> Pascal contends that a rational person should adopt a lifestyle consistent with the existence of God and should strive to believe in God. The reasoning for this stance involves the potential outcomes: if God does not exist, the believer incurs only finite losses, potentially sacrificing certain pleasures and luxuries; if God does exist, the believer stands to gain immeasurably, as represented for example by an eternity in Heaven in Abrahamic tradition, while simultaneously avoiding boundless losses associated with an eternity in Hell.[2]
Should a rational person play in the lottery? If they lose they incur only small losses. If they win, they stand to gain immensely.
No, the expected pay-off is still negative.
Pascal tries to make the expected value positive by promising infinite rewards, but God or any supposed behaviours to please that God are not really needed in there.
There might be another God who provides the same rewards to those who refrain from the supposed behaviours.
Perhaps a rational person should simply believe in an infinitely rewarding afterlife for those who believe in one.
JohnFen•4mo ago
Yes, Pascal's Wager never made any logical sense whatsoever. In addition, it's nonsensical in a spiritual sense, a kind of dishonest bit of psychological judo.
krapp•4mo ago
Bear in mind that the goal of Pascal's wager was to convert people to Christianity. That the wager implicitly assumes the Abrahamic God is the only one that can possibly exist is intentional.
This kind of "dishonest psychological judo" is common to Christian apologists to this day. If you've ever been in a conversation with someone trying to convert you, it becomes obvious that they're just trying to find the one crazy logic trick or rhetorical flourish that will flip you.
tromp•4mo ago
Should a rational person play in the lottery? If they lose they incur only small losses. If they win, they stand to gain immensely. No, the expected pay-off is still negative.
Pascal tries to make the expected value positive by promising infinite rewards, but God or any supposed behaviours to please that God are not really needed in there. There might be another God who provides the same rewards to those who refrain from the supposed behaviours.
Perhaps a rational person should simply believe in an infinitely rewarding afterlife for those who believe in one.
JohnFen•4mo ago
krapp•4mo ago
This kind of "dishonest psychological judo" is common to Christian apologists to this day. If you've ever been in a conversation with someone trying to convert you, it becomes obvious that they're just trying to find the one crazy logic trick or rhetorical flourish that will flip you.