Difference between revisions of "Pascal's Wager"
From Smiting Shepherds
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | [[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=" | ||
− | |||
− | |||
! 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 | + | | 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 "fire insurance," and 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}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Latest revision as of 15:28, 10 November 2020
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:
- 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 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".
- Argument from Inauthentic Belief. If you only believe because of Pascal’s Wager, then your religious devotion is just "fire insurance," and 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.