The Problem with Pascal's Wager

[Rhondazvous]

1) Belief is not a choice.

That stance denies existential freedom. I say, everyone is ultimately responsible for how he or she responds to the world. That includes what they believe.

what one believes is largely a matter of where one was born and what circumstances shaped one's paradigm. Since a plethora of religions make equal claim to being "the truth," its a matter of luck if someone just happens to subscribe to the right one. That's not a choice at all, and is certainly not something one can be held morally responsible for in the same way one is responsible for one's actions.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that it denies existential freedom.

Yes it denies existential freedom. But I'm not saying that it doesn't and you're not saying that I'm wrong. Great! Suits me!

The alternative, as you presented in the Strawson quote, is that people are biological robots.

Yes.

If that is true, then you don't believe the Stawson quote is true because it because it actually is true; but rather, because that belief, that the Strawson quote is true, has been forced upon you.

No... I believe that it is both true and that I believe it is true because that that belief was forced upon me. When I see how sound the argument is the soundness of the argument compels me to believe in it. Although I already believed it before I read it. Strawson just expresses it the most clearly and concisely.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are you saying you could personally choose not to believe in God right now? Or are you saying that it’s more of a passive choice, but still ultimately your choice?

No. I am saying that to believe something is the result of freely undertaken inquiries and freely accepting their conclusions. How many times have you rechecked some math instead of just trusting that you got the correct answer the first time? At some point you choose whether or not to accept that the results of your calculations are true, i.e. you freely chose to believe they are true.

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you saying you could personally choose not to believe in God right now? Or are you saying that it’s more of a passive choice, but still ultimately your choice?

No. I am saying that to believe something is the result of freely undertaken inquiries and freely accepting their conclusions. How many times have you rechecked some math instead of just trusting that you got the correct answer the first time? At some point you choose whether or not to accept that the results of your calculations are true, i.e. you freely chose to believe they are true.

That last step you keep adding is your mistake. Once the conclusion is comprehended rationally one is compelled to believe it... one does not then decide "Okay it seems rational let's believe it!".

[vorlon13]

I'd even posit that if one wanted to design a religion to thwart Pascal's wager, Christianity with it's endless varieties and innumerable sects would be the standard by which all other Pascal Wager defying faiths would be measured.

[Edwardo Piet]

That is a very bleak viewpoint.

Irrelevant.

[RoadRunner79]

Pascal’s Wager says when it comes to our eternal fate, it’s better to err on the side of caution than risk the possibility that Christianity may be true. That does seem to make more sense if there was nothing else to consider, but I find that there are a few other things that when taken into consideration tend to take the punch out of this wager.

1. Christianity is not the only religion that consigns nonsubscribers to hell. Christians tell me if I don’t believe Jesus is the son of god I will go to hell. Muslims tell if I do believe god has a son I will go to hell. So whatever I choose to believe or not believe I run the risk of offending somebody’s god.
2. Paul and Jesus are at diametrical odds about the requirements for salvation. When the rich man came to Jesus wanting to know what he needed to do to enter life, Jesus didn’t tell him there was nothing he could do. He told the man to obey the law, take up his cross and follow him. Paul, OTOH, tells us that by the works of the law NO flesh can be sav ed. By saying no flesh, he precludes the argument that there were separate requirements under the old covenant. Ergo, if Christianity is true, millions of Christians will have to explain to god why they believed Paul knew more about the requirements for salvation than Jesus did. Wouldn’t pascal’s wager, lead us to play it safe and side with Jesus as the authority on salvation?
3. Subscribing to Christianity because it might be true is nothing more than intellectual assent and would not bring about the kind of soul seep spiritual transformation that purportedly stems from true belief. Like James said you believe in god? Big deal. The devils believe, too, and they tremble.

1. Because there may be other alternatives, it doesn't change Pascal's wager. When comparing atheism with any of those, the reasoning still holds.
2. The person who wrote this, is either purposely or ignorantly distorting the history of Christianity.
3. I agree here (it's not just an intellectual acknowledgement) , however don't think that it changes the point of Pascal's wager.

[Edwardo Piet]

 When comparing atheism with any of those, the reasoning still holds.

What reasoning? "Best choose to believe because if there's a God that wants you to believe and you don't then you burn in hell!" doesn't seem reasonable to me. What about all the gods that want you to not believe? It just seems like an irrelevant hypothetical. And since belief is an involuntary action... even if not believing in the Christian God does send oneself to hell, and one is an atheist, and one wants to believe because one does not want to go to hell. Their desire to avoid hell doesn't lead to the conclusion that hell or God exists. Don't you see the problem there?

[vorlon13]

I think we can eliminate any consideration of Mormonism as being a safe place for folks gambling on Pascal's Wager.

[Rhondazvous]

[quote='Neo-Scholastic' pid='1752889' dateline='1525991217']
I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that it denies existential freedom.

Yes it denies existential freedom. But I'm not saying that it doesn't and you're not saying that I'm wrong. Great! Suits me!

No... I believe that it is both true and that I believe it is true because that that belief was forced upon me. When I see how sound the argument is the soundness of the argument compels me to believe in it. Although I already believed it before I read it. Strawson just expresses it the most clearly and concisely.

I understand. If you were forced to believe it is true, then you have to believe that you believe it is true because it is true. If you didn't believe that you believe it is true because it is true, then you don't believe it is true and haven't been forced to believe it's true.

Ah, I've reached the center of the labyrinth.