Difference between revisions of "Pascal's Wager"

From Smiting Shepherds
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "'''Pascal’s Wager''' uses game theory to show that you should believe in God, because it offers the best cost-to-benefit ratio. The argument is summarized in the table below...")
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Pascal’s Wager''' uses game theory to show that you should believe in God, because it offers the best cost-to-benefit ratio. The argument is summarized in the table below:
+
[[File:Homer.png|center]]
  
 +
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal Pascal]’s Wager uses [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory game theory] to demonstrate that people should believe in God, because it offers the best [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost%E2%80%93benefit_analysis cost-to-benefit ratio]. The argument is summarized in the table below:
  
 
+
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"  
{| class="wikitable" style="color:black;  
 
!colspan="3"|Pascal's Wager
 
|-
 
 
! scope="col"|  
 
! scope="col"|  
 
! scope="col"| God Exists
 
! scope="col"| God Exists
Line 12: Line 10:
 
! scope="row"| You Believe
 
! scope="row"| You Believe
 
| Eternal heavenly bliss.
 
| Eternal heavenly bliss.
| You waste all the time you spent worshiping.
+
| You wasted all the time you spent worshiping.
 
|-
 
|-
 
! scope="row"| You Disbelieve
 
! scope="row"| You Disbelieve
Line 19: Line 17:
 
|}
 
|}
  
 +
However, there are three crippling problems with this argument:
 +
#'''Pascal’s Wager was never intended to prove God’s existence; it is just an argument for going to church.''' Even then, it never actually solves or answers anything -- it just changes the question from “why?” to “why not?”
 +
#*Admittedly, this is a problem with the ''use'' of this argument, and not the argument itself. However, this is a frequent problem.
 +
#'''Argument from Inconsistent Revelations.''' '''Pascal’s Wager is only valid under the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori ''a priori''] assumption that you’ve selected the correct god.'''  If the Old Testament prophets ''really'' screwed up, and it turns out that Ba’al is the Lord, then even the saints are damned. Many of the world’s religions independently developed their own equally-valid versions of Pascal’s Wager, which replaces the word “God” with “Ra,” “Odin,” or “Zeus”.
 +
#*Pascal’s Wager can even be used to ''disprove'' the need for religion. If there is no God, or if God does not reward belief (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism deism], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism dystheism]), then religion becomes a huge waste of time and resources.
 +
#'''Argument from Inauthentic Belief.'''  If you only believe because of Pascal’s Wager, then your religious devotion is just a fire insurance payment. An all-knowing God would realize that you’re only paying him lip service to win a big payout later. Pascal’s Wager is insufficient to “save” anyone, because it requires you to live a lie, and in turn, lie to God himself.
 +
----
  
 
+
{{Template:Navigation}}
 
 
 
 
 
However, there are a number of problems with this argument:
 
 
 
1. Pascal’s Wager was never intended to prove God’s existence. Pascal’s Wager is an argument for going to church. Even then it never actually solves or answers anything -- it just changes the question from “why?” to “why not?”
 
 
 
Admittedly, this is more of a problem with the popular use of the argument rather than the argument itself, but this needs to be addressed, as this occurs with great frequency.
 
 
 
2. Argument from Inconsistent Revelations. Many of the world’s religions have independently developed their own version of Pascal’s Wager. By replacing the word “God” with “Ra,” “Odin,” or “Zeus,” then Pascal’s Wager becomes an equally valid argument for worship of any of those gods. However, Pascal’s Wager only holds true under the a priori assumption that you’ve selected the correct God. If you’re worshiping the “wrong” god, every week you’re just making the “real” god madder and madder. (If the Old Testament prophets really screwed up, and it turns out that Ba’al is the Lord, then even the saints are damned.)
 
 
 
As such, Pascal’s Wager can be equally used to disprove the need for religion. If there is no God, or if he does not reward belief (e.g., dystheism) then religion is a huge waste of time and resources.
 
 
 
3. Argument from Inauthentic Belief.  If you believe only because of Pascal’s Wager, an all-knowing God will realize that you’re only paying him lip service, and just putting up a front to win a big payout later. Pascal’s Wager alone is not enough to “save” anyone, because it requires you to live a lie, and in turn, lie to God himself.
 

Revision as of 20:39, 13 April 2020

Homer.png

Pascal’s Wager uses game theory to demonstrate that people should believe in God, because it offers the best cost-to-benefit ratio. The argument is summarized in the table below:

God Exists God Doesn’t Exist
You Believe Eternal heavenly bliss. You wasted all the time you spent worshiping.
You Disbelieve Eternal damnation. You saved all the time you would have spent worshiping.

However, there are three crippling problems with this argument:

  1. Pascal’s Wager was never intended to prove God’s existence; it is just an argument for going to church. Even then, it never actually solves or answers anything -- it just changes the question from “why?” to “why not?”
    • Admittedly, this is a problem with the use of this argument, and not the argument itself. However, this is a frequent problem.
  2. Argument from Inconsistent Revelations. Pascal’s Wager is only valid under the a priori assumption that you’ve selected the correct god. If the Old Testament prophets really screwed up, and it turns out that Ba’al is the Lord, then even the saints are damned. Many of the world’s religions independently developed their own equally-valid versions of Pascal’s Wager, which replaces the word “God” with “Ra,” “Odin,” or “Zeus”.
    • Pascal’s Wager can even be used to disprove the need for religion. If there is no God, or if God does not reward belief (e.g., deism, dystheism), then religion becomes a huge waste of time and resources.
  3. Argument from Inauthentic Belief. If you only believe because of Pascal’s Wager, then your religious devotion is just a fire insurance payment. An all-knowing God would realize that you’re only paying him lip service to win a big payout later. Pascal’s Wager is insufficient to “save” anyone, because it requires you to live a lie, and in turn, lie to God himself.