Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. Change my mind. AbovetallAOTY: Clearly a false dichotomy. Another problem is the idea that belief is volitional. Finally, the implicit notion that God would be okay with people believing "just in case" is problematic to say the least. Otherwise, it's a great wager.  AretoNyx: Not so great that one god is not the same as another per religion dogma. So many differences of so many sects besides religions. Even though humans are the ones to create religions ,build religious institutions, books, and choose leaders in charge fear shouldn't be the reasons to stay in. Many cults do use manipulative ways such as fear, and an even just in case reason to shun exmembers. AretoNyx: This convinces me it is poor idea same as the watch maker argument is not well done. Though many religious people do the same old stuff to keep members. It some times works to get people to tithe or pay into such as well with that " just in case" idea. Sometimes the money is for charity and others such as mega churches using it for private jets, and Scientology I have no idea where it goes.  edmund_carey: I need an explanation. I'm willing to believe that Pascal's wager is a fallacy. But I can't see it myself. Help?  If the stars fell: its the idea that you are better off believing in god just in case it happens to be true... to avoid things like hell. Obviously this is fallacious reasoning as it presents whats known as a false dichotomy, which sets up a scenario where there are only two possible outcomes when there is actually more than two possible outcomes... which makes it a fallacy.... there is more than one concept of god, and there is more than one set of ramifications to believing or not believing it... which makes it a fallacy in and of itself... of course this is not the only problem with this proposition, there are many flaws involved... but one fallacy is sufficient to disregard the premise. edmund_carey: Hmm. I see. Thanks. I suppose Pascal would say something about the possibilities he is referring to not being any less real because there are other conceptions of the divine, or what the divine means. Ignore the transcendent, and you are still running the risk, so to speak? The risk doesn't disappear because there are more than two possible outcomes. In all likelihood, genius though he was, Pascal's mind simply wasn't on any thinking on the matter other than that current in his own culture. But culture specificity is only irrelevant to cultural expression (War and Peace is a great novel whether you are a Czarist Russian or not) not to philosophical reasoning.  AchillesSinatra: Pascal's wager exemplifies the difference between epistemic (or theoretical) reasoning and practical reasoning. For example, if there's a T-Rex just around the corner, you'd be well advised to steer clear of it. (a matter of practical reasoning) This, in itself, gives us no reason whatsoever to believe there's a T-Rex up ahead. (a matter of epistemic reasoning) Similarly for Pascal's wager: IF Gods exists, and what we're told about Him is true (burning in hell and all that), then we'd be well advised to get on our knees. Carrots and sticks, and stories about heaven and hell, of course, by themselves add precisely nothing to the epistemic warrant for belief in God. That has to be argued for independently. AchillesSinatra: So, in answer to the OP, my useless two cents' worth is that it is not a logical fallacy. IF God exists, and what the wise men say about Him is true, then it DOES follow that you'd be well advised to believe in him. And, IF Saint Nicholas exists, and you're hoping to get a shiny new train set for Christmas, you'd be well advised to stop pouting and write letters to Santa. But as noted above, this is a matter of practical reasoning. Thus far, we have been given no epistemic reason whatsoever to believe that either Santa or God exist. If the stars fell: that is not the argument that was presented, its like rolling an infinitely sided dice and hoping to land on the right answer... or betting on double zero green because you might hit the jackpot. AchillesSinatra: I respectfully disagree, sir. You're construing the wager (if I understand you correctly) as an argument for God's existence. I don't think the wager is an argument for God's existence. It is, rather, an argument to the effect that IF he exists, and you prefer manna and quails to eternal flames, THEN you ought to start . . .well, handling rattlesnakes or something. AchillesSinatra: It's not an argument which purports to establish God's existence. It's an argument about what we OUGHT to do. In other words, it is normative, as opposed to epistemic. It tells us what we SHOULD do. Pascal might have said himself "I cannot prove God exists, but if he does and you don't believe in him, you're in deep merde". If the stars fell: no, its like saying its rational to bet one a 1 in a million chance simply to avoid a negative outcome, or hope for a positive one... just in case. its not about gods existence. it sets up a false dichotomy when in fact there is no reason to assume that either outcome is possible let alone that they are the only ones, or are any more likely than a multitude of other possible outcomes, particularly without establishing the validity of the premise OR the odds AchillesSinatra: Again, I'd have to disagree. I don't think Pascal is laying odds on God's existence, What he IS doing is laying odds on your best course of action on the presupposition that he exists. If the stars fell: no, he is assuming that there are only two possible outcomes without establishing the validity of either, as well as ignoring all other possible outcomes. AchillesSinatra: Ok, I see what you're getting at now. But how is "Either God exists or he does not" a false dichotomy? Are there any other options? If the stars fell: thats not the argument, the argument is that its better to believe in god to achieve heaven, or avoid hell, than to not believe and take the risk. AchillesSinatra: Again, I don't see how "It's better to believe X than not believe X" is a false dichotomy. I suppose we could withhold judgement as a third alternative. Is this what you have in mind? AchillesSinatra: Ah, that's an interesting point. Pascal seems to to just assume that we are free to choose. AchillesSinatra: But then again, the wager only makes sense under the presupposition of freedom of the will. Without it, we are determined to believe what we believe. And that's that. Right? | Religion Chat Room 10 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
