I don't typically use Pascal's Wager as an argument for several reasons. First, I don't want to logically "twist the arms" of someone in an attempt to convert them, which probably won't succeed anyway if they are in a state of rebellion against their Maker. Second, even if they accept the logic, I don't want them to accept God's salvation in Jesus Christ as "fire insurance, just in case" - the commitment has to be all or nothing.
Pascal's argument essentially states that it's safer to serve God as though He exists since there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. With one exception, I don't at this time recall the substance of arguments against Pascal, however I am interested in hearing some, since his logic (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument) seems so sound. I guess that makes sense. He was a mathematician and competent with probability.
Fire away.
The classic counterargument to Pascal's Wager is Simpson's Rejoinder: "but Marge, what if we've picked the wrong religion? Then every time we go to church, we're just making God madder and madder!"
ReplyDeleteThere is no upper limit to the number of belief systems that can claim that adherence to their doctrines and codes of conduct is your only refuge from eternal postmortem torment. Now, there are a sharply limited number of religions that actually make such a claim: beyond Islam and Christianity, I can't think of any. But to make up for it, some variants of Christianity regard adherents of other sects as just as Hell-bound as pagans and atheists and Muslims. If Mel Gibson is right, all Protestants will be burning alongside the Hindus and Buddhists. If a lot of fundamentalists are right, it will be Mel himself instead, along with the Jehovah's Witnesses (who disdain to avail themselves of Pascal's Wager) and Mormons (who steeply discount it by offering the possibility of converting after death). One can, of course, hope that God will not take such detailed notice of our position on various doctrinal niceties, but then, one could hope that God will not damn anyone. Pascal's wager assumes that there is a serious threat that God will damn people who don't adhere to a sufficiently correct standard of Christian doctrine, and why should we assume that Pascal, or you, rather than Mel Gibson or Fred Phelps, gets to decide what is sufficiently correct?
And note that one can make up a religion on the spot, insist that failure to adhere to it will reap eternal torment, and have as much evidence for that doctrine as Pascal's wager offers for his.
What Steven J said.
ReplyDeleteBit,
You've never noticed the false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager?
Cheers,
Steven J. said..
ReplyDelete[Which religion?]
Yep, that's the criticism I recall the substance of. But if the New Testament is true, the search is over, since Jesus claimed exclusivity as the Way to the Father (John 14:6). He is indeed a polarizing figure, with no middle ground and the infinite-dollar question is: What will you do with Jesus Christ? Accept or reject? I fear many reject without really knowing Him or what He or His witnesses said and did. I further fear that many make their decision based on what others said about the Bible, versus what the Bible says.
I have to commend author Lee Strobel for 21 months of dilligent research on the matter before converting from atheism to Jesus.
Steven J. said...
ReplyDelete[false dichotomy of Pascal's wager]
I suppose one could distill the argument to theism/atheism and therefore a need to research which religion (if any) is correct, as opposed to a priori concluding that atheism is.
I believe each will be held accountable for their response to the amount of light they were given.
I assume you reject Jesus Christ, but what are some of the details of your current position on Him?
Bit,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the issue of which religion, you said;
"Yep, that's the criticism I recall the substance of. But if the New Testament is true, the search is over,"
Well duh!
What you're saying is; 'assume Christianity is true....now which one are you going to pick; atheism or theism?
That's ridiculously circular reasoning my friend and the need for such illogical crow-barring is the reason why Pascal's Wager fails completely.
The default position is tentative atheism until evidence is presented that theism (in a general sense including pantheism, deism etc,) or a specific religion is true.
Do you have any evidence?
Cheers,
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"assume Christianity is true..."
I'm not telling anyone to assume that; just where I am, since I do accept the New Testament. I do however, encourage careful research before rejecting it.
Bit,
ReplyDeleteDo you accept that Pascal's Wager is faulty, based on the discussion above?
Cheers,
Sorry Matt,
ReplyDeleteI attributed your "false dichotomy" comment to Steven J.
No, I don't consider Pascal's logic faulty, if used to consider atheism versus general theism (since the only two options are God(gods) exist or do not). If one decides (as did Antony Flew) that theism is the better option, the task is then sorting out which brand of theism. Pascal's wager does not seem to help with that. Rather, that's why I recommended research on the historicity and reliability of the NT, like Strobel did before converting.
No worries Bit!
ReplyDelete"if used to consider atheism versus general theism (since the only two options are God(gods) exist or do not)"
But if you're only comparing to 'general theism', including deism, I guess, then there's no specific harm in not being a theist; so the wager doesn't work. It's only when you apply specific dogmas (heaven, hell, etc) that it makes any sense and then you're into false dichotomy territory again.
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"dogmas (heaven, hell, etc)"
Ya, that's a good qaulification. So one could phrase it like this: "It's a safer decision to live as though there is a Heaven and Hell." Then, in living that way, one would naturally seek out the correct entity in charge of them, so that he could serve the one in charge, instead of making Him "madder and madder" by serving false ones.
Based largely on the information content of DNA, Antony Flew converted to non-specific theism, which sounds similar to Deism, and it seems that's as far as general revelation (study of nature) can take someone. Christianity is definitely dependent on specific revelation (scripture).