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.