Pascal's Wager ('Walang Mawawala' Argument): Unpacked

[Kaplok Kaplok]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and Catholic writer.

He was a You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. who was educated by his father, a tax collector in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Pascal's earliest mathematical work was on You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; he wrote a significant treatise on the subject of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. at the age of 16. He later corresponded with You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. on You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., strongly influencing the development of modern economics and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In 1642, while still a teenager, he started some pioneering work on calculating machines (called You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and later Pascalines), establishing him as one of the first two inventors of the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

However.. we are not here for the maths and sciences. What we will be talking about is the Pascal's Wager.

PASCAL'S WAGER​

The wager stems from Pascal's deep seated devotion to God and to Christianity. Pascal's motives come from wanting to convert others to Christianity through logic and reason.

If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
This is equivalent to the Filipino version:
"Mas maganda na maniwala sa Diyos. Kasi kung hindi man siya totoo, walang mawawala. At kung totoo siya, sa langit ka mapupunta. Kung hindi ka kasi maniniwala, tumataya ka sa kung saan maaring mapunta ka sa impyerno."

	God Exists	God does not Exist
Believe	Heaven (Infinite Gain)	No Loss
Don't Believe	Hell (Infinite Loss)	No Gain

Therefore, it is the most rational decision to bet on God's existence, and believe in it.
 

SCRUTINY​

Now, being a practicioner of Catholicism, and an Atheist my self.. I have a few qualm's about this argument. Let us list the problems of this argument.

- It does not prove God's existence. It is said in an agnostic language, where God existence cannot be proven. And, it turns belief into a bet, which is indecent, and is only concerned about the consequences of it.

- It is mistaken on the fact that "there is nothing to lose." If you were to adopt the belief, and turned out that God does not exist, you will probabaly have lived a life avoiding things you could have done. We only have one life (At least on the Christian perspective) and you could haved missed out on a lot of experiences.

- It relies on the ungrounded belief that God will reward a person just for the act of believing in His existence, as if believing merits any reward.

- It does not take into account the existence of other religions. They can be Muslims, polytheists, or pagans. And in fact, any other religion can use the same argument against a Christians, because they think that the Christian God is fake, weak or evil anyway.

- It fails to consider the belief of Gnostic religion, which believes that the Old Testament God (Demiurge) was an evil God. So the wager makes you bet on the wrong God. So the stakes are between greater evil for believer and lesser evil for non-believer.

- It produces a fake belief in God. Besides of not being in the faith because of the teaching, but only because of the percieved consequence - one can simply claim:

"Maniniwala nalang ako, wala naman mawawala,"

- it is shallow, at best, or deceptive at worst.

---

Thank you for reading

What do you think?

 

[Slime-]

I agree TS, lalo na dun sa

"- It is mistaken on the fact that "there is nothing to lose." If you were to adopt the belief, and turned out that God does not exist, you will probabaly have lived a life avoiding things you could have done. We only have one life (At least on the Christian perspective) and you could haved missed out on a lot of experiences."

Ang pinaka argument ko lang din talaga why di ako naniniwala sa religion is, madaming religion and if sabihin natin 1 lang yung totoo, edi sila lang din maliligtas. Religion din nag s strict sa mga pwede mong gawin.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Ang pinaka argument ko lang din talaga why di ako naniniwala sa religion is, madaming religion and if sabihin natin 1 lang yung totoo, edi sila lang din maliligtas. Religion din nag s strict sa mga pwede mong gawin.

Most religions naman kasi, naligaw sila ng landas mula nung nag claim sila na "superior" ang religion nila when it comes to salvation. They start to sell you a "product", something to hold on to. But in reality, when you go through the teachings, most of it is really teaching what you should let go. And that is the key to a happy life.

So, to me naman, any religion is fine, and ignore their commercial BS. I am in for the philosophy and psychological suggestions, and not for the salvation. Kaya I still consider myself atheist.

 

[stellarium]

there are several flaws with Pascal Wager arguments bigyan natin ng list ang mga theists na gumagamit padin ng argumento na to:


Multiple Gods
it assumes that there is only one God, and that believing in this God will result in eternal reward. However, there are countless religious traditions with different conceptions of God or gods, many of which are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to believe in all of them, and choosing one over the others is not necessarily a rational decision.

False belief:
it suggests that believing in God is always better than not believing in God, but this assumes that belief is a simple matter of choosing to believe. In reality, belief is often a result of evidence and experience, and it is not necessarily a choice that one can make simply by choosing to do so. Thus, it is possible to believe in something that is false, which would not lead to eternal reward but could lead to wasting time and resources in life.

Moral concerns
it is morally objectionable because it encourages people to believe in something solely for the sake of personal gain, rather than for reasons of genuine conviction or moral duty. This could lead to a society where people are motivated only by self-interest, rather than by moral principles or concern for others.

Cost-benefit analysis
pascal wager is a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential reward of belief against the cost of disbelief. However, this analysis assumes that the costs and benefits can be easily quantified, which may not be the case. lets take for anexample, some people might argue that the costs of believing in God outweigh the potential benefits. some may argue that the benefits of non-belief (such as intellectual honesty and freedom from dogma) outweigh the costs

Now what they saying that there is nothing to lose if you believe in god, iyan ay isang malaking kasinungalingan
i my self wasted many years of my precious life seeking for the one true religion, in the end narealized ko im just chasing a wind, its my own experience being a faithful believers for many years, pero ano ano sa pangkalahatan ang mawawala sa paniniwala sa mga bagay na hindi naman tototo na gaya ng paniniwala sa diyos? whats are the trade-off?

Intellectual autonomy
many peps experience this, they feel constrained by religious dogma or may be discouraged from questioning certain beliefs or practices.

Freedom from fear
Belief in god can create anxiety or fear of divine judgment, leading to a sense of guilt or obligation.

Limited worldview
this one mostly happening on many islamic socierty, they limits one's exposure to other cultures, ideas, or worldviews.

Limited social networks
belief in God may lead to exclusion from certain social groups or may limit one's opportunities for connection with people of different backgrounds or beliefs.

Discrimination
believing in God may lead to discrimination or persecution, either from other religious groups or from secular authorities.

Limited autonomy
some people who believe in god forcing to follow certain religious laws or customs, even if they conflict with their personal values or beliefs.

Now here are some benefits naman if you dont believe in that imaginary sky dandy:

Intellectual independence:
not believing in god allows people to form their own beliefs and opinions based on evidence and reason, rather than relying on dogma or religious authority.

Freedom from guilt
if you do not believe in god may feel less guilt and shame, as you do not have to conform to religious codes of behavior or worry about divine judgment.

Scientific curiosity
rejecting the idea of god as a creator of the universe can lead to a greater appreciation for scientific inquiry and a desire to understand the natural world on its own terms.

Moral autonomy: People who do not believe in God can develop their own moral code based on empathy, compassion, and reason, rather than relying on religious texts or leaders for guidance.

Tolerance and diversity
not believing in god can encourage people to be more open-minded and accepting of different perspectives, including those of different religions and worldviews.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

there are several flaws with Pascal Wager arguments bigyan natin ng list ang mga theists na gumagamit padin ng argumento na to:


Multiple Gods
it assumes that there is only one God, and that believing in this God will result in eternal reward. However, there are countless religious traditions with different conceptions of God or gods, many of which are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to believe in all of them, and choosing one over the others is not necessarily a rational decision.

False belief:
it suggests that believing in God is always better than not believing in God, but this assumes that belief is a simple matter of choosing to believe. In reality, belief is often a result of evidence and experience, and it is not necessarily a choice that one can make simply by choosing to do so. Thus, it is possible to believe in something that is false, which would not lead to eternal reward but could lead to wasting time and resources in life.

Moral concerns
it is morally objectionable because it encourages people to believe in something solely for the sake of personal gain, rather than for reasons of genuine conviction or moral duty. This could lead to a society where people are motivated only by self-interest, rather than by moral principles or concern for others.

Cost-benefit analysis
pascal wager is a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential reward of belief against the cost of disbelief. However, this analysis assumes that the costs and benefits can be easily quantified, which may not be the case. lets take for anexample, some people might argue that the costs of believing in God outweigh the potential benefits. some may argue that the benefits of non-belief (such as intellectual honesty and freedom from dogma) outweigh the costs

Now what they saying that there is nothing to loose if you believe in god, iyan ay isang malaking kasinungalingan
i my self loose many years of my precious life seeking for the one true religion, in the narealized ko im just chasing a wind, its my own experience being a faithful believers for many years, pero ano ano sa pangkalahatan ang mawawala sa paniniwala sa mga bagay na hindi naman tototo? whats are the trade-off?

Intellectual autonomy
many peps experience this, they feel constrained by religious dogma or may be discouraged from questioning certain beliefs or practices.

Freedom from fear
Belief in god can create anxiety or fear of divine judgment, leading to a sense of guilt or obligation.

Limited worldview
this one mostly happening on many islamic socierty, they limits one's exposure to other cultures, ideas, or worldviews.

Limited social networks
belief in God may lead to exclusion from certain social groups or may limit one's opportunities for connection with people of different backgrounds or beliefs.

Discrimination
believing in God may lead to discrimination or persecution, either from other religious groups or from secular authorities.

Limited autonomy
some people who believe in god forcing to follow certain religious laws or customs, even if they conflict with their personal values or beliefs.

Now here are some benefits naman if you dont believe in that imaginary sky dandy:

Intellectual independence:
not believing in god allows people to form their own beliefs and opinions based on evidence and reason, rather than relying on dogma or religious authority.

Freedom from guilt
if you do not believe in god may feel less guilt and shame, as you do not have to conform to religious codes of behavior or worry about divine judgment.

Scientific curiosity
rejecting the idea of god as a creator of the universe can lead to a greater appreciation for scientific inquiry and a desire to understand the natural world on its own terms.

Moral autonomy: People who do not believe in God can develop their own moral code based on empathy, compassion, and reason, rather than relying on religious texts or leaders for guidance.

Tolerance and diversity
not believing in god can encourage people to be more open-minded and accepting of different perspectives, including those of different religions and worldviews.

Hala pinakyaw mo na yata lahat ng criticsm against Pascal's Wager.

 

[stellarium]

Hala pinakyaw mo na yata lahat ng criticsm against Pascal's Wager.

medyo napasarap lang paps nasabay kasi nagkakape at yosi ako ng makita ko tong post mo

 

[Slime-]

Hala pinakyaw mo na yata lahat ng criticsm against Pascal's Wager.

Grabe nga paps hahaha, parang mapapa like kana lang at no comment eh hahaha

 

[plhbg1]

wow this is one of the things we can agree with, this shows that a scientists do not purely say scientific findings just like einstein they still have the human part and a philosophy or personal outlook in life

 

[jayendecastro]

Tingin ko ung mga nagamit pa din ng argument na yan ung madadaling mainvite sa mga networking

Most religions naman kasi, naligaw sila ng landas mula nung nag claim sila na "superior" ang religion nila when it comes to salvation. They start to sell you a "product", something to hold on to. But in reality, when you go through the teachings, most of it is really teaching what you should let go. And that is the key to a happy life.

So, to me naman, any religion is fine, and ignore their commercial BS. I am in for the philosophy and psychological suggestions, and not for the salvation. Kaya I still consider myself atheist.

Curious lang ako.. what philosophical and paychological suggestions do u get from religion that u coudnt get from somewhere else?

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Curious lang ako.. what philosophical and paychological suggestions do u get from religion that u coudnt get from somewhere else?

To be honest, none of them is really too unique in the religion itself. Most of them we know already. Some of them I rejected in my youth, but when presented again they make a little more sense. Siguro, ung mga natutunan ko sa religion specifically are mostly ideas of the old.

In some way, I agree with some theist that events going on now are actually events already in the bible and already dealt with in the past. It is just that they do not have the Freudian, Jungian, and other psychoanalysis to explain them in a more rational way.

 

[stellarium]

To be honest, none of them is really too unique in the religion itself. Most of them we know already. Some of them I rejected in my youth, but when presented again they make a little more sense. Siguro, ung mga natutunan ko sa religion specifically are mostly ideas of the old.

In some way, I agree with some theist that events going on now are actually events already in the bible and already dealt with in the past. It is just that they do not have the Freudian, Jungian, and other psychoanalysis to explain them in a more rational way.

what can you say about this passage in the bible?

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” -Luke 19:41-44

iyan ang passages sa bibliya na hanggang ngayon napapaisip ako, wala ako ibang maisip na pede itawag kundi "fulfilled prophecy!?" lalo na kung i kokonsidera natin ang israel ngayon as the only jewish state in the middle of the islamic middle east surounded by their enemies, hindi pa pinapanganak si muhammad ng panahon na yan, it seems he foretold the coming of islam as the arch nemesis of the jewish people

 

[TheThird PH]

Nakakalito talaga lalo na ibat iba ang beliefs nang bawat religion. Pero sakin minahal ko nalang talaga kung sino/ano ang kinamulatan ko.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

what can you say about this passage in the bible?

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” -Luke 19:41-44

iyan ang passages sa bibliya na hanggang ngayon napapaisip ako, wala ako ibang maisip na pede itawag kundi "fulfilled prophecy!?" lalo na kung i kokonsidera natin ang israel ngayon as the only jewish state in the middle of the islamic middle east surounded by their enemies, hindi pa pinapanganak si muhammad ng panahon na yan, it seems he foretold the coming of islam as the arch nemesis of the jewish people

Weird thing about sa NT, nag-evolve ang belief from mark, which is more on the teaching, to tha later books. Ung apocalyptic teachings na yan was more symbolical at first. But on books like luke, jan na sila na insert ng mga prophetic qualities ni Jesus, at prophesized past (like the ****** birth, divinity and resurrection.)

Books like luke is more useful as a glympse sa culture ng pre-christians on the background of Judaism and the Roman reign sakanila. Un bang takbo ng isip nung mga nagdadala ng beliefs na iyan on how they ended up creating those myth, then how these myth propagated christianity. Mejo naligaw na sa philosophical value jan, saka doon sa mga sulat ni Paul. They became leaned too much on the superstitions.