ReasonableDoubt

The bottom line is that everyone takes some sort of bet with their beliefs. An atheist "bets" that there is no God so so what? A theist "bets" there is so tries to figure out the best way to comprehend and worship it, for lack of a better word.
Some of us are right, some are wrong. It just is a matter that cannot be determined now.

rem

The issue is that even if you do make the correct 'bet', will that particular god even accept your 'worship' given that it is based on a bet. You would have to hope that the god you choose to believe in will accept insincere belief. It's pretty much impossible to have a sincere belief in something against your will or based on fear.

I know if the above assumption were true and I used Pascal's wager as a basis for belief, I'd be totally screwed!

rem

ReasonableDoubt

I know you can't "will" yourself to believe if you don't believe there's enough evidence. Your "belief" is not something you can really choose to have or not. However, you can act as though you believe, even if you have many doubts. Beliefs really can only be measured by actions anyway.
If I say I believe in fidelity yet am blatantly cheating on my spouse, the action of cheating is what is measurable. Who cares about the "belief"?

ReasonableDoubt

And how do we know that that God would not accept "insincere" belief or belief out of fear? Maybe that God just wants people to follow him even if they are afraid or insincere.

rem

ReasonableDoubt,

The god of the bible can supposedly read hearts.

And that's exactly the point. No one really knows - it could go both ways. Thus Pascal's Wager is not an adequate basis for (forced) belief. If we are talking about the god of the bible, then it is quite obvious that this 'jealous god' does not accept insincere worship or belief.

rem

callmejay

One of the many reason's Pascal's Wager is silly is this:

Do you really believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being would send you to hell for honestly not believing in him? I think it's a ridiculous proposition.

Of course you could always just reverse the wager:

If you don't believe in God, you spend this life doing whatever it is you want to be doing with it and if a vengeful, petty God exists, you go to hell. If one doesn't, you've lived your best life. If you do believe in God, you spend this life doing things you don't necessarily want to be doing and you don't do a lot of things you'd like to. If a vengeful, petty God exists you may go to Heaven, but this life sucked. If he doesn't, this life sucked AND there's no afterlife to enjoy either. Given the overwhelming evidence that this life exists and the nonexistent evidence an afterlife exists, I'd have to say that the smart move is to enjoy this life. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. :-)

stretch

Hi Jay,

uh ... your reversal IS Pascal's wager ....

stretch

Now that I have a couple of more minutes ... I'll finish that last post ...

The structure of the problem is basically the same as Pascal's. The only difference is in the assessment of the probabilities and/or payoffs. Unless you make the payoff in the case of a pleasant 'afterlife' finite or the probability of an 'afterlife' zero ... I think that you are stuck with the same results as Pascal.

Neilium

Well, in the time it was written, quite a few people did believe that. A lot of people still do.

Pascal said as much. I don't think he ever said the words "vengeful and petty" about God (at least not in his writings.) But those are the four possible outcomes. Pascal's Wager isn't about the nature of God; his assumptions regarding reward and retribution were drawn from the commonly held beliefs of the day. The wager is about choosing the prudent plan of action.

Pascal addresses this. The wager is predicated on the absence of evidence that there is an afterlife.

I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager is true; I'm placing the same bet you are. I wouldn't call it silly, though. Considering the time in which it was written, it's a pretty remarkable bit of logic and an important link in a remarkable intellectual tradition.

-neil(ium)

fwh

Pascal's four truths:

1." We desire truth and find in ourselves nothing but uncertainty.

2. We seek happiness and find only wretchedness and death.

3. We are incapable of not desiring truth and happiness;

4. and incapable of either certainty or happiness."
Pensees 401


"Wretchedness. Solomon and Job have known and spoken best about man's wretchedness, one the happiest, the other the unhappiest of men; one knowing by experience the vanity of pleasure, and the other the reality of afflictions."
Pensees 403