How widespread is Pascal's Wager among the general public?

[Brian63]

Lately I have been looking over some websites with various theists, especially of the fundamentalist variety, explaining why poor misguided atheists are so irrational and extremely nonsensical. What has been a bit surprising though is how often they cite some version of Pascal's Wager as a grounds for holding the beliefs they do. Basically, that argument holds that it is simply a safer bet to believe in God than to not believe in God. If you are right, eternal bliss. If you are wrong, no harm. If there is no God and you guess right, you get nothing. If you are wrong, eternal torment.

It is an extremely seductive argument just on first glance, and as long as you do not invest a lot of time thinking about it in more depth. The problems with it, both logical and ethical, are extremely numerous and it is actually one of the worst and most superficial and flimsiest arguments that a person could come up with. It is ridiculously common though. Back as a kid when I was semi-entertaining the idea that there was a god, I remember Pascal's Wager being one of the arguments that was leading me in that direction. It was not until years later that I started to realize the many faults with it. Still, it is just soooooooo extremely common to hear grown adults still expressing this argument, and it is a complete giveaway that they have not really investigated their own beliefs from any critical stance, to any kind of depth at all, despite all the assurances that they have done that.

I just wonder how ubiquitous this sort of psychological facade is in the public at large. The people who comprise the hyper-fundamenatlists religionists use it, as do the twice-a-year (Easter and Christmas) Christians, as do people all along that spectrum of religious beliefs. This is not something we can probably get any kind of statistical data on, but I am curious to know among those of you here who used to be theists of various flavors yourselves---was Pascal's Wager and the inherent betting on God to exist part of your underlying motivation for believing in God, even if you had never heard the official name for it before? It was for me, to the little extent that I ever believed there was a god. Was there anyone here who did *not* have it comprise part of your religious psyche?

As much antagonism as we feel and express towards fundamentalists on this forum, there is that part of me that also feels so sad for them, that so much of their life is based not only on a falsehood, but on an extremely shallow and ethically rotten argument that even they usually can realize after it is pointed out to them. Life can be so much better after you get rid of the junk arguments and rotten beliefs out of your worldview. Just keep the good stuff then.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

What has been a bit surprising though is how often they cite some version of Pascal's Wager as a grounds for holding the beliefs they do.

Well, sure.
People blogging about how stupid and irrational atheists are don't want to hear rational arguments against religious belief, but prefer to feel smug about their superiority.
The argument wasn't crafted to bring people to a bleef. It's crafted to help people feel smug about having made the decision to be a theist (or just settled for inertia and remained the theist their parents raised). So it fits right into the tirade they've launched upon. pretty much exactly because it's purpose-built for that.

And logical errors don't appear if you're not going to use it logically. That would be like complaining about the book's cover when you're watching the movie based on it.

 

[Brian63]

The argument wasn't crafted to bring people to a bleef. It's crafted to help people feel smug about having made the decision to be a theist (or just settled for inertia and remained the theist their parents raised).

Well, I do not know what its original intent was when it was originally crafted, but can say from firsthand experience that it has been used by Christians towards me, as a means of evangelism. People presented the argument to me, knowing that I was an atheist, and apparently thinking it was something that had never occurred to me in the past. It is more than just a confirmation of them for them to hold their religious beliefs, it actually has been used to witness to heathens as well. Believing in God is just such a more sensible bet, that it makes no sense at all to not believe in God, eh?

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

The argument wasn't crafted to bring people to a bleef. It's crafted to help people feel smug about having made the decision to be a theist (or just settled for inertia and remained the theist their parents raised).

Well, I do not know what its original intent was when it was originally crafted, but can say from firsthand experience that it has been used by Christians towards me, as a means of evangelism.

Yes, it appeals to them. They think it should be equally appealing to others, but i don't know anyone who came to be a theist as a result of the wager. They've always been already turned on to one or another skybeast before they come across it, and then just fail to analyze it critically.

 

[ronburgundy]

The argument wasn't crafted to bring people to a bleef. It's crafted to help people feel smug about having made the decision to be a theist (or just settled for inertia and remained the theist their parents raised).

Well, I do not know what its original intent was when it was originally crafted, but can say from firsthand experience that it has been used by Christians towards me, as a means of evangelism. People presented the argument to me, knowing that I was an atheist, and apparently thinking it was something that had never occurred to me in the past. It is more than just a confirmation of them for them to hold their religious beliefs, it actually has been used to witness to heathens as well. Believing in God is just such a more sensible bet, that it makes no sense at all to not believe in God, eh?

Brian

So, very few Christians ever actually talk to anyone about their religious beliefs who does not share them. They go out of their way to avoid such discussions, because on some level they know their beliefs are intellectually indefensible and based in emotion or social conformity.
Thus, they would not have come across this argument since early indoctrination doesn't make even psuedo-logical arguments for God, but just crafts a reality and a history where God is an unquestionable given. And if you need convincing, then you lack true faith, and are fucked anyway.
So, I'd say few Christians know this argument. Actually way more atheists are familiar with it, because most atheists have encountered arguments for belief during their process of leaving religion. The people who are encountering are the small % of Christians who, rather than avoid thinking about it, try to cobble together a post-hoc rationalization, because they feel a need to believe but also a need not to be irrational and to defend their position as though they came by it honestly (which they did not).
Those folks love Pascal's Wager because as lousy and illogical as it is, it is the closest thing to a rational sounding argument for Theism that anyone has every come up with. I doubt most of them were actually convinced by hearing the argument. However, at the heart of the argument an admission of belief based upon fear and childish hope for utopia, and that is in fact the primary roots for most theistic belief.

 

[credoconsolans]

I've seen it pretty wide-spread, but mostly among US evangelicals, because the only way the wager works is if there is only "one true religion" and the people who most likely make this assumption are US Christian evangelicals.

It never occurs to them that there is any other religion worth considering so they're quick to haul it out and use it.

 

[fta]

Yes, I've had street preachers try that one out. "Have you considered what happens if we're right and you're wrong?" One might retort, "Have you considered what happens if God turns out to be a Catholic or a Muslim? Then you will go to Hell for being a Protestant."

 

[Underseer]

Christians generally find Pascal's Wager to be a compelling argument, and often fail to understand what's wrong with it even after you explain all the fallacies in detail.

This should not surprise anyone. After all, fear of Hell is the reason they believe, so naturally you should be convinced by any argument involving Hell. What's really funny is that they insist that their belief is not motivated by fear of Hell, but it is clear from their arguments (Pascal's wager is far from the only Hell-based argument you will hear), they genuinely expect that fear of Hell will compel you to believe, which in turn proves that they are wrong about why they believe.

Usually, the way I phrase it is "If the afterlife threats of other religions did not convince you to convert to those religions, why did you expect that the afterlife threats of your religion would convince me?" It makes a nice jumping-off point to discussing why they thought that particular argument would be compelling (namely, that fear of Hell is a more important reason for their beliefs than they think).

What's funny is that one of the most common answers I get to that question is "Because my religion is true and all those other religions are false," which leads to a discussion about why things are true, which is probably a more important discussion than whether or not Christianity is true anyway.

 

[Perspicuo]

Just change "God" for "Allah" or "Krishna", and they'll get what you're aiming at.

 

[Atheos]

I'm not so sure they'll get it if you do that. I've never personally found it to be a very effective chip in these sorts of discussions. Many Christians are woefully ignorant of just how well developed those other world religions are, and immediately rationalize that people who believe in them are simply misguided and irrational. "If they just took a moment to look at how much superior the Bible is to their religious teachings they'd come right over."

Basking in ignorance is a powerful way to brush aside knowledge, logic and reason.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe it should be called the Highest Bidder Fallacy.

After all, what do I have to lose? So I need to find the religion that offers the most in the afterlife and stick with that.

 

[Atheos]

I think that's a pretty big advantage Christianity has in the Pascal's Wager department. When it comes to risk vs reward, the imaginary afterlives of the christian religion are second to none. Hell is described as an eternal place of punishment where a person is tormented in flame and thirst without end. Heaven is presented as a place where there are no tears, no aging, no diseases. It is a place of everlasting happiness.

The Muslim versions of these things are similar, probably due to their association with the Abrahamic god traditions.

The Hindu version isn't that bad, it speaks of Karma and the unending opportunities to get it right in the next go 'round. So even if one is consigned to a lifetime of suffering it's still only a lifetime during which preparations can be made to enjoy a happier fate in the next life.

But most variants of Christianity involve the high-pressure sales tactic of "Buy now, it's a limited time offer." Most hold no option of changing your fate once you get to a place where you actually know for sure what you're getting into.

 

[Brian63]

Insurance policy for the soul.

Brian

 

[ronburgundy]

BTW, the argument is fallacious, even if one presumes a Hell and a particular God. To be valid, the argument must also presume that the one true God is so petty and insecure that he punishes non-believers with Hell and is fine with believers and worshipers who only do so out of fear and not understanding or love.
Such an assumption is far from intuitive and is implausible even if God's existence is presumed, and even if a human-centric God is presumed.
It is far more plausible that a creator God would demand humans use their gift of a rational mind and not give into base fear, even if that results in disbelief. This is especially true of a God with the intellect capable of creating the Universe and who gave the power of logic and reason to his favorite creation us (while fear is what drives even the "lowest" creatures). IOW, it is more likely that God would send believers to hell for failing to use reason.

In sum, the only way the wager pays off for believers is to presume the most insecure and petty God imaginable who doesn't even respect the power of reasoning he imparted on us, in which case even if such a God existed and would send me to Hell, any decent person who believed in him should also despise him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

BTW, the argument is fallacious, even if one presumes a Hell and a particular God. To be valid, the argument must also presume that the one true God is so petty and insecure that he punishes non-believers with Hell and is fine with believers and worshipers who only do so out of fear and not understanding or love.

You have read the Bible, right? There isn't a more petty god except the Greek God Pettius.

 

[jonJ]

My experience is that specific religious arguments originate with the brightest theists and gradually work their way down through the remainder as they gradually become aware that there is a debate, and that they are expected to defend their position. You can pretty accurately estimate the education level of a theist poster, and predict the outcome of their debate, by the arguments they choose to use.

I mostly post on Quora now, and I find that the brightest theists there have pretty well sold the pass, and agreed that there is no evidence for God's existence and no chance of finding any. Debate tends to be about what atheists believe and the role of vacuous possibilities. Pascal's Wager comes up occasionally but is always thoroughly refuted by the first few responses.

Perhaps this is a sign that people who had never felt the need to justify their belief in religion before are just grabbing the first 'argument' that comes to hand.

 

[Draconis]

But if you're going to be believing for the sake of Pascal's Wager, don't you have to believe in all the gods? There's lots of other potentially existent gods out there, and by picking just one, you could very easily pick the wrong one and be in just the same situation as if you had picked none of them.

The problems really start when you examine the beliefs and find that many of them (no surprise) are quite exclusive, ie if you also believe in a 2nd god, then you can't be a true believer of the first one. Or the 14th one, etc. Then there's the various practises that this multitude of gods specify: they are bound to be mutually exclusive at some point, and also collectively leave a "omni-believer" unable to live anything like a normal life (pray here, pray there, pray somewhere else... etc).

As an example: consider how the Romans found it fairly easy to integrate foreign religions into their pantheon. Except one, who claims to be unique. I don't know how someone can believe in a "King of the Gods" while at the same time believing in a single God. Having a Jupiter/Zeus implies there are other gods to be king of. If there's only one god, then he'd have to be king of himself, which is silly. Having one god with avatars doesn't really get around this.

 

[Brian63]

Some years back on a religious-heavy forum I was on, someone dished out Pascal's Wager to me and how it is a safer bet, as if that had just never occurred to me, so I responded in part with:

What if the god's side is to just send everyone to heaven who honestly professed their inner beliefs openly, and did not treat their belief system as an insurance policy for the next life? If this god really was omniscient, it is not as if I could trick it or pretend to believe something other than what I really believe anyway. If it really was good, it would not punish me just for having the wrong beliefs about the universe. All in all, my best bet is to be an open atheist, though I am not so because it is a bet. I am so because this is the only life I will ever have, and I do not want to spend it pretending to be something that I am not.

Her reply did not respond to that as all. I think the trick is to show them that not only is it illogical and futile (by trying to deceive an all-knowing being), but also puts the atheist ironically in a more ethical position by rejecting it all. They just never considered that as a possibility before, that an atheist can be more ethical than their god. That thought never swirled around in their head. So whenever I have debated theists (and fundies in particular) on these topics, I often aim to do so from an ethical perspective, and showing how their god is a horrible and unethical monster, and it is more moral to reject it than to obey it. They do not know how to argue against it, and their usual apologetic arguments about how the god merely exists does not address the issue of whether the god is moral or immoral. That is more likely to get them thinking about their religion from a different angle though, and to a different depth than what they are accustomed to. Their invoking of Pascal's Wager, which paints their god in an especially ugly light, can help us atheists to that end.

Brian

 

[Underseer]

I think that's a pretty big advantage Christianity has in the Pascal's Wager department. When it comes to risk vs reward, the imaginary afterlives of the christian religion are second to none. Hell is described as an eternal place of punishment where a person is tormented in flame and thirst without end. Heaven is presented as a place where there are no tears, no aging, no diseases. It is a place of everlasting happiness.

The Muslim versions of these things are similar, probably due to their association with the Abrahamic god traditions.

The Hindu version isn't that bad, it speaks of Karma and the unending opportunities to get it right in the next go 'round. So even if one is consigned to a lifetime of suffering it's still only a lifetime during which preparations can be made to enjoy a happier fate in the next life.

But most variants of Christianity involve the high-pressure sales tactic of "Buy now, it's a limited time offer." Most hold no option of changing your fate once you get to a place where you actually know for sure what you're getting into.

The Christian "heaven" involves endless worship of an absolute dictator.

I'll take the beer volcano of Pastafarianism over that any day of the week.

Also, it's trivially easy to think of a hell worse than what Christianity and Islam offer. All you have to do is add punishments on top of what they offer. For example, we can make up a religion in which the punishment is to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity... while listening to country and western "music."