Back to Responses - Home Atheism About Me The Bible   Jesus God Islam The Wall Evolution
Polls News Quotes Humor Hate Mail Nice Mail Contact Fa.v Links Webrings FAQ Misc
Reader Response
I got an E-mail trying to use the old Pascal's Wager argument to convince me that I should believe in a god.  Below is the E-mail along with the my responses.  The words of alex7ph@yahoo.com will be in red.
From:alex7ph@yahoo.com   6/24/2002

The great scientist, Pascal, came to this conclusion:

If you decide to believe in God, then when your life passes away,and
God does exist, you still win.

If you decide not to believe in God, then your life passes away, and
God does exist, you lose everything.

     Pascal’s Wager is a common reason given by theists (especially Christians) as a reason to believe in a god.  At first glance, it almost seems like a logical argument.  However, this is only true if you have a specific god in mind.  I’ll elucidate in my next comment.

TRUTH: It's more logical to believe in God than not to based on
above. If you were a gambler, it's a safer bet to believe in God.

pure genius....

     It would only be a safer bet if said god punishes a man for not believing.  Not all gods are as insecure as the Christian god, they do not punish the unbeliever.  We see right away that Pascal’s Wager requires a punishment for not believing.  This rules out certain gods, in which case we are left wondering how Pascal knew those gods don’t exist to justify his ruling them out as an option in his wager.  One may ask whether this is as much genius as it is insufficient thinking.

PASCAL'S WAGER DEFENSE AGAINST OTHER RELIGIONS ARGUMENT

Hmmm. This one's worthy of an answer.

It doesn't really matter if the religion is Christian (Christian God)
or any other. The real strength of Pascal's Wager is about risks.
That's right, risks.


     This is certainly untrue.  For example: the Christian god damns those who believe in other gods to hell.  If you take the advice of Pascal and select a god, if the Christian god turns out to be the right god, chose a god of another religion would get you doomed to some horrific punishment.  So, as you can see, Pascal’s Wager fails to save you from the wrath of the "true" god, if you accidentally choose the wrong one.  Which is quite likely, since there are several thousand gods to choose from.  Those thousands are then divided into even more thousands as denominations and cults interpret their version of their god differently. 

If you were a gambler, and you had to make a decision, to choose
whether to believe in God's existence or not, it is logically better
to believe because the chances are better for you in the next life,
than not to believe.

     If a gambling man had to choose whether or not to believe in a god, he would probably choose to bet with the safest possible odds.  That is, he would choose a god that required less during life, and a god that will not punish at all or punish very little for being wrong.  A gambling man would bet on a god that wouldn’t give him an unjust infinite punishment for finite mistakes.


It basically states that atheists and agnocists are at a
disadvantage, than say a Christian or Muslim (who incidentally
believe and worship only one God, the same God really) because they
are taking a much bigger risk of having a bad after-life for CHOOSING
not to believe.

     I’m inclined to disagree.  The agnostic and atheist are only at a disadvantage according to the rules provided by certain specific gods.  This claim can be valid only if those insecure gods are known to exist.  They are not known to exist, therefore there is no reason to think that someone who doesn’t believe in them is at greater risk for eternal peril than one who does.


A bad after-life would mean denial of gaining eternal life and
happiness, in an eternally happy place, with an eternally loving God.

    Again you are giving characteristics not associated with all gods.  Not all gods provide an afterlife.  Not all gods have created a hell to punish its creation.  To say that the god is eternally loving and provides an eternally happy place, is building a wall around specific gods while excluding others.  How is it that you know these other gods cannot exist while those who are eternally loving and have created an eternally happy place can?  You cannot, as Pascal provided us with no means of determining such a thing. 

According to theology, Hell is a place where souls were not forced to
go there. These souls CHOSE to be there rather than be with God. God
gave us "free will", you are not a robot. You can choose to do good
or evil, believe or not, you are responsible for your actions.

     Yes, according to the myth.  Pascal provides no way of determining of this myth is true or false, it is simply a requirement.  There isn’t anything genius about it, it is trying to force a win for his argument.  He failed.

On the Santa theory: To say to believe in God is like believing in
Santa Claus is not an accurate analogy, very flawed. Why? It is not
the same, because there are greater risks in not believing in God
than not believing in Santa.

Basically, if you choose to not believe in God, the risks of gaining
a bad after-life are greater than choosing not to believe (our
original point above). There is no such risk whatsoever with
believing in Santa or not. Whether you believe in Santa or not, you
will not have any possibility of a bad after-life.

Again, you are forcing us toward certain gods, as is required with Pascal’s Wager if we are to be frightened by punishment.  Pascal unfortunately failed to mention how he was certain of a punishment for those who do not believe in a god.  Such information certainly is good to know . . . still, one can't help wondering how he found out.

Remember again that Pascal's Wager is all about taking risks, on
which option is riskier or better (see original post above again).
This refutes the analogy of Santa theory (an obvious favorite of
atheists) completely.

     No, not at all.  One could easily argue that, using Pascal’s Wager, they chose to believe in the most generous loving god.  A god that only requires good deeds.  You have to give nothing of your finances to a church, you don’t have to refuse yourself certain joys because it is considered sinful, and does not punish you when you have died.  You are, perhaps, recycled until you have reached a certain level of spiritual perfection.  Risk alone, this by far would be a preferred choice of a god that will not only punish you for not believing, but punish you for not worshipping correctly.  Santa, on the other hand, is a very specific entity.  Either you are rewarded by Santa or you are not.  If you do not believe in Santa, you don’t receive a reward.  If you do believe, your tree will be surrounded by wonderful gifts and boxes of utter joy on Christmas morning.  Going by Pascal’s risk factor, it would be highly unprofitable to not believe in Santa.  Disbelief in Santa will not cause punishment, but it will cause a loss of goodies on Christmas morning. 

It's that simple. Pascal is a genius. Saying it is a fallacy only
comes from atheist scientists (expectedly) who are no-names and do
not compare to the level of Pascal's skills.

Pascal’s Wager is, in no way, genius.  It is refuted even by theologians.  The Wager does not benefit Christianity or any other religion, as it gives no means by which the person can select the right god to believe in.  There are many, many gods to choose.  Many of those gods punish you for believing in the wrong god.  Statistically, you’ll pick the wrong god to believe exists.

For your further information, Pascal is an agnocist, that's why he
needed logic to convince himself of the truth.


     I’m familiar with Pascal.  It has been my experience, that most atheists are.

      One aspect of Pascal's wager, that I see as detrimental, is the fact that it presupposes a punishment.  This is something I've mentioned throughout my reply.  In order for Pascal's Wager to have any merit, it is required that there be a punishment for those who do not believe upon death.  Other than it being required in the Wager, there is no reason to believe this.  Does Pascal offer another Wager which gives us reason to believe in a "Hell" or something like it?  Pascal's Wager is useless.

     There is a reason that Pascal’s Wager is ignored in philosophical debates regarding the existence or non-existence of gods: both the theist and the non-theist philosophers are aware that it fails.

Thank you for your E-mail.

-shirde

[I'm still awaiting a reply]