I think Pascal's wager is crap

RobFunk · May 24, 2005

He does nothing to say what the rewards are for spending your life not believing

Atheist's wager

<CENTER>

Blaise Pascal

<TABLE cellPadding=10 width="85%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="5%" bgColor=#ddeedd>-</TD><TD bgColor=#eeffee>

Pascal's Wager is well-known to many atheists. On the internet, it is probably the most common argument heard from Christians, and the regulars of newsgroups such as alt.atheism feel cheated if a week goes by without someone bringing it up (this rarely happens), only to be shot down in flames (this always happens). It is also one of the most common arguments I receive in my email box, so this article was written specifically to deal with it.

Pascal's Wager is quite simple, and superficially appears to be a strong and compelling argument for theism. However, a little close scrutiny soon reveals the flawed logic and reasoning behind it, which actually makes it one of the weakest arguments a theist could come up with.

The Wager

Pascal's Wager can be presented in many different forms, usually something like this:
<CENTER>[size=+1]"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything." [/size]</CENTER>

Alternatively :
<CENTER>[size=+1]"It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way. "
[/size]</CENTER>It amounts to hedging your bets. The consequences upon your death are shown here:

<CENTER><TABLE cellPadding=5 border=3><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>God exists</TD><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>God does not exist</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>I believe</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Go To Heaven</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Nothing</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>I do not believe</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Burn In Hell!</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Nothing</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

The worst case for the theist is no afterlife, the worst case for the atheist is an eternity in Hell. You can see why this appears to be a potentially convincing argument - it is sensible to choose the least-worst case. The flaws

The most obvious problems with Pascal's Wager are:

How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?
If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.
Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.
Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.
It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?
It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.

Pascal's Wager is hopelessly flawed. It sounds good at first, but poke it with the spike of reason and it quickly deflates, letting out all the hot air.

An alternative - The Atheist's Wager

This seems to be much more reasonable, both for atheists and theists :
<CENTER>[size=+1]"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him." [/size]</CENTER>

(And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!)
This can be shown as:

<CENTER><TABLE cellPadding=5 border=3><TBODY><TR><TD></TD><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>God exists</TD><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>God does not exist</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>I believe</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Go To Heaven because
you believed</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Wasted life praying etc.</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#e0e0e0>I do not believe</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Go To Heaven because
you're a good person</TD><TD bgColor=#ffffff>Made the world a better place</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

Has anyone got the number for Pascal's Pager? <HR>© Adrian Barnett, 1998, 1999, 2000. Last updated 26th Feb, 2000 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</CENTER>

BoratSagdiyev · May 24, 2005

and I always thought that Pascal's wager was an AR with the Red Sox -1.5 runs and over 8.5 but it was cancelled because a certain book didn't allow tie ins like that

SVT_Cobra · May 24, 2005

Any God that gave us the ability to think would also have to understand that people will doubt what they can not prove.

Looking at it from a scientific point of view, there are just too many holes in the story.

I do have my own theories but that would take quite a while to get into.

D2bets · May 24, 2005

Borat Sagdiyev said:
and I always thought that Pascal's wager was an AR with the Red Sox -1.5 runs and over 8.5 but it was cancelled because a certain book didn't allow tie ins like that

That was Pascal's other, less popular, wager.

If ya ask me, neither Pascal's not Atheists's wager is +EV, so I'll just pass. Or maybe I can middle them?

blueedwards · May 24, 2005

SVT_Cobra said:
Any God that gave us the ability to think would also have to understand that people will doubt what they can not prove.

very true...faith is required. however, if he didn't give us the ability to think, we would be robots and have no choice but to follow him.

would you want your children to love you because they choose to love you or because they have no choice?

xpanda · May 24, 2005

blue edwards said:
would you want your children to love you because they choose to love you or because they have no choice?

Your children should love you because you, as a parent, gave them reason to. In the first place, they know you're there. If you hide from them entirely, but still run around doing nice things like setting up a college fund, buying them candy, but they don't know for a fact it was you doing it, would you punish them for not loving you?

Of course not.

Frankly, if there is a heaven and a hell, and it's the Christian version, I'd rather go to hell. Send me to heaven with the likes of freakshows like Jerry Falwell and I'll get the boot soon enough. Besides, in hell, I can chain-smoke.

blueedwards · May 24, 2005

xpanda said:
Your children should love you because you, as a parent, gave them reason to. In the first place, they know you're there. If you hide from them entirely, but still run around doing nice things like setting up a college fund, buying them candy, but they don't know for a fact it was you doing it, would you punish them for not loving you?

Of course not.

Frankly, if there is a heaven and a hell, and it's the Christian version, I'd rather go to hell. Send me to heaven with the likes of freakshows like Jerry Falwell and I'll get the boot soon enough. Besides, in hell, I can chain-smoke.

you are implying that God is hiding from us entirely...i disagree. if the biblical versions of heaven and hell is in fact the truth, i dont think you'd like it in hell too much.

D2bets · May 25, 2005

blue edwards said:
very true...faith is required. however, if he didn't give us the ability to think, we would be robots and have no choice but to follow him.

would you want your children to love you because they choose to love you or because they have no choice?

Because they choose to. And isn't that exactly the problem with religion, specifically Christianity? Doesn't Christianity basically say you have no choice -- worship God and accept Jesus as your savior, or rot in hell for eternity. No choice.

xpanda · May 25, 2005

blue edwards said:
you are implying that God is hiding from us entirely...i disagree.

So then where is god?

You already acknowledged (many times) that it requires faith to believe. Where you see god, I see human nature or Darwin or whatever. I have never seen evidence of god, and I was raised in a Catholic household, Catholic school, etc. So I was certainly conditioned to look. If god exists, and wants us to believe in him or her or it and will punish us excrutiatingly for the rest of eternity if we don't, then why not just throw out some kind of concrete evidence? Why the secrecy? What kind of mean individual would harm people simply for using the brain that this god supposedly gave us?

If heaven and hell is true, god is one cruel individual.

D2bets · May 25, 2005

xpanda, intreresting viewpoint. Seems to me that if god is an all-loving and benevolent individual then his top wish for us mankind would be to be progress and be kind to one another, not to possess a devotional belief in "his existance". What "good" does that do anyway? The ultimate in charity/benevolvence is to do good for the sake of doing good, not in return for a kickass afterlife.

xpanda · May 25, 2005

D2B: according to fundie Christians, Ghandi is in Hell but Napolean, because he (purportedly) believed in god, isn't.

'Nuff said.

Illini · May 25, 2005

Everyone is making very good points here. I personally cannot fathom being an athiest. To me, the existence of God is such a no-brainer. So much order that is holding the world together. The sun rises everyday and the seasons change. The earth revolves around the sun. I eat food, and somehow my body is just smart enough to process it as I watch games on tv. Just too much magic for me to say that it's possible that there's not a God. I am not sure what that leads to, cause I'm unsure what I believe about God. But starting with "I believe in God" is step one for me. I'm curious, xpanda, how you view the seemingly supernatural things of the world. I'm not trying to convince you, I just am curious to look at the world through your eyes.

xpanda · May 25, 2005

Without knowing precisely what you mean by 'seemingly supernatural' I'll give the shortest of answers: metaphysics.

Could you expand?

Also - and I ask this all the time - why can none of those 'worldly' things you describe exist (due to their complexity) without a creator, yet the creator itself can exist without a creator?

blueedwards · May 25, 2005

D2bets said:
Seems to me that if god is an all-loving and benevolent individual then his top wish for us mankind would be to be progress and be kind to one another, not to possess a devotional belief in "his existance".

this is what most people's arguements boil down to...their own idea of what God should think or how he should act. i have taught classes and engaged in several discussions/debates and have found that, when someone has a mindset like this, its almost impossible to have a discussion on the topic. the reason is that they have already made up their mind about what God should be like.

there is a big, big difference between someone who is seeking who God is and someone who has made up in their own mind what God should be.

by the way d2, even a cursory reading of the scriptures would tell you that God's desire is for mankind to be kind to one another. not #1 on the list but, it is #2.

blueedwards · May 25, 2005

xpanda said:
D2B: according to fundie Christians, Ghandi is in Hell but Napolean, because he (purportedly) believed in god, isn't.

'Nuff said.

if you were God, you could make the rules however you see fit. but, you are not.

xpanda · May 25, 2005

blue edwards said:
if you were God, you could make the rules however you see fit. but, you are not.

You think it is perfectly acceptable that Ghandi be punished with 'fire and brimstone' for eternity simply because of his religious beliefs? And that Napoleon, a tyrant at best, sits around on fluffy clouds playing the harp all day?

blueedwards · May 25, 2005

xpanda said:
So then where is god?

You already acknowledged (many times) that it requires faith to believe. Where you see god, I see human nature or Darwin or whatever. I have never seen evidence of god, and I was raised in a Catholic household, Catholic school, etc. So I was certainly conditioned to look. If god exists, and wants us to believe in him or her or it and will punish us excrutiatingly for the rest of eternity if we don't, then why not just throw out some kind of concrete evidence? Why the secrecy? What kind of mean individual would harm people simply for using the brain that this god supposedly gave us?

If heaven and hell is true, god is one cruel individual.

1) the fact that you look at the complexity of a human being and see darwin takes an incredible amount of faith. to think that something as complex as a human being evolved from an aomeba in the primordial sea 4 billion years ago takes more faith than i have.

2) i submit that if you see no evidence for the existence of God, that you ain't looking.

3) i further submit that there is no secrecy. you can go today and buy a bible and read the gospels and see God's love and God's plan. or you can continue to say that the bible is an unreliable book meant for the unitelligent or needy people.

4) God is cruel? well, God says he is love. who is right...you or him?

xpanda · May 25, 2005

blue edwards said:
there is a big, big difference between someone who is seeking who God is and someone who has made up in their own mind what God should be.

if you were God, you could make the rules however you see fit. but, you are not.

Ironic.

blueedwards · May 25, 2005

xpanda said:
Ironic.

how is that ironic? do you think you are God?

xpanda · May 25, 2005

blue edwards said:
1) the fact that you look at the complexity of a human being and see darwin takes an incredible amount of faith. to think that something as complex as a human being evolved from an aomeba in the primordial sea 4 billion years ago takes more faith than i have.

As much as this is true to an extent, there is some evidence that Darwin's ideas were correct. The difference between you and I, is that I don't expect science to come up with the answers in my lifetime. Nor do I really care.

2) i submit that if you see no evidence for the existence of God, that you ain't looking.

One of the things I respect most about you is your willingness to stand firm in a debate. This reply is a total cop-out.

3) i further submit that there is no secrecy. you can go today and buy a bible and read the gospels and see God's love and God's plan. or you can continue to say that the bible is an unreliable book meant for the unitelligent or needy people.

I can also go and buy a Qu'uran or any other religious book. They were written by humans as we all know. Further, I have never submitted that religious folks were unintelligent and/or needy.

4) God is cruel? well, God says he is love. who is right...you or him?

If I give you a tuba for your birthday then proceed to beat the crap out of you for 25 years because you had the gall to play it one day, would you consider me cruel? Why give us the ability to analyse and deduce if we're only going to get smacked around for billions of years afterwards for coming to different conclusions?