Cthulhu's Wager

[AthiestAtheist]

Is it true that there is really nothing to lose by worshiping god?

No.

Even if there's a god you lose all self-respect and dignity for starters, and then there's the staggering irretrievable amount of time you wasted praying to this deity during your one-and-only life.

Muslims who pray 5-a-day have my sympathies.

This is exactly what I say. I would lose my dignity, and waste my time following rules that I don't believe in, and then I would have to worry about some omniscient freak watching my every move. Yeah, not exactly attractive to me...

[phurgawtin]

I don't think I could word it any more efficiently than this image, so I'll just let it do the talking for me.

[Zen Badger]

I'm always amazed when the christians bring that one up.

Do they think their god so stupid that he would be so easily taken in?

Or does he just not care as long as you go through the motions?

[Welsh cake]

Besides, if God really wants me to worship him, all he's got to do is show me that he exists and is worthy of worship.

Indeed. If you're a humanist, worshipping a suddenly-demonstrable deity is not just unlikely but inconceivable. The world hasn't changed, a lot of people are still living wretched miserable existences that would make any sane individual who cares about the rest of humanity irreconcilable with a god. Theists expecting devotion from everyone, and every knee bowing, when their god doesn't care about everyone is unrealistic.

Even if said god was omni-benevolent and magically just changed the rules of reality so that death, suffering and loss were impossible you'd still be under no obligation to worship it, but to seek to 'befriend' the being instead.

And also if the deity in question is perfect then it has no want or need for worship from humans, which subsequently fucks over the very fundamental concept and core practices of virtually every monotheistic religion out there.

[Abracadabra]

Is it true that there is really nothing to lose by worshiping god?

Pascal's one-size-fits-all argument fails when you consider that the concept of "gain/loss" is a personal value judgement and presupposes that certain conditions can be universally considered beneficial. This is not the case.

If one's personal views on ethics, justice and morality are closely aligned with those that are claimed to be held by the god in question, and one finds value in the reward of eternal afterlife in the presence of said god, then one might find the wager convincing.

On the other hand, if one finds god's ethics, justice and morality to be deficient or even malignant, one could not be expected to be thrilled by the prospect of spending an eternity worshiping said god. To such a person, Pascal's Wager is a losing proposition.

I certainly agree with what you've said here.

If a person "worships" a God that represents their very own views on ethics, justice, and morality, there there is nothing to lose in worshiping such a God. Of course, that can depend too on how one goes about "worshiping" the God. If a lot of time is being wasted in performing rituals or prayers that have no practical benefit then it could still be a waste of time, even if the moral values were in harmony. On the other hand, if the rituals of worship had practical constructive value, then those rituals might be worth performing even without believing in a God.

For example, meditations to quiet the mind and focus awareness and an ability to concentrate, are probably beneficial to any sentient being whether they believe in a "god" or not. So if they coincidentally perform those activities as rituals for 'worship' of a God, then the motives are irrelevant since the outcome will be positive and productive in any case.

But I totally agree that to live ones life worshiping and behaving in accordance with absurd fables of fictitious jealous Gods just in the hope that this might make them eligible for a possible gift, would indeed be stupid and unproductive. Not only that, but even according to those types of religions that would be the wrong motive to worship the God anyway. It would supposedly be recognized by that God to be insincere gambling anyway.

So it would be utterly fruitless even if the God in question actually existed.

I personally could not worship the ancient Hebrew God of Abraham because I personally don't agree with many of the immoral bigotries required by those fables.

Such a "God" is not in harmony with my personal views of what righteousness or benevolence even means. So that religion would be a total waste of time for me in every imaginable scenario.

Besides, what is Pascal proposing? That people should pretentiously worship a God in the hopes of pulling the wool over the God's eyes and receive salvation for their pretense?

That's a suggestion that goes entirely against what the religion (at least the Abrahamic religoins) even claims to be about.

Pretense could never achieve salvation, especially not in Christianity.

That would be to suggest that Jesus is offering "Casino Salvation" Place your bets here!

[genkaus]

I do think that Pascal's wager is misunderstood on one point.

I don't think that the argument asks you to go through the motions of a believer and hope that somehow it would trick god into thinking that you are one. I think it is asking you to actually be a believer. To keep telling yourself that god exists and keep lending credence to any evidence that could remotely suggest the possibility. I think it is saying that if you tell it to yourself long enough, eventually you will convince yourself and become a believer.

Not that this would make the argument any more valid or even better. In fact, if anything, it would make it even worse. Because in this case, the argument is basically asking you to brainwash yourself (and excusing the religious leaders from the job). To ask someone to commit such an atrocity against oneself is worse than murder. Atleast with a murdered you have a chance of defending yourself. This argument is asking you to take up the weapon and kill yourself.

[Abracadabra]

I do think that Pascal's wager is misunderstood on one point.

I don't think that the argument asks you to go through the motions of a believer and hope that somehow it would trick god into thinking that you are one. I think it is asking you to actually be a believer. To keep telling yourself that god exists and keep lending credence to any evidence that could remotely suggest the possibility. I think it is saying that if you tell it to yourself long enough, eventually you will convince yourself and become a believer.

Not that this would make the argument any more valid or even better. In fact, if anything, it would make it even worse. Because in this case, the argument is basically asking you to brainwash yourself (and excusing the religious leaders from the job). To ask someone to commit such an atrocity against oneself is worse than murder. Atleast with a murdered you have a chance of defending yourself. This argument is asking you to take up the weapon and kill yourself.

I think you addressed the problem yourself.

You're not supposed to be brainwashing yourself into believing in this God anyway. You're supposed to love this God with all your mind, heart, and soul.

So even if a person did try (for the gambling reasons of Pascal) to desperately try to brainwash themselves, would that truly lead to a sincere and genuine 'love' of the God?

That would take one hell of a lot of self-brainwashing for me. I'd need to be cheering this God along in everything he does:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Yeah! Cause the bitch pain in childbirth! Way to go God!

That's truly benevolent of you! What mercy you have!

And yeah! Make her a slave to her husband! Whoopee!

Go GOD!

~~~~

Damn, that's a lot of brainwashing and we're just at the very beginning of the fable.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Do they think their god so stupid that he would be so easily taken in?
Or does he just not care as long as you go through the motions?

Both certainly true of the YHWH of the Torah. HE was pretty fucking thick,as well as a dead cunt.

[Minimalist]

I'm always amazed when the christians bring that one up.

Do they think their god so stupid that he would be so easily taken in?

Or does he just not care as long as you go through the motions?

Pascal - who was a catholic which usually annoys the shit out of fundies - lived at a time when "uniformity" was considered essential to the religious fanatics on both sides of his day. Going through the motions was probably enough to fool the idiots but they were the ones operating the torture devices.

As Jefferson said on the subject:

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. "