Pascal's Wager?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Recently I came across a rather interesting take on Pascal's wager.

I had always interpreted the wager as being a simply "You're better off believing in God, because if you're wrong, nothing bad will happen. And the opposite is not true. Not believing in God and being wrong will be very bad for you". Of course I thought this was a bit disingenuous.

However, I recently came across another explanation of it.

If the chief end of our existence is to be happy, and I live my life believing there is a God (which gives me hope and arguably happiness) and upon death discover there is no God, I really have lost nothing--I lived my life in happiness. However, if I live my life pursuing happiness while rejecting the notion of God and upon death that there is a God and that I have separated myself from him--then in this case I stand to lose everything "happy" about my existence.

Now, perhaps it's not an argument that you SHOULD believe in God but it makes more sense to me than what I, and quite a few others, have interpreted Pascal's wager as being a simple game of "you're better of placing bets here".

Now that my ramblings are through, any thoughts? Other interpretations?

[Phier]

One doesn't choose what one believes.

I can't force myself to believe in God because I'd like to. I'd like to believe a lot of things which are not true.

[Tankbuster]

I don't see how this is different from the original Pascal's Wager though. It's simply a redefinement of the "place your bet here". Or am I missing something?

It's still a false dichotomy, and it still assumes that God doesn't have omniscience, and... Still fails on many accounts, in my opinion.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I don't see how this is different from the original Pascal's Wager though. It's simply a redefinement of the "place your bet here". Or am I missing something?

I thought it was different form the "God will DESTROY YOU" and "GOD WILL REWARD YOU!" version. I think it argues it a little differently too. It's not an argument for God's existence per say as it is a defense of simply believing.

[Playfishpaste]

I thought it was different form the "God will DESTROY YOU" and "GOD WILL REWARD YOU!" version. I think it argues it a little differently too. It's not an argument for God's existence per say as it is a defense of simply believing.

Pascal's original wager is a defense for believing, not an attempted proof. In fact it's not really a defense, just saying "the odds are on your side if ya do this".

This is not the same as pascal's wager, it's pretty different, but suffers from the same logical fallacies. The most important I think, is that if you do go through your life believing in god, it won't grant you happiness by necessity at all. In fact, it can make you very unhappy.

The second most important to me would be of course what pheir pointed out. Ya have no choice over your beliefs, if you do, then it's not a true belief.

[Machiavelli25]

I believe what i want, because it makes me happy (though it doesnt really affect my life-choices or morality), so I'm in agreeance with this take on Pascal. People who spend their lives arguing and searching for the truth will lead very unfulfilled lives, since as imperfect beings we can never know 'the truth' (unless 'God' decides to let us know).

[Imperator Romani]

It's different, yet alot of atheists just bristle at the mention of God. Some of these replies don't suprise me.

[Machiavelli25]

I imagine some atheists as having a kind of nervous twitch at the very mention of the word.

[Zubiou]

"If the chief end of our existence is to be happy"


Yeah, that's seems a bit short, in my opinion.
Is THAT the point of life ? Is that the meaning of our entire lives : trying to be happy ?
Where the hell is the point in just being happy ? What is the point in spending your existence knowing only one state of mind, not even knowing the path that leads to it ?

What gives anyone the right to define happiness as the ultimate goal of any life, as the standard according to which lives should be judged ? Nothing.
I mean, what's the point in reaching happiness ? There is NO point, because happiness itself IS a point, a goal. No, definitely, while the search for happiness has a meaning, while this experience brings many teachings, lessons, thrills and emotions, happiness itself doesn't bring anything to your life.

So that would be like saying that religion is a way to simply spoil and waste one of the most important part of your life, by reaching instantly a goal as empty of any meaning like "happiness", while skipping the only enriching, rewarding part of the process : the search itself.

No, really, if religion is just a way to get closer to death, I prefer just to leave it for the weak behind. Don't worry for me, I'll just go get myself my dose of life.

[Machiavelli25]

Christians should understand that life IS about the money and hos. What kind of God would tempt us with these things if they were banned?

That said, i'm not an objectivist, i believe in love and putting those you love before yourself.

[Imperator Romani]

Their gonna jump on you for saying nervous haha.

[Gaidin]

I will be shocked if someone ever presents a variation of pascal's wager that accounts for all known deities.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I will be shocked if someone ever presents a variation of pascal's wager that accounts for all known deities.

Is that even possible?

I'm curious. Was Pascal talking about the Judeo-Christian God alone, or any god?

[Gaidin]

Is that even possible?

I'm curious. Was Pascal talking about the Judeo-Christian God alone, or any god?

One assumes Judeo-Christian, as that is the one that is traditionally called 'God'. However, with its structure you can only say he was making an assumption about one god, given that most religions are exclusive.

[Imperator Romani]

Woah, I thought you were Christian.

[Machiavelli25]

Its impossible for me to be Christian, i'm far too hedonistic and selfserving.

[Gaidin]

Its impossible for me to be Christian, i'm far too hedonistic and selfserving.

You'd be surprised...

[Imperator Romani]

Yes he would be. Alot of bad Christians out there, and I'm not being sarcastic.

[Machiavelli25]

True. Well i have little interest in being a bad Christian. Seems pointless.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Its impossible for me to be Christian, i'm far too hedonistic and selfserving.

You're not Oscar Wilde are you???