At its simplest, Pascal's Wager states: "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing, but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore believing in God wholeheartedly is the most sensible approach."
While this has been taken apart by any number of people, logically and theologically, it serves as an base for my own theory, hereafter known as "Bridges' Bet."
If I don't believe in God and instead live as I think a good man should -- helping others, leaving the world and those in it a little better than before, and savoring the sweetness of life that ends at death, then when I die I will have lived a full life. If there is no afterlife, no worries. If there is, and there is a God, than either he will embrace me as a son who didn't require punishment or rewards to do good, or else he won't, in which case he wouldn't be the kind of God I could respect anyway.
I'm risking more than Pascal, but where's the integrity of worshipping just to play the odds?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Besides... what if God lets in everyone except those who believe in him because of Pascal's wager?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
No one knows.
More fish anyone?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
I heard a rather elegant ... well, not refutation, exactly ... an elegant spin on it.
Instead of assuming two cases, namely, God exists and God does not exist, assume three cases: God exists, God does not exist, and Zeus exists.
Now, God holds no special grudge against Zeus. After all, if God exists, Zeus is just another false idol: no better and no worse than any false idol. But Zeus really hates the Christian God, because, after all, He stole all of Zeus's worshippers.
Therefore, the truth table is identical except that if you worship the Christian God and it turns out that He doesn't exist but Zeus does, then you're really screwed!
Jeff
Posted by Polemarch (Member # 3293) on :
I agree. If you're worshiping just in case, isn't it not the kind of worship that God would find offensive anyway? It's self centered, whereas acting as you think good person should to make the world better is the kind of thing that an admirable God would reward.
(Edit: this was made in reply to the original post)
[ December 15, 2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Polemarch ]
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
There are many more problems present with pascal's wager than simple logic as well. For one, it is quite difficult to imagine a person who will gain GENUINE belief in God simply because it would do him the most good. I.E If a person decides simply to believe in God, not because he actually believes he exists, but becuase he is playing the odds then it seems unlikely that the person would foster true beliefs.
Finally, I like the answer earlier about Zeus. Yet, if you want to be more thorough you can add Allah, Brahman, Nirvana, Jupiter, and many others. When the chart is completed it in fact becomes more profitable not to believe in God!
Had to throw in my two cents. Hey 98 more and you can get a coke!
Posted by Pascal's Lager (Member # 5999) on :
Boy, one little typo...
Posted by Pascal's Lager (Member # 5999) on :
Still, I'd rather have a computer language named after me than a card game.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Do I believe in life after death? Yes. Why?
If there is life after death, then by believing in it I am correct.
If there is not life after death, then this life is all there is.
If this life is all there is I should do things that make me comfortable while I am alive instead of suffering needlessly.
Believing that once dead I cease to be makes me uncomfortable.
Hence believing in Life after Death, even if there is no life after death, is the correct thing to do.
Its a Lie I can live with.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I've always considered Pascal's Wager to be reasonable for one to convince oneself, but insufficient as evidence to convince another. But I also think that some trains of logic/reason are inaccurately categorized as being "Pascal's Wager" simply because they include some form of "I'm no worse off if turns out I'm wrong." I think Pascal's Wager in its original form was specific, but over time has become more generalized, and some of the refutations/arguments against it apply only in the specific, but are used against the general.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)