The Problem with Pascal's Wager

[Rhondazvous]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here are my reasons:

1) Belief is not a choice.
2) Atheists are just as likely to go to heaven or hell as theists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

2) Atheists are just as likely to go to heaven or hell as theists.

On who's authority?

[Minimalist]

I'd love to see some xtian asshole come face to face with Odin after not dying with a weapon in his hand.


Of course, Odin is just as mythical as yahweh and all the rest of the bullshit, but it is an intriguing thought.

[vorlon13]

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.

I also note not all the tens of thousands of Christian sects, denominations, splits, unaffiliateds, and schisms are convinced any of the others confer Salvation upon their adherents.

Clearly, even a 'belief' in a generic Christianity would in the minds of most of the more pious believers be insufficient.

[The Grand Nudger]

Full disclosure...I;m definitely going to make sure that every one of my kids knows to go get a kitchen knife, at least..when they think I;m breathing my last.  Don;t wanna show up to the after party empty handed.  You never know when you;re gonna hafta stab a bitch.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

On the contrary:

You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

On who's authority?

I'm just referring to the fact that there are an infinite number of conceivable beings that could all give different reasons, some of them could be in favor of belief, others in favor of disbelief, others liking both, others liking neither. And there's no evidence for any of them so they all cancel each other out.

And if we're talking about a reasonable God... there's always the quote from my AF signature.

[Tiberius]

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.

2) Atheists are just as likely to go to heaven or hell as theists.

On who's authority?

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?

[Minimalist]

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

On the contrary:

You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

---

To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

---

So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that it denies existential freedom. The alternative, as you presented in the Strawson quote, is that people are biological robots. If that is true, then you don't believe the Stawson quote is true because it actually is true; but rather, because you are compelled to feel like it is true. That is a very bleak viewpoint.