“Isn’t it possible that the actual God is a scientific God who has no patience with people who believe things without evidence?” --Martin Gardner
(Note that Gardner believed in God and the afterlife; he was a fideist.)
I agree with the consensus here that Pascal’s Wager is not a very good apologetic tool. It is a simple argument against the pragmatism of choosing Atheism and in favor of the pragmatism of choosing Theism. But it says next to nothing about the truth of either proposition, and even less about Christianity. Perhaps most importantly, I agree with others here that a decision based only on this analysis is unlikely to generate a “saving faith.”
As for the original Wager, Pascal believed that we had no way of knowing the probability that God exists, so he assumed the probabilities of Atheism and Theism to be the same. For him, value is the only pertinent component. In Pascal’s view, the value offered by Theism is infinite while the value offered by Atheism is finite. Therefore, one ought to choose Theism.
However, I disagree with Pascal on two points: our ability to identify evidence that God exists, and the value offered by Atheism.
I prefer an Updated Wager. The Updated Wager, like your Modified Wager, is concerned with Expected Payout (EP). In addition to Value (V), we consider the Probability that a proposition is true (P):
EP = P * V
Pascal’s argument is that Theism offers infinite value: V_T = ∞; I contend that Atheism offers no value (see: Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.): V_A = 0. (Of course, some will argue for subjective value. However, because it is subjective, every value is valid for all scenarios. So, the subjective value also would have to be represented as 0.) Thus,
EP_A = P_A * 0 = 0
P_A is irrelevant. The options for the probability of Theism are: P_T = 0 or P_T > 0. If, P_T = 0, then
EP_T = 0 * ∞ = 0
In this scenario, EP_A = EP_T = 0, and the decision is arbitrary. However, if P_T > 0, no matter how small, then
EP_T = x * ∞ = ∞
in which case, the pragmatic decision is Theism. So, at best, the atheist can show the decision to be arbitrary by proving P_T = 0. But Atheism never is the pragmatic choice.
No one has ever been able to prove P_T = 0. And the other arguments you mention (cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral) demonstrate that P_T > 0. What is more, these arguments are strong, rational arguments that Theism is more plausible than Atheism (P_T > P_A), regardless of the values or expected payouts. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to check out some of William Lane Craig’s or Alvin Plantinga’s work on these arguments (Craig has a great website: ReasonableFaith.org).
The equation for EP_A is the same in the Modified Wager, and the lack of pragmatism in choosing Atheism still is evident.
But, in all three forms, the Wager breaks down when pressed to affirm a specific form of Theism. Simply put, Pascal’s Wager is not positive proof of Christianity, only of Theism (much like the cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments). Once convinced of Theism, the logical next step is to investigate the nature and character of God. You’ll have to find other arguments or evidence to help you decide between forms of Theism. I find that the best positive proof of Christianity is the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, since this is the linchpin of the faith. You mention that you find the evidence weak – I wonder if you really have studied it. I recommend NT Wright’s work on this topic. Gary Habermas is a good option, too.
A final comment: from your post and follow-up comments, it seems that you have a negative view of the Christian God, developed – no doubt – from your observations of the Church and Christians (or people who call themselves Christians). Collectively, we have done a pretty terrible job of representing Christ, and for that I am sorry. I encourage you to decide for yourself who the Bible teaches the Christian God is. Read the New Testament, focusing on the nature and character of God. Check out some of the works of Tim Keller, John Piper, JP Moreland, etc. Find an orthodox Christian church and go hang out with some of them. We all are flawed, but we also are trying. I think you will find that the Christian God is all-loving, is merciful and just, is awe-inspiring, is full of truth and grace, and the list goes on.
No. It is not possible.
It is not possible to believe ANYTHING without faith.
There is no use for logic without first accepting premises on faith.
There is no science without first accepting the premises of science itself on faith.
There is nothing which holds itself up by its own bootstraps.
So no…
A much better suggestion is that God has no patience with people who believe things contrary to the evidence.
But I think the answer is still no. God has a lot of patience for this.
As for things which God has lost patience for I would cite three examples from the Bible: Genesis 6, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah. In Genesis 6, God loses patience with a civilization where nearly everyone is only thinking evil continually. In Isaiah 1 God loses patience with religiosity without effort to do good, seeking justice, resisting oppression, and helping those in need. In Jeremiah God loses patience with an attitude of entitlement to God’s protection.
But already more examples are coming to me so I suspect there are many more situations where God’s patience wears thin.
What’s saving faith? Whose is it?
This Crash Course Philosophy (#14) video: “Anti-vaxxers, Conspiracy Theorists, and Epistemic Responsibility”, made in 2016, seems presciently relevant now. And while I don’t think Hank Green would be known for any sympathetic affinity toward religion, he seems to me to give a fairly balanced appraisal of things here. I think the case to be made for epistemic responsibility is much more important than many Christians have allowed for in recent decades.
And the reason I plopped that into this thread is that his next one explores Pascal’s wager just a bit. His teaser at the ending of that seems weak to me, - because after all there is no teapotist or serious spaghetti monster religion out there and one might be obliged to ask why. Nonetheless, lots of stuff is nicely summarized here, as usual with the crash course stuff.
PART 1
To explore all possible options (or as many options as we reasonably can) and then see a) which one is the most likely to be correct and b) which option is the most rational option to ‘believe in or follow’.
Yes, but this kind of argument (if it works) should not compell a rational person to believe in purple unicorns. The reason for that is because purple unicorns by themselves do not (and cannot) give you (max.) punishment/reward and therefore you are only left with the low probability of their existence.
Only God or god-like things can give you max. punishment/reward.
I don’t think that this is a correct way to do that. Let’s say that we have static evidence which indicates that Christianity is correct with 75% of probability. And now let’s imagine we go 100,000 years in the future and we find out that literally no one in the galaxy is a Christian, and that the last believer in Christianity has died 99,000 years ago. Under that way of thinking, no one should explore Christianity since, in essence, Christianity wouldn’t be a major religion - even if, the likelihood of Christianity being correct was 75%.
If we would be only exploring previously conceived ideas or options, we would never get any new theories about the world, including Christianity or monotheism.
We should explore as many possibilities as we reasonably can, of course, we cannot explore every single possibility but I also don’t think that it is fair only to explore known or major religions. It’s not the case that the only possibilities are: Abrahamic God or no God.
There are of course 1B God theories that one can construct, from God who will send all religious people to hell to God who will send all non-religious people to hell or a God who will send all people who do not believe in purple unicorns in hell. The point of that argument is to assign probabilities to God theories and then see what is the most rational thing to believe.
Let’s take the example of a God who will send all people who do not believe in PU [purple unicorns] to hell with max. punishment and all people who do believe in PU in heaven with max. reward. And let’s assume that we invent a super-computer that is able to assign objective and rational probabilities to various God theories and the computer puts out the following numbers:
- No God - 99.95%
- Christian God - 0.01%
- “PU” God* - 0.03%
- All other options: 0.01%
*In this context, PU God will punish all believe who do not believe in purple unicorns with max. punishment in hell and reward all people who do believe with max. reward in heaven
If these were the numbers, would you agree that a rational person should believe in purple unicorns, and if someone wouldn’t believe (or try to believe) in purple unicorns, they would be irrational?
If the answer to this is yes, it seems to me that this argument is valid. If the answer is no, I would like to know why a rational person under this closed scenario should not believe in purple unicorns.
If this is correct, argument like this - if it works - would count against Christianity since you cannot “bet” on a Christian God, while you can bet on many other Gods.
- Atheism 98%
- Christianity 1.5%
- Islam 0.49%
- Other God theories 0.01%
If betting on Christianity does not generate any rewards or punishments, under this scenario, rational person should bet on Islam.
*In this scenario it is assumed that Islamic God will send all Christians to hell with max. punishment and that Christian God will send all Muslims to hell with max. punishment.
What if there is a God who will send all religious people/theists to hell to a maximum punishment and reward all atheists with maximum happiness in heaven? Let’s say we assign 1% probability to this kind of God, 0.99% to all other possible God theories and 98.01% to atheism.
Under this scenario, atheism seems to be the most rational choice.
I don’t want to debate evidence for God or for specific religions in this specific thread - but let me just mention that I am familiar with the names that you have mention, and although I have not read all of their books/articles or watched all their lectures, the one that I have watched, I generally don’t find super convincing - and if you have any specific argument you’d like me to address, feel free to send me a DM containing that argument.
The thing that “bothers” me the most about Christianity is the lack of evidence for it, and not the behaviour of some Christians or the Church.
The New Testament repeatedly teaches that salvation comes through faith (e.g. Ephesians 2:8).
In my original comment, I was referring to the unlikelihood that an unbeliever who decides to bet on Christianity based only on Pascal’s Wager actually has obtained a faith which saves.
So who has it, who doesn’t? Whatever it’s in.
PART 2
Let’s say 50000 years from now we can mathemathically prove that the following probabilities are available:
- Atheism - 95%
- God A who will punish everyone with max. punishment in hell who does not drink 2 liters of water a day and reward everyone who drinks that amount per day with max. reward in heaven - 4%
- God B who will do the exact opposite of God A - 1%
Would you agree that under this closed scenario, every rational person should try their best to drink 2L of water per day, and that anyone who would not do this, would be irrational?
If the answer is yes, then I guess that we are on the same page in terms of this argument and “the only thing that remains” is to assign probabilities to various God theories.
I have now watched this video and I don’t think that it is a good criticism of this kind of argument. Let me address 2 points that the video makes:
- point - Hank says:
Pragmatism is based on the theory that finding true beliefs is less important than finding beliefs that work, practically, in the living of your life. In this view, it doesn’t really matter whether spinach actually helps muscle growth;if eating spinach will improve your life, and believing that it’ll make you strong convinces you to eat it – then it’s a useful belief, which is all that matters. [Pragmatists] have an ideological ancestor in 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.
But what is weird is that Pascal’s argument for God’s existence had very little to do with whether God was actually real. Instead, it had everything to do with with whether belief in his existence was practical.
Let me now specifically focus on the wager discussed in this thread. Take the example of the tournament. Any rational person should bet on Team B not because it makes them feel good, but because it is the most rational decision to do.
In the same way, in the first post, atheist A should bet on Christianity not because it is practical in the sense that it makes them feel good, but because it is the most rational thing to do under that scenario. Even if it makes them feel terrible, they should still bet on it.
And if someone disagrees that any rational person should bet on Team B, I’d like to hear reasons why (there are possible reasons, but I personally don’t think that they work if the argument for team B is structured properly)
- point video makes:
Our old friend Bertrand Russell once posited the existence of a china teapot,orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.Let’s say that back on Earth there were a bunch of Teapot-ists, people who argued that,since we can’t disprove the teapot’s existence, they were justified in believing in it…After all, if we can leap to God, we can also leap to Russell’s teapot, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Let’s say that the probability of Russell’s teapot is 0.00001% - we are not rational into believing that this teapot exists because teapots do not have any ability to provide reward/punishment if we believe/ don’t believe in them.
Only God or god-like things could provide maximum punishment/reward for anything. You can construct a God theory that says anyone who does not believe in this teapot will go to hell forever - but unless you provide at least some argument for it you can also construct a God theory that says anyone who does believe in this teapot will go to hell forever - and since they cancel each other out - the only thing that you are left with is 0.00001% probobility that this teapot exists.
No.
One can quite rationally choose to rebel against an arbitrary and unjust God and such dictates as this describes.
Say rather that every rational person who ONLY cares about what is in his own best interest regardless of issues of justice and its rationality would certainly comply with this.
Please forgive my density, I’m not sure I understand the question. I will try to respond, but feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood.
Fortunately, I don’t have to judge who has it and who doesn’t.
Since we are discussing Christianity, I was referring to faith in Christ.
Correct. This has long been viewed as the fatal flaw for Pascal’s Wager. The original Wager is binary: Atheism vs Christianity. It breaks down when one begins to consider other possible gods. (The same is true for the so-called “Updated Wager” that I proposed.)
I agree. If this is how you’re going to make your decision, you should not choose Christianity. Simply “betting” on Christianity does not get you the payout, one must come to faith in Christ.
Perhaps you have identified one of the flaws in this Modified Wager. The argument accounts only for probability and value – could there be other relevant variables?
Also, I think the deeper flaw in this type of thinking is looking for a purely rational argument to help make this decision. What proof do you have that such an argument exists? Is there any evidence, or do you simply trust that it is out there?
P.S.
I am glad that is one barrier you do not have to overcome. Sorry that I read in a position which you do not hold.
You’re understanding is crystal. So as at least two thirds of the World doesn’t have that, whatever it is, what are the consequences, what aren’t they saved from? Now? What is your understanding?
Why only a false dichotomy?
There is much discussion and debate on this topic. For the sake of this conversation, I’ll call it eternal separation from God.
Wow! What do you have to do in this blink to get that?!
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” - Ephesians 2:8-9
There isn’t anything that you can do to get it. You simply accept the gift, secured for you at great cost.
Or what? . . .
Is this a different question than what was asked before? If so, would you clarify?
Are we drifting off of the original question about Pascal’s Wager? Is this a topic that we should bounce to its own thread?
I’m monist. There’s only ever one thing going on. Pascal was damnationist as are all else here, unless they say otherwise.