Pascal's Wager Revisited

[Simon Moon]

The argument makes no reference to any particular religion or to the idea of "religion" at all. Insofar as it talks about God, it builds up a slice of him, that is, unlocks some of his attributes (creative, etc.), in the process of showing the reasonableness of this God's existence.

Pascal's Wager, however, is based on a specific god. A god that punishes disbelief. There is no argument if it is not referring to a specific god that punishes disbelief.

I am explicitly not conceiving of the next life as an external reward for this one but as a natural outcome of one's search for virtue and happiness in this one. If I am hungry and make a sandwich for myself, is the sandwich a "reward" or a consequence and consummation of previous work?

Just what is there of us that will continue after our body stops working?

Consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain. Once the brain fails at death, there is no consciousness.

The intuition is that human improvement is such a fundamental feature of our lives that we are led to the idea that it continues forever. But we can't conquer death on our own; so, perhaps there is something that helps us, in a (purposively?) hidden way.

Intuition is a horrible path to truth. It is far more often wrong than right. Humans are notorious for remembering the 'hits' and forgetting the 'misses'. 

Intuition is most accurate on judging people on first meeting, not answering questions about the nature of reality.

This is not one of the more worked out arguments I have for God. It's an idea to ponder in one's more contemplative moments.

I pondered Pascal's Wager when I was 10 or 11. As soon as I discovered there were other gods and religions believed in by humanity, PW became worthless. Now, I find it laughable.

Why start a thread with an argument that you admit is not very strong?

Please hit us with your best argument. The one that convinced you to be a theist.

[Iroscato]

Pascal's Wager is the last weak, pathetic disguise that the primal fear of the Vengeful Gods has left in its arsenal. It is the last ideological gasp of the terror felt by primitive humans who struggled to comprehend why their village had been swept away by disaster or their loved ones taken from them by famine or disease. It's barbaric confusion dressed up as intelligent musing, basically.

[Minimalist]

I am explicitly not conceiving of the next life as an external reward for this one but as a natural outcome of one's search for virtue and happiness in this one.

Why are you so egotistical that you think the universe cannot go on without you?

[Jenny A]

The argument makes no reference to any particular religion or to the idea of "religion" at all. Insofar as it talks about God, it builds up a slice of him, that is, unlocks some of his attributes (creative, etc.), in the process of showing the reasonableness of this God's existence.

Wait a minute, I didn't see any argument for the reasonableness of god's existence.  And before you even begin to talk about building up a slice of god, why don't you define god.  How can we talk about whether it's likely that anything exists if we can't define that thing.

I am explicitly not conceiving of the next life as an external reward for this one but as a natural outcome of one's search for virtue and happiness in this one. If I am hungry and make a sandwich for myself, is the sandwich a "reward" or a consequence and consummation of previous work?

I'm not sure what you mean. I see no reason to see the next life as a natural outcome of this one.  The natural outcome of this life appears to be death and no more.

If you mean that virtue and the search for happiness are their own reward, I agree.  But I don't usually start looking for happiness by making up supernatural beings.   Like hallucinogens, making up things up to believe in, might possibly lead to euphoria; but it's a rather unsound basis for happiness.   Making things up to believe in (lying to oneself) sounds like a profoundly backwards way to attempt a virtuous life.   Truth and virtue are very much connected.

The intuition is that human improvement is such a fundamental feature of our lives that we are led to the idea that it continues forever. But we can't conquer death on our own; so, perhaps there is something that helps us, in a (purposively?) hidden way.

Whether we can or cannot improve ourselves beyond a certain point, has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is any higher power that can or will (seen or unseen, or even purposelessly hidden).  But ceasing the attempt ourselves on the grounds that it would be nice if something else would do the heavy lifting for us, is a surefire way of bring human improvement to an end.

Nor am I at all sure that immortality would be the ultimate improvement in human life.  Christianity has a rather morbid fascination with death.  That all things may cease, makes things more not less valuable.

This is not one of the more worked out arguments I have for God. It's an idea to ponder in one's more contemplative moments.

It isn't as far as I can tell, an argument for god at all.   It's wishful thinking tied up in a bow of verbiage.

[Esquilax]

The argument makes no reference to any particular religion or to the idea of "religion" at all. Insofar as it talks about God, it builds up a slice of him, that is, unlocks some of his attributes (creative, etc.), in the process of showing the reasonableness of this God's existence.

Pascal's Wager doesn't make a case for the existence of a god. It attempts to make the case for the reasonableness of belief in a god over no belief in a god, and fails at doing so, but it doesn't even try to prove the existence of a god. Unless you truly think "it would be bad for atheists if my god existed" is an argument for god, rather than the appeal to consequences it really is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Pascal's Wager being revisited is the philosophical equivalent of a dog returning to a long-forgotten spew:  In both cases, the re-visitor think's he's found something new and wonderful, and quivers with barely-suppressed excitement at the prospect.  But - again in both cases - it simply remains the regurgitation of something that wasn't all that appealing to begin with.

Boru

[datc]

Pascal's Wager, however, is based on a specific god. A god that punishes disbelief. There is no argument if it is not referring to a specific god that punishes disbelief.

Disbelief is punished naturally on this argument to the extent that an atheist will fail to make himself into the sort of person for whom eternal life will be a welcome and pleasant development.

[Jenny A]

Pascal's Wager, however, is based on a specific god. A god that punishes disbelief. There is no argument if it is not referring to a specific god that punishes disbelief.

Disbelief is punished naturally on this argument to the extent that an atheist will fail to make himself into the sort of person for whom eternal life will be a welcome and pleasant development.

Ah because what we think is pleasant and welcome is always what naturally develops. . .

[Iroscato]

Pascal's Wager, however, is based on a specific god. A god that punishes disbelief. There is no argument if it is not referring to a specific god that punishes disbelief.

Disbelief is punished naturally on this argument to the extent that an atheist will fail to make himself into the sort of person for whom eternal life will be a welcome and pleasant development.

You're damn right. Give me long, fulfilled life then let me rest for eternity. If I am wrong and you are right, I would rather the first option than be bored out of my mind after 8 trillion years in heaven. Even if they have wifi up there, it's pushing it.

[datc]

You know what really pisses me off about these theist arguments? This, oh human magnificent, human great, human crown of creation standard. It's time to climb from the homocentric high horse and look at the world surrounding us with open eyes.

"Wonders are many, and none is more wonderful than man. … Cunning beyond fancy's dream is the fertile skill which brings him, now to evil, now to good." -- Antigone

You want to look at the world from the point of view other than that of a human being? Do tell me how to turn into a frog, so I may personally experience what "being a frog feels like."

---

Disbelief is punished naturally on this argument to the extent that an atheist will fail to make himself into the sort of person for whom eternal life will be a welcome and pleasant development.

You're damn right. ... If I am wrong and you are right, I would rather the first option than be bored out of my mind after 8 trillion years in heaven.

Thank you. However, the mysteries and wonders of God and fellow men, and of both heaven (symbolizing the speculative life) and paradise (active life), are infinite, and one will never be bored; my very point is that eternal life will always be worth living.