HOME | DD
Tepheris β Pascal's Wager
by-sa
Published: 2012-12-29 23:01:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 3294; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 20
Redirect to original
Description
An illustration of Blaise Pascal's statement why rational people will believe in God, with minor modifications from yours truly.
Since this isn't as self-evident as I thought, here's some clarification:
Pascal's Wager does not go into the odds of... anything. It just points out that atheists get no benefit if their beliefs turn out to be true. If they are wrong, they lose everything. The opposite of someone believing in the existence of God has no real major downside if the atheists are right, and a huge upside if your beliefs are vindicated.
Related content
Comments: 84
Note that this line of thinking assumes a binary of Atheists and Christians only. Now let's slot in The Jews.
Jews are Right: Atheists go to Sheol, Christians go to Sheol, Jews go to Paradise right away.
Now let's slot in the Muslims to the chart (Allah: you embraced my Prophet Jesus but rejected Mohammed? Hell for you Infidel!). And the Buddhists. And the Hindus and so forth.
That's where the whole darn idea falls apart.
π: 1 β©: 0
"But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Then every time we go to church, we're just making God madder and madder!"
-Homer Simpson
π: 0 β©: 0
Logic fail! Even if there is a god, Chiristians have a 1 inΒ 4,200 (not counting denominations) chance to actually go to Heaven. That isn't even half a percent!
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, I added a little clarifier. That gives the assumption that all religions have an equal chance of being able to get into heaven. Since the vast majority of religions gain heaven by Works Righteousness, Christianity despite not actually falling under works righteousness, faithful believers will still probably meet any requirements that don't require worship of a false god.
That significantly narrows things down. I hope you realize that those estimates include religions that were created to be parodies or mockeries of other religions. Then there are all the syncretism of two or more religions, and plenty of denominations of a religion are tallied as religions in and of themselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
This can't work. For it to work all Theists must believe in the same thing, otherwise only a small portion of the theists go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell. And what about reincarnation? I believe that should be mentioned too.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think you kind of forgot to include some combinations of religion which is true and religion which the person belongs to. That is, you only considered 4 cases out of x^2 possible ones, where x is number of religions in the world. Though x^2 is still too small because it doesn't take into account the gods that potentially exist but aren't known and worshiped by any religion.
π: 0 β©: 0
Pascal's Wager is...stupid. What if Christianity is wrong, and Islam is correct. If you're right then you're fine. If you're wrong then you're going to Muslim Hell. And even if this is a valid argument...you're essentially threatening people with the fear of Hell. And tell me...does that strike you as something a religion of love and hope should do?
π: 0 β©: 1
Umm, if you took the time to (oh horror of horrors let it not be!) actually READ the description, there wasn't a specification of which religion is believed in. As for Islam vsβ¦ Christianity, when you look back at history, Christianity wouldn't have taken off the ground if it wasn't the one true faith. The first Christians were put to death for their beliefs. It's not human nature to die for something you know to be false.Β
β¦βMen of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.β (βActsβ¬ β5β¬:β35-39β¬ NIV)
As far as Islam goes⦠well, I just refuse to believe that a religion where you could
live a life free of doing absolutely nothing wrong in your life and not get the same level of a reward as a terrorist. I guess that demands an explanation. Well, Islam at least agrees that Jesus lived a life without sin, and their doctrine states that Jesus is in a lesser level of heaven than Mohammed.
π: 0 β©: 2
I'm pretty sure 1 in 4200 is a long shot there.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's not human nature to die for something you know to be false. But there's the thing...as fallible life-forms striving for knowledge, just because we think it's the truth doesn't mean it is
π: 0 β©: 1
The Bible records that many of the disciples didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus until He appeared to them. Thomas stated that he wouldn't believe unless he touched Christ's wounds. There would be no reason to put this in the Bible if this wasn't the case.
I'll reiterate what I said, people don't die for something they know to be a lie. To the disciples, whether Jesus Christ rose from the dead wasn't a matter of THINKING, it was something that they were sure of. They saw Jesus die. You'd have to be very convinced Jesus was indeed the Son of God to be willing to die instead of denouncing their faith. Most if the disciples were Jews, which wasn't an illegal religion.
π: 0 β©: 1
That doesn't excuse using the fear of Hell to convert others
π: 0 β©: 1
Nobody's perfect, and that's God's standard. We couldn't make it on our own, so Jesus suffered the punishment for our sins when he died for us. And because of Jesus' suffering and death, heaven is God's free gift to all who believe. Hell is the choice of those who reject Jesus' grace. As C.S. Lewis said, there are those who say to God 'Thy will be done' and those to whom God says 'Thy will be done'. If you don't want to put your faith in God, don't go whining when you're separated from Him forever.
Hell is defined as complete and total separation from God, who is the source of all things good. Rejecting the free gift of salvation through Christ's innocent suffering and death while still expecting a free pass to heaven is the ultimate case of wanting to 'have your cake and eat it, too'.
Here's a parallel: A person guilty of manslaughter is offered a full pardon for their crime. The killer not only rejects the pardon, but states they will only accept release if manslaughter is not considered a crime.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you accept something out fear for what happens if you don't, then it's not faith. It's fear. And using fear to convert anyone to any opinion is, in my eyes, IMMORAL
π: 1 β©: 0
I believe the scenario in the upper right-hand corner is the scenario we should all aim for.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except this is only according to Christianity. IncludingΒ Judaism, Islam, BahΓ‘'Γ Faith, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Slavic neopaganism, Celtic polytheism, Heathenism (German paganism), Semitic neopaganism, Wicca, Kemetism (Egyptian paganism), Hellenism and Italo-Roman neopaganism, there is an approximate 4200 religions world wide!
π: 1 β©: 0
The problem with Pascal's wager is than is confined to only one religion, that's is christianism, Pascal's own religion. What if the real god was Zeus? Or Ra? Or Rama? What if the muslims are the ones right holding the truth? Or the mormons are the only ones who understand the bible in the right way? You could use the C.S. Lewis defense than god accept people from other faiths as own if these people really respect their original faiths. However, if you consider than some faiths are directly opposed to others in theirs foundations, that defense made no sense. One religion could say: "respect your wife" and other say: "your wife is your property, you even could kill her if you like", when ethically you know you can't own other person.
π: 0 β©: 1
If Ra or Zeus were real, they'd still have a large amount of worshippers worldwide. Seriously, when I hear those being tossed around I just have to .
I state with confidence Christianity has the true God because the first believers had nothing to gain and everything to loose by worshiping Christ.
I'm not sure how clear this message will be when it's passed through whatever translator you're using.
π: 0 β©: 1
I got a translator called brain, maybe is not 100% perfect as english is a second language to me, but I like to use it.
If we are talking about modern day worshiped gods you must count Thor and Odin, Shiva, Ghanesha, all the african and americans pre-discovery believes, et all.
π: 0 β©: 0
Let me see if I understand this:
If I'm right, then, when we die, you and I will cease to exist.
If you're right, then, when we die, I will go hang out with Mark Twain, John Lennon, Albert Einstein, and George Carlin. You, on the other hand, will spend eternity surrounded by bigots and child molesters.
Can I double down on this wager?
π: 0 β©: 1
Child molesters will be the exception to the character of those people who by grace of God enter heaven. Besides, people in heaven will be purged of their flaws, or so I interpret.
Mark Twain, John Lennon, Albert Einstein, and George Carlin will be the exception to the character of those who reject God's free gift of salvation through Christ.
π: 0 β©: 2
If it's character that counts, then I don't need to believe.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, you do, because nobody is perfect. It's impossible for anyone to make it heaven by themselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
But you just said that people can get to heaven without believing in any gods, which nullifies the wager. QED.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure where you're looking, because I never said that. If you're thinking that all people have to do is believe in heaven, read the artist's comments, or look up what Pascal's Wager is.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm aware of Pascal's wager, and I'm glad he doesn't do my taxes. He left three probabilities out of his calculations:
* There is a God, but not the one you worship. I would be punished for rejecting the true god, but you would also be punished for embracing a false god. I LOSE EVERYTHING, YOU LOSE EVERYTHING.
* There is a god, but Christian dogma was created precisely to serve as a test of morality. Those who reject the prospect of an innocent suffering for the crimes of the guilty prove their righteousness, while those who embrace it prove their unworthiness. I WIN EVERYTHING, YOU LOSE EVERYTHING.
* There is a god, but no Hell. Instead, God forgives all, and simply expunges those traits that led people astray. I WIN EVERYTHING, YOU WIN EVERYTHING.
So, now that we've corrected Pascal's calculations, we see that my chances are actually equal to yours. Thus, making the wager is a fool's gamble.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your chances are not equal to mine. Even with your first probability factored in, I have a better chance than you due to the fact that I at least do believe in God. Sure, the scenario is that there is a different god that doesn't accept Christians, but you'd have to calculate the chances that I'm wrong.
The second "probability" you postulate is invalid. Christ didn't have to die for us, it was His choice. Speaking personally, I can't comprehend why Jesus suffered the punishment for everyone's sin, which is all the more reason to be grateful for his grace.
π: 0 β©: 0
Nope, if a child molester, in the end of his life, repent and accept god's love, he can by right, enter in heaven, for all eternity. Don't like it? Don't complain, Yaveh's judgment is perfect.
Anyway, would be strange to see Einstein accepting Jesus, being he from jewish ascenstry.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think my message must be lost in translation. I wasn't saying there won't be people who repented from being child molesters in heaven, just that there will be far more in Hell.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, the translation was fine. The idea behind the Pascal's wager is than you must accept the god existence because is more safe. But is that a real justification for believe? The fear to lost, to fear to eternal damnation? The fear to eternal punish? I mean, one person could be a real nice and correct character and choose to help others and do good actions not neccesary motivated by an afterlife "reward" but is because he/she thinks than people need help. And if he is atheist, he would be condemned to hell by that fact. But an assasin and trafficant and thief could be spending his/her life hurting and killing people, but he/she repents (really repents) just before death and then he /she goes to heaven for all eternity. But if you compares, the first person was a better human than the second. But according to Pascal, is the second who went to heaven and the first goes to hell. Is that logic?
No,but religion is not something rational, is something emotional.
π: 1 β©: 0
I have a slightly different view.
If a christian dies and nothing happens, they lose everything because they were dead wrong.
If a christian dies and heaven and hell are real, they win everything because their beliefs were correct.
If an atheist dies and nothing happens, they win everything because their beliefs were correct.
If an atheist dies and heaven and hell are real, they lose, but lived life how they chose and not how an oppressive deity wanted them to live.
π: 0 β©: 1
I fail to see how being correct about there not being life after death counts as winning everything, nor how you can lose anything if you're dead and their is no life after death.
Yeah, God is soooo oppressive wishing us to treat others as we would like to be treated. How dare He tell us not to murder, rape, steal, cheat on your spouse, lie, and all that other harmless stuff?
There are those who say to God "Your will be done", and those to whom God says "Your will be done." I suppose I am a bit inaccurate in saying atheists loose everything when it is their choice to be separated from God.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's a matter of winning or losing ideologies. If one group wins, they win the ideological battle, if they lose, then they lost the battle.
Oppressive in that he demands we follow his set of rules, accept his son as a savior etc. and if we don't, we burn forever. It's like a man saying follow my rules or I'll beat the crap out of you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was being somewhat rhetorical when I said I failed to understand how it was winning "everything" if the atheists are correct. It's more like, big whoop, you're still dead and you cease to exist.
I'm curious, are you pro-abortion? This may seem random, but I have an analogy to make if you are
π: 0 β©: 1
Pro choice. I know people that are pro abortion however.
π: 0 β©: 1
You've activated my !
So, a woman can choose to kill of a human life willy-nilly, but God asking the people he created to behave is being oppressive?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes she can, because it her body being used without her consent.
If all god asked was for people to behave, I would have no issues with him. However, threatening to let you burn in a pit of fire forever if you don't follow his rules is crossing the line for me. Remove hell from the equation, and there is no issue for me.
π: 0 β©: 1
'Scuse Moi? Without her consent? Unless she was raped, it is a natural result of her consenting action.
Well, if people live their lives without God's consent, then by your argument, he has the right to sentence them to death.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you are giving consent to something, you are giving permission. If she does not want it there, then it is obvious that she didn't give it permission. She gave consent to sex, she didn't give consent to pregnancy.
If god gave us free will, and then punishes us for using our free will, then that makes him a tyrant.
π: 0 β©: 1
So the natural process of life requires additional consent besides the consent that initiates it. That's a scary thought.
So if someone were to commit murder, rape, or theft, it is tyranny that they be punished. Typical.
π: 0 β©: 1
For it to be consensual, yes. Saying a woman consents to pregnancy because she had sex, is like saying a swimmer gave consent to a shark for it to eat him.
For actual crimes, no it isn't tyranny. It is tyranny however, to demand someone follow your rules and accept your dead son as a savior, and if you don't you suffer for all eternity.
π: 0 β©: 1
Shark attacks aren't something you'd expect to happen 15% of the time you go swimming (The usual success rate of condoms is 85%).
One HUGE thing you're missing is that Jesus died so that we would be spared the eternal death warranted for our sins. If I follow your logic, than it would be unfair that a person drowns because they didn't put on a life jacket, or falls to their death when skydiving because you don't pull the parachute.
Sorry for the late reply.
π: 0 β©: 1
Neither is pregnancy in the cases where birth control fails or a woman is raped.
Sins, need I say, god could have done away with and even prevented. So, in a sense, he set us up to sin and decided to punish us for it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even with birth control pregnancies can happen 1% of the time. The odds against getting attacked by a shark are millions to one. Rape is an exceptional case and should be treated as an exception, though I feel that the right thing to do would be to have the baby and put it up for adoption.
So, it's tyranny if God says that we have to believe in His Son who died for our sins, but it wouldn't be tyranny if God didn't create us with free will?
Okay guys, here's the deal. All you two have to do is not eat the fruit from one certain tree, and everything will be perfect.
As for "setting us up and deciding to punish us" for our sins, that's a misconception. Jesus took the punishment for us. The only thing He asks is that we believe. The closest analogy I can think of that you would understand is someone who commited a crime deserving death, but only gets sentenced to parole. If we humans violate the terms of our "parole" (believing that Jesus Christ died to save our sins), then we recieve the punishment for our sins.
So let me try to follow your logic here. God gives us free will, we sin, God punishes sin but gives us a free pardon if we only believe. Since God gave us free will, we can choose to reject Jesus as our Savior, so God is a tyrant.
A woman makes the concious choice to have sex, she gets pregnant, she has the unborn child killed, this is a woman's right.
Meh, it's actually not such a contradiction you single out the common denominator of not feeling that one must live with the consequences of their actions.
π: 0 β©: 2
If she wishes to have the pregnancy come to full term despite rape, then all the power to her. But it is not right, however, to force her to do it. It's basically another rape in a sense. He took her right to control her body and who can be inside, and forcing her to carry the pregnancy does the exact same thing.
It doesn't matter. He still set us up to sin, he will punish us for the sins (if we don't believe according to you). Sounds like extortion to me. "Oh all I ask is that you believe my son..lest something bad happen to you if you don't. We don't want that now do we?"
So we are latent criminals from birth? Really?
That is a weird interpretation of my logic. I'll make it clear for you.
-God is all knowing, omnipresent and all powerful.
-God created beings, and knew we would sin because he is all knowing.
-God allowed Satan and the tree to exist in the garden, even though he could have removed them entirely.
-God could have stopped Eve from eating from the tree, since he is everywhere, all knowing and all powerful.
-God decides to condemn subsequent generations with sins, based on the actions of their ancestors, which god could have stopped in the first place.
-God asks that we believe in his son, in order to avoid punishment for crimes he gave us from birth.
Is it clear, or should I try again?
Yes that is her right to do. It is her body being used without her consent (when she doesn't want the pregnancy".
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, and the unborn child has no say in the matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
As a jansenist (a catholic branch)Pascal was ordered by his jansenist friends to use his (truly high) intellect to make suitable arugments to convert the "libertines" and free thinkers. But he was quite awkward at it, mostly because he believed himself that the existence of God couldn't be rationnally proven.
Maybe atheists and anticlericals will forgive him, by considering this highlighted quote from him: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."
Coming from a XVIIth century Christian, that was quite bold!
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>