Pascal's Wager again

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence – but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans – and could require exactly the opposite – (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

[help3434]

To clarify, for me the use of Pascal's Wager is not an argument I would use to prove the existence of any God, but an intriguing thought experiment that reinforces the idea that belief is better than non-belief if the God of the Bible is assumed to exist.

When I said listed Pascal's Wager among philosophical arguments that was a category mistake on my part.

I don't think this wager is something that applies to other religions because Christianity is the only one (as far as I know, although I could be wrong) that states there is eternal torment for those who reject the God of the Bible. (Buddhism/Hinduism both advocate for reincarnation, Judaism advocates a view that souls who don't go to Heaven are destroyed at death-ceasing to exist and Islam advocates a view that all souls will eventually go to Heaven there would just be some who went through a period of purification by fire in purgatory). None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

Well there is the religion of the magical fairy in my kitchen. The magical fairy in my kitchen says that if ScioVeritas believes that a magical fairy lives in help3434's kitchen then ScioVeritas will have an afterlife of eternal bliss, if not then an afterlife of eternal torment, Now do you find what I just said to be persuasive, or to be a ridiculous and empty threat? If the latter then how are the assertions of the supposed consequences of belief or non belief of your God any different?

You're proposing that the teaching regarding Heaven/Hell in the Bible is false on the basis of it not being logical to you. This is my stance: #1) If Jesus existed and #2) If the Bible is an accurate reflection of His claims

Why should I believe that the Bible contains an accurate depiction of Jesus's claims and teachings? The main problem with C.S. Lewis's trilemma is that it doesn't even consider the possibility that the Gospels might not be an accurate record of what Jesus said. Even newspaper articles and other forms of journalism have been known to quote people inaccurately and they are not typically written decades after the fact.

[ScioVeritas]

Why should I believe that the Bible contains an accurate depiction of Jesus's claims and teachings? The main problem with C.S. Lewis's trilemma is that it doesn't even consider the possibility that the Gospels might not be an accurate record of what Jesus said. Even newspaper articles and other forms of journalism have been known to quote people inaccurately and they are not typically written decades after the fact.

The purpose of my post was not to try and convince you of the accuracy of Jesus' claims as reported in the Gospels. I was only stating that following those two assumptions leads to the C.S. Lewis trilemma. Since I maintain that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of what Jesus said then for me those are the three options that make sense and leads into leaning toward Lord because liar is ruled out and if it is a delusion then oh well, no loss for me. This is where Pascal's Wager comes into play.

[Haven]

The purpose of my post was not to try and convince you of the accuracy of Jesus' claims as reported in the Gospels. I was only stating that following those two assumptions leads to the C.S. Lewis trilemma. Since I maintain that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of what Jesus said then for me those are the three options that make sense and leads into leaning toward Lord because liar is ruled out and if it is a delusion then oh well, no loss for me. This is where Pascal's Wager comes into play.

Lewis' famous "lord, liar, or lunatic" is a false trilemma. It leaves out several options, including:

1) The gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' claims
2) Jesus believed his words to be true, but was simply mistaken (not insane)
3) Jesus, as worshiped in the Christian religion, was largely a fictional construct

And again, Pascal's Wager would only work if there were only one possible god concept. Since this isn't the case, it's absurd. If you assume Christianity is true, then yes the Wager makes sense, but then all you've done is made a circular argument.

[ScioVeritas]

The purpose of my post was not to try and convince you of the accuracy of Jesus' claims as reported in the Gospels. I was only stating that following those two assumptions leads to the C.S. Lewis trilemma. Since I maintain that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of what Jesus said then for me those are the three options that make sense and leads into leaning toward Lord because liar is ruled out and if it is a delusion then oh well, no loss for me. This is where Pascal's Wager comes into play.

Lewis' famous "lord, liar, or lunatic" is a false trilemma. It leaves out several options, including:

1) The gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' claims
2) Jesus believed his words to be true, but was simply mistaken (not insane)
3) Jesus, as worshiped in the Christian religion, was largely a fictional construct

And again, Pascal's Wager would only work if there were only one possible god concept. Since this isn't the case, it's absurd.

Do you have any support for those 3 options? Or are they just hypothetical situations you're using?

[arian]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

I don't know your story so I won't presume to make any assumptions about your previous spiritual life - when it comes to "missing out" on things I can only speak from my own experience. I was not a Christian for many years and thus there was nothing that I held myself back from. If I wanted money, women, alcohol, drugs, etc, then I went out and got it. If I wanted to travel somewhere I went. If there was something I wanted to do then I did it. For me it was empty and meaningless. What I have now is much greater and if anything what I've lost is a lot of time wasted pursuing those things when I could have had the peace and joy that I have now pursuing the one thing that actually matters. So I can't relate to your situation because I don't count time in Bible study, prayer or going to church as a waste.

Hey, .. I like what you said here ScioVeritas, so true. I myself was brought up as a Christian in the Christian Religion, but I was excommunicated. Here are the things I deeply miss about being a member of a Christian Denomination:

The Fellowship
The singings
The youth groups
That every Thursday, and Sunday I would be with people I have known and trusted all my life, people who my parents and even grand parents grew up with, hundreds of them. I don't remember anyone there who was not there because they wanted to be. (OK, .. there were some teenagers who the parents did keep their eye on and had to be there because: "this was the last time I bailed your butt out of jail, and you are not going to live at home unless you stay right here!" so they stayed at church sitting in the back pews all grumpy.)
I also missed the Bible study which was easy, comprised of: "Our Church is the only true way, we don't smoke, or watch TV, no radio, our women wear head covering, and a semi-subliminal but loud: "We are white". This was just great, until I actually studied the Bible (which got me excommunicated) and went to other denominations, other religions (a big no-no!), ideologies etc. and realized how wrong that all was.

But I still long for a congregation, that unity, that one mindedness, .. open mindedness though, that puts science, observing the reality around us both scientifically and philosophically. I want to build upon my faith by evidence with substance, not in some created-creator which you have to accept on blind faith. Where instead of learning long (often beautiful sounding prayers), they would speak from the heart, which in my old churches case would be saying how pitiful, greedy, discriminating and blind we are, .. and beg for God to open our eyes, not how much better we are, and how open our eyes are compared to 'them' (with a nod towards the church across the street.)

So yes, I don't see how these 'former Christians' who supposedly spent 20, 30 years of their lives in wasted-hell and now they are stuck spending the rest of their lives speaking out against Christianity!? I mean yea, there are those cults like Jim Jones, but that is not the norm. Besides, they were wonderful together until Jones started seeing himself as Jesus Christ.

Take care ScioVeritas!

[Haven]

The purpose of my post was not to try and convince you of the accuracy of Jesus' claims as reported in the Gospels. I was only stating that following those two assumptions leads to the C.S. Lewis trilemma. Since I maintain that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of what Jesus said then for me those are the three options that make sense and leads into leaning toward Lord because liar is ruled out and if it is a delusion then oh well, no loss for me. This is where Pascal's Wager comes into play.

Lewis' famous "lord, liar, or lunatic" is a false trilemma. It leaves out several options, including:

1) The gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' claims
2) Jesus believed his words to be true, but was simply mistaken (not insane)
3) Jesus, as worshiped in the Christian religion, was largely a fictional construct

And again, Pascal's Wager would only work if there were only one possible god concept. Since this isn't the case, it's absurd.

Do you have any support for those 3 options? Or are they just hypothetical situations you're using?

There's a lot of support for the idea that the gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' life. See this video by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman:

Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is also a good introductory book on the subject.

[OnceConvinced]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

Since we'll experience life for eternity, a few moments of being a Christian isn't anything to worry about. Besides, you won't remember living in this first age after your body dies in this one.

But I don't believe there is an eternity. So why would I accept your claim? As far as I can see this is the one life we have and we need to live it to its fullest. There is no guarantee of any after life. I would be foolish to live my life around what I see as a Christian fantasy and possibly lose out on the one life I have by wasting it on religious nonsense.

Your Pascal's wager just doesn't work, because I see way too much to lose by living the Christian life.

[OnceConvinced]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

I don't know your story so I won't presume to make any assumptions about your previous spiritual life - when it comes to "missing out" on things I can only speak from my own experience. I was not a Christian for many years and thus there was nothing that I held myself back from. If I wanted money, women, alcohol, drugs, etc, then I went out and got it. If I wanted to travel somewhere I went. If there was something I wanted to do then I did it. For me it was empty and meaningless. What I have now is much greater and if anything what I've lost is a lot of time wasted pursuing those things when I could have had the peace and joy that I have now pursuing the one thing that actually matters. So I can't relate to your situation because I don't count time in Bible study, prayer or going to church as a waste.

It's not just the time I believe I wasted on religious nonsense. It's also the teaching that affected my life in negative ways. Due to my parents beliefs, it was forced on me and my views were tainted by their beliefs. I can see many problems I had in my life as a result of biblical teachings. By embracing Christianity again I would have to re-embrace those harmful teachings. So not only am I wasting my time on religious nonsense I'm also going to have my psychological and emotional wellbeing affected negatively.

So once again Pascal's Wager shows itself to be extremely flawed. There is just way too much to lose for me to go back into the Christian fantasy world. Too much physiological rubbish I would have to re-embrace. Those who were never Christians could see that this would be the case too.

[ScioVeritas]

The purpose of my post was not to try and convince you of the accuracy of Jesus' claims as reported in the Gospels. I was only stating that following those two assumptions leads to the C.S. Lewis trilemma. Since I maintain that the Gospels are an accurate depiction of what Jesus said then for me those are the three options that make sense and leads into leaning toward Lord because liar is ruled out and if it is a delusion then oh well, no loss for me. This is where Pascal's Wager comes into play.

Lewis' famous "lord, liar, or lunatic" is a false trilemma. It leaves out several options, including:

1) The gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' claims
2) Jesus believed his words to be true, but was simply mistaken (not insane)
3) Jesus, as worshiped in the Christian religion, was largely a fictional construct

And again, Pascal's Wager would only work if there were only one possible god concept. Since this isn't the case, it's absurd.

Do you have any support for those 3 options? Or are they just hypothetical situations you're using?

There's a lot of support for the idea that the gospels weren't accurate records of Jesus' life. See this video by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman:

Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus is also a good introductory book on the subject.

I've actually heard of that book and I've also done some research into Bart Ehrman since many people who formally identified as Christians like to use his research to support their viewpoints so I'm familiar with a number of his arguments. If I understood it correctly he is saying that since we don't have the originals then we can't know what was really said. However in a debate ( I can find the link later - it was with James White) Bart also admits that the NT is the most documented book in antiquity by a significant margin. (I.E. the writings of Plato, Homer, Aristotle, etc. all have less supporting evidence and manuscripts than the NT does)- so we also don't know what any of those authors really wrote if the same line of reasoning is used. I will grant that we don't know for sure that the manuscripts we do have are 100% faithful to the originals, but there's no evidence to either prove or disprove that since we simply don't have the originals.

EDIT: Found this article on an apologetics website, so take it with a grain of salt but I still think it's interesting and worth mentioning: http://tawapologetics.blogspot.com/2010 ... HrJJkF4rnj

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 45 by arian]

I will admit, there were things about church and the people that were great and some of my fondest memories have been at church activities. However for me now if I were to look at going back into it, I feel I would be giving up a lot of time and effort and re-embracing something that was psychologically harmful to me. I feel I am so much better off in my life now without the yoke of Christianity and can't see how Pascal's Wager is in any way an appealing argument, not only to me but anyone who is not already a Christian.