The logical fallacy of using Pascall's Wager to defend God!

by AK - Jeff 6 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AK - Jeff

  His arguments are succinct against such foolish conclusion that we have nothing to lose by worshipping god if unsure, and is defeated in it's very premise.

  http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/wager.html

  This paragraph is key to the defeat, and powerful:

  The first and most serious objection to the Wager should be immediately obvious to anyone who sees it. It argues for belief in a god, but it doesn't offer any advice on which god. There are hundreds, if not thousands - how can I tell which one is the right one? (" The Cosmic Shell Game " covers this topic in more detail.) Blaise Pascal was a Catholic and used the argument he concocted in favor of Catholicism, but today the Wager is most commonly used by evangelical Protestants. However, it can just as well be employed by members of other religions. Muslims can tell Christians that by worshipping Allah they may gain entry to a Paradise where they will be waited on for eternity by seventy-two dark-eyed virgins, whereas by rejecting him they run the risk of winding up in the Islamic Hell. Zoroastrianists might retort that Ahura Mazda is actually the one true deity, and those who believe in him and not Allah will get their heavenly reward, but those who reject him will be sent to a fiery damnation. The Hindus might interrupt and argue that the rewards for believing in Krishna are great and the dangers of rejecting him equally great. A Buddhist might gently correct all of them and point out that we can gain the bliss of Nirvana by following the Eightfold Path and practicing Zazen meditation, so why not try it - considering that the alternative is to be reborn as an animal, a hungry ghost or a damned soul? At this point the ancient Greeks might jump in, warning of the dire punishments waiting in Tartarus for those who reject the authority of Zeus. Meanwhile, while all this bickering goes on, the Nez Perce Indians sit off to the side smiling secretively, content in the knowledge that this world will end on the morning of the third day and we are living in the dreams of the second night, and that by believing this they stand to gain rewards none of the others could even imagine.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  And reverse reason might even make it advantageous in the 'Wager' to be an atheist:

  Of course, all this is assuming that God will punish nonbelief or wrong belief with Hell, and here lies the second objection to Pascal's Wager: it takes as granted something that cannot be taken as granted, namely the nature of God. How can anyone know for sure that believers will be rewarded and nonbelievers punished? It is easy to conceive of different varieties of deities under which alternative scenarios would hold. For example, what if the universalists are right and God does not condemn anyone, but forgives everyone and lets them into Heaven anyway? In that case, atheists have nothing to lose. Conversely, some theists believe in a god so cruel and sadistic that he will condemn the vast majority of all people who have ever lived to endless, eternal torture. It's not that great a leap beyond this to imagine a god who just condemns everyone , and again the theist is no better off than the atheist in this case. We could even imagine a god who doesn't want us to believe in him, who has deliberately set up the world to make his existence appear unlikely, and who will actually punish those who disregarded the evidence in the name of faith and reward those who fearlessly followed where reason led them. (Richard Carrier's brilliant The End of Pascal's Wager describes such a scenario.) In this case, Pascal's Wager is reversed and the scales swing the other way; now atheism is the position that stands to gain the most.
• 

  WTWizard

  Suppose I throw it right back in their faces. If one chooses to worship Satan, one advances oneself to the extent that they are able to connect with Satan. Failure to worship Satan results in your soul simply stagnating, not advancing (and, given that so many Christians and Muslims have been in it all their lives and did not advance, this is pretty evident). When you are reincarnated, the more advanced your soul is, the easier you are going to find obstacles. If you stagnate, you are likely to find yourself right back in the Christian or Muslim paradigm until the end of time.

  Nope, no eternal bliss for those who obey everything. No eternal suffering for those who sin. Just the opportunity to become like God once you finally succeed in connecting fully with Satan. If you stagnate enough (and that could well apply to people like Boozerford, Ted Jaracz, and Al Schroeder), your soul simply dissipates and you experience final damnation.
• 

  Chariklo

  And yet, surely, Jeff, God is God. A rose by any other name, etc.

  I watched an old Western the other day. Cowboy and Indian stuff. The Indian chief was questioning the cowboy as to which God he worshipped.

  "Not your god", he replied, "not your Great Spirit. The Christian God."

  "Do you believe your god is the creator of everything?" asked the Indian.

  "Yes" answered the cowboy.

  "Same God", said the Indian. "We believe in the same God."

  That's my view exactly. There is no Catholic God or evngelical/protestant god.

  I do not understand all this business of different Gods because there are different names.

  There is one God. God is God. People may believe in different details, but just one God.
• 

  The Oracle

  That's just one persons opinion that they are all exactly the same person (god). They are described quite differently. Some of the gods did not create everything.

  It all boils down to the imaginations of ancient man.

  People invent explanations for things they don't understand. Ancient stories often involved invisible powerful beings who had control over all or part of the things we see on the earth. The forces of nature, our various emotions etc. Some lazier ancients decided to invent the all in one style super being who trumped all the other gods.

  Either way it's all man made speculation and conjecture which sprang from not being able to explain things scientifically yet.
• 

  King Solomon

  Another flaw with Pascals reasoning is it assumes a God that cannot sniff out a faker, a poseur, someone who's simply going thru the motions in order to save their own skinny arse and put one over on God. It only works if God does not have a BS detector, or cannot read "hearts" or thoughts.

  Besides, you cannot force yourself to believe anything, if you don't truly believe it.

  (Although, that's not actually true, is it? Dawkins wrote an entire book about how this is accomplished: its the psychological phenomenon of delusion, fooling oneself. Presumably those struggling with their "weak faith" will be given some extra slack, since they were TRYING SOO HARD to believe in Him... Apparently some scripture somewhere must say that God gives an E for effort, or grades on a curve, as if it's the thought that counts. How contradictory is THAT thinking?).

  But even there, suppose God decides on the basis of personal integrity and honesty, valuing those who actually stand up for what they believe, who have the personal conviction and character to follow their own strong moral compass, and not just what others tell them to believe and do? (Gandhi, MLK, etc?)
• 

  cofty

  The popular version of Pascal's wager also assumes that there is very little or nothing to be lost by believing in god - or pretending to believe as King Sol pointed out.

  I would disagree. Intellectual freedom is invaluable.