Examining Pascal's Wager

[Paul of Tarsus]

(My treatment of Pascal's Wager will be a bit technical in this OP, but please bear with me because my examination of Pascal's Wager should be informative.)

According to Wikipedia:

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

What decision should we make regarding the existence of God, and what are the potential consequences of that decision?

To answer this question, we should start with the "null hypothesis" (so named because of it's negation, "not.")

H0: God does not exist.

Note that this null hypothesis can be true or false, and we can reject it or fail to reject it. A summary of the four combinations of these possibilities are the following:

We reject the null hypothesis (we believe in God) and
A. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type I" error.
B. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type B correct decision."

We fail to reject the null hypothesis (we don't believe in God) and
C. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type A correct decision."
D. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type II" error.

So if theists err because God doesn't exist, then they commit a Type I error. If atheists err (God does exist), then they commit a Type II error.

Which of these two errors has more serious consequences? As pascal points out in his wager, the gains of believing in God are infinite while the gains of doubt are finite. So if we doubt God's existence, then we better make darn sure we are right. If we believe in God, on the other hand, then the probability of being wrong need not be so low. So contrary to Pascal, I won't tell anybody that it's better to believe in God or not; it's just best to make sure you are making the correct decision whether you believe in God or not. Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I agree that it may be impossible for some people to choose to believe in God or anything else, but for the purposes of this debate let's assume that a person at least can try to believe in God through prayer, Bible study, and church attendance.

That sounds more like brainwashing oneself rather than coming to a genuine belief in God.

People often try to think and feel differently. It's not brainwashing to do so. And just to demonstrate that I'm fair, I'd suggest that Christians try atheism if they're game.

Consistently applying your suggestion to vulnerable minds such as the very young will no doubt lead to belief in the chosen God.

It's certainly not just the religious who make suggestions to the young. Those "vulnerable minds" are also irresponsible minds who need adult direction. Parents have a big influence on their kids. Is that brainwashing.

But it works for any of the numerous different religions, sects and gods around the world and has nothing to do with what is true. Why try to force yourself to believe something is true when everything tells you it is false?

If you're convinced that Christianity is false, then don't believe it.

Just in case? Any deity that relies on such a pathetic pathway to belief in him is hardly worthy of worship anyway. If he want people to believe in him, quit the ridiculous game of hide and seek.

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

[Tcg]

And just to demonstrate that I'm fair, I'd suggest that Christians try atheism if they're game.

How would a theist (not all Christians are) go about trying atheism?

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

We hear this trite suggestion time and again. It of course overlooks the fact that many have sought him and found nothing. Absolute zero.


Tcg

[brunumb]

It's certainly not just the religious who make suggestions to the young. Those "vulnerable minds" are also irresponsible minds who need adult direction. Parents have a big influence on their kids. Is that brainwashing.

When you inculcate beliefs into trusting and uncritical minds, presenting them as factually true, then that really is a violation of free will. It is not about making suggestions or giving directions, it is indoctrination into an unproven belief system.

[brunumb]

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

If he's not hiding, why do you have to seek him? What is the big problem with God simply revealing himself directly and unequivocally to everyone rather than through ridiculous scenarios involving only selected individuals?

[JehovahsWitness]

...God is like a general who loves his men when they obey his orders.

There is no doubt in my mind that God has special affection for those who love and obey Him but the bible explains that God has expressed his love for mankind even though the majority of people neither know, love or obey him.

1 John 4:10 NLT

This is real love—not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins.

Biblically God has loved his enemies even though he doesnt like them.


JW

[Bust Nak]

By what I know, you will not have for example eternal life, if you reject God. But, maybe I am wrong, do you know that you could get something after this life, even if you reject God, or other gods?

I don't know anything about an afterlife, I can however make up endless scenarios on how I can potentially have an happy afterlife by rejecting God or other gods. Scenarios that are non-self-contradictory and therefore has a non-zero chance of being true. Scenario such as, there is a god that reward disbelievers, that's possible, isn't it?

[1213]

...
I don't know anything about an afterlife, I can however make up endless scenarios on how I can potentially have an happy afterlife by rejecting God or other gods. Scenarios that are non-self-contradictory and therefore has a non-zero chance of being true. Scenario such as, there is a god that reward disbelievers, that's possible, isn't it?

But, if you just make up it, I don’t see any value in it, because even you would know that you just made up it and it is not true. Of course, you could claim that Bible is just made up. But, by what we know, they were serious who wrote it, which makes it different, there is even some potential, while yours doesn’t have any.

[1213]

By what I know, you will not have for example eternal life, if you reject God.

Please explain how you actually know that rather than just believe it. Also, rejecting God is not the same as failing to believe in God.

I agree that belief and reject are not necessary the same. And in Bible, the key seems to be that person is righteous and loyal to God, doesn’t reject God.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

But the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:38

However, it is difficult to see how person doesn’t believe, but is loyal to God anyway.

And those scriptures are the reason how I know how things are with Bible God. But, different thing can be is Bible correct on that. I believe it is.

[1213]

...
Promises are a dime a dozen. You don't need any gods to live a 'righteous' life.

Unfortunately, I don’t see that to be true.

Care to support that claim so that it is more than just your biased opinion?

Sorry, I don’t see how to prove that I have not seen something to be true.

[Paul of Tarsus]

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

If he's not hiding, why do you have to seek him?

Maybe because we don't know where he is. I need to seek a lot of things that are not hiding.

What is the big problem with God simply revealing himself directly and unequivocally to everyone rather than through ridiculous scenarios involving only selected individuals?

I think that might be explained by the logos. The Greeks understood that since God is holy, he will not defile himself by making contact with a sinful world. He then selects those individuals who are most worthy to receive his revelations--the "logos." Christ, of course, personified the perfect logos. He was "the Word" sent by God to reveal the Kingdom of God to all who would receive it. (See John 1.)