The Problem with Pascal's Wager

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Well... I could believe something was true without it being true, of course.

The point is that whether it's logical or illogical reasoning that compels me to believe... reasoning compels me to believe.

Not in God of course. In that argument against free will I was talking about. Or anything else I believe to be true or false.

And... when I was younger I used to think that if God was real then as an atheist I'd be going to hell. But I don't believe that anymore. And despite the fact I would have happily believed in God just to avoid hell... I didn't because I couldn't force myself to believe. But thankfully there was also the anti-pascal's wager: I'd be wasting my life if I believed in God because there's a 99.999999999% chance that God doesn't exist and that there is no afterlife so to spend the one life I have wasting all my time praying to something that doesn't exist would be wasting my whole life away.

Of course, that anti-wager is just as useless... because even if I chose to pray that wouldn't make me actually believe.

[Rhondazvous]

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!".

when we are compelled by facts, that is knowledge, not belief. Belief gives us a hedge for the possibility that we may be wrong. No hedge is needed for 2 + 2 = 4t.

[Edwardo Piet]

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!".

when we are compelled by facts, that is knowledge, not belief. Belief gives us a hedge for the possibility that we may be wrong. No hedge is needed for 2 + 2 = 4t.

Belief can be both rational and irrational. I think you're thinking of faith.

For starters, belief is one of the requisites of knowledge. Some would say that knowledge = justified true belief.

I definitely do believe that 2+2=4. The alternative would be disbelieving it.

[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.

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.

1. In fact, considering that various opposing religions and denominations consign one another to the same hell with atheist, to not believe in god at all is neither advantageous or disadvantageous. As I said there's no universal consensus on a safe course.

2. Not sure what you mean by "whoever wrote this." Are you referring to the scriptures or the op?

3. If intellectual assent is not enough, then PW will still land a person in hell.

[The Grand Nudger]

when we are compelled by facts, that is knowledge, not belief. Belief gives us a hedge for the possibility that we may be wrong. No hedge is needed for 2 + 2 = 4t.

Belief can be both rational and irrational. I think you're thinking of faith.

For starters, belief is one of the requisites of knowledge. Some would say that knowledge = justified true belief.

I definitely do believe that 2+2=4. The alternative would be disbelieving it.

#limitations of the semantics of "belief".

-You don;t know that, or do you? Do you know it and believe it? Do you believe it but not know it?

[Edwardo Piet]

Belief can be both rational and irrational. I think you're thinking of faith.

For starters, belief is one of the requisites of knowledge. Some would say that knowledge = justified true belief.

I definitely do believe that 2+2=4. The alternative would be disbelieving it.

#limitations of the semantics of "belief".

-You don;t know that, or do you?  Do you know it and believe it?  Do you believe it but not know it?

What are you trying to say there?

Every proposition is either believed or disbelieved.

And yes you can believe something but not know it.

But you can't know something but not believe it.

[The Grand Nudger]

#limitations of the semantics of "belief".

-You don;t know that, or do you?  Do you know it and believe it?  Do you believe it but not know it?

What are you trying to say there?

Every proposition is either believed or disbelieved.

And yes you can believe something but not know it.

But you can't know something but not believe it.

Just commenting of the limitations of the semantics of belief.  I;m sure you know that 2+2=4...you don;t believe it.  We can separate the two.

[Brian37]

Pascal was an idiot!

That evil philosophy is not about doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching. It literally teaches you to bet, and I don't mean modern gambling. I mean it teaches you to ignore the difference between right and wrong and pander to a master just because they say so.

"Why not take the safe bet?"

Well because ASSHOLE (meaning Pascal), I am merely one of 7 billion, and if it takes everyone else being treated like shit just so i can have an ice cream cone with you, then you are one immoral narcissistic jackass. 

It is literally an elaborate childish form of peer pressure, "Come on dude, don't you want to hang out with the cool kids?" Actually, no, I will not jump off the Brooklyn bridge just because the other kids are doing it.

[robvalue]

Believing anything at all "just in case" is a flawed concept. It could be that all the good things you thought you were getting by believing it actually apply to those who don't believe it; and vice versa for any bad things.

For example, it could be that I "get into heaven" if and only if I don't believe in God. So believing in God is not "playing it safe" at all.

This is why unfalsifiable propositions are utterly useless.

[Edwardo Piet]

 I;m sure you know that 2+2=4...you don;t believe it.  We can separate the two.

You are confused if you think I don't believe it (like I said, the only possible alternative would be disbelieving it). I both know it and believe it. Knowledge implies belief. You're confusing belief and faith.

---

It could be that all the good things you thought you were getting by believing it actually apply to those who don't believe it; and vice versa for any bad things.

For example, it could be that I "get into heaven" if and only if I don't believe in God. So believing in God is not "playing it safe" at all.

Agreed. And that's why I said this:

Here are my reasons:

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

Bold added.