ass

In other words, is it rational to simply believe in the religion with the best rewards and the worst punishments? If so, please join POBism immediately. In my religion, you get the streets of gold, you get the virgins, you get the eternal peace, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL . . . you also get the Ginsu Knife, the Pocket Fisherman, and a tie-dye Day-Glo souvenir shirt from Six Flags Over Burbank. But if you don't believe, you'll get sodomized by a bear while having your head shaved and your feet tickled. (Alternate punishment available for those who think that sounds like fun.) To convert, send $50 today.

Lowly Idiot

Pascal is a muppo.

Surely, you either believe or you don't.

Any kind of proper god would have you sussed from the start if you were just pretending to believe to cover the odds.

MerryAtheist

The best line I ever heard regarding Pascal's Wager was made by an agnostic calling himself (or herself) "Mirdath" on the Catholic Forums:

"Pascal's Wager is the plastic cocktail saber in the arsenal of apologetics."

That gave me quite a chuckle.

Pragmatista

Is Pascal's Wager anything but basic thuggery? "You join the gang or my thugs will kill you."

In any event, it could be turned around. If you believe in god and are wrong, you are compelled to make a hell on earth for your children by perpetuating the gospel of violence for no good reason.

Angra Mainyu

The rebuttal is much stronger. You're only considering some of the religions of today. There are plenty of extinct ones that you're not taking into consideration. Further, there are plenty of possible future religious beliefs that you're not taking into consideration. In fact, there are infinite sets of possible beliefs that you're not taking into consideration.

For instance, say god G created the universe and left no evidence of his existence. Suppose that G does not want to be worship, and in fact hates people who worship – G, on the other hand, likes skeptics who won't believe in deities without evidence.

So, G sends theists to Hell, when they'll suffer eternal torture, but takes non-theists to heaven.

That's not the best rebuttal, though. I think there's a simpler and even stronger one: the attempt to choose to believe would fail. If he “chooses to believe” just in case, he still knows that he “chose to believe” just in case, so his doubts remain the same, unless he can actually manipulate himself and has an incredible capability for self-delusion (even if Yahweh existed, that would be self-delusion, since the person in question would actually have no evidence of it). Attempting to choose to believe in Athena, Yahweh, or Thor, is not going to result in actual belief – i.e., the choice would be ineffectual, though it might work as a means of being perceived in a more favorable way by other believers.

Tiberius

My standard response to Pascal's Wager (which I have typed into Word so as to allow simple cut 'n' paste)...

So we've got Pascal's Wager, which basically states:

Very well. Let's look at each option in turn, shall we?

***

Option 1: If there's no God and you believe, then you lose nothing.

If God doesn't exist, what has the believer lost? They have lost all the time that they spent in Church being told they were sinners bound for hell, when they could have been out in the real world making that real world a better place to live. They have also lost the truth, by believing something that is false.

***

Option 2: If there is a God and you believe, you get into heaven.

If God does exist, what has the believer lost? Nothing - provided it is YOUR God! If it's a different God, however, and you've been worshipping the wrong God all your life, then not only will the real God be annoyed that you haven't believed in him, he'll also be annoyed that you've believed in a false God! And considering that there have been around 2500 Gods worshipped by people across the world throughout history, odds are pretty slim you picked the right God. Or did you examine every God and every religion before making your choice?

***

Option 3: If there's no God and you don't believe, again you lose nothing.

If God doesn't exist, what has the unbeliever lost? Nothing. This is the only instance where the person in question loses nothing.

***

Option 4: If there is a God and you don't believe, then you go to hell.

If God does exist, what does the unbeliever lose? His soul - IF God is a petty small minded being who cares nothing for how good a person is and cares only for what the person believes. But is this really how the God of the Bible judges people? No, not according to the Bible itself:

So you can see that the atheist, despite not believing, will lose NOTHING provided that he is a good person.

***

A recap of the main problems with Pascal's Wager...

1. It does not tell us WHICH God to believe in.
2. Secondly, it is not a proof of God, nor is it even evidence. It's just an argument to entice people to believe out of fear. A person who accepts Pascal's Wager will only believe out of fear, and will be doing it merely to save their own butts. That's not really belief, it's a cheap form of insurance. Surely God will see through it and won't be too happy with those who profess belief for such selfish reasons, right?

So, it doesn't matter if God exists or doesn't exist, not when it comes down to my eternal soul. Because any just God will judge me for who I am, and not what I believe, and, as I try to live a good life, I have nothing to worry about.

By the way, did you know that Pascal's Wager can also be used to get people to believe in Santa Clause?

Wiploc

That's funny. It's also misleading, since it suggests that they have other arguments that are stronger.

crc

~M~

the wager is tenable.

Wiploc

How do you figure?

crc