Problems with Pascal's Wager

[Prevaricator]

YOu are missing the point. Its not about "heaven." Its about infinite gain.

[bronzepiglet]

I don't know if the whole thing is worth getting that excited about... perhaps Pascal wanted to justify his beliefs, but other than that, I don't know if it's more than an observation.

I do think it would be hard to make an equally compelling argument against believing in God... in terms of personal gain/loss.

[CallMeIshmael]

Gump, I agree with pretty much everything you've said, with the exception of:

[ QUOTE ]
The argument works just fine provided that one assumes that the cost of believing in religion X is extremely low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the cost in believing in religion X is VERY HIGH, the wager still works. Because there is nothing that we could pay in this life that wouldnt be worth it, if the reward were Heaven (infinite).

[drudman]

BLARG!

We could be talking about Pascal's contributions to mathematics. Instead we're talking about the wager.

[Cerril]

The only reason I require rational alternatives is that otherwise you have to assume equal probability that doing X is necessary to get you into heaven and NOT doing X is necessary to get you into heaven.

That's why DS's comment about how being good to others is not forbidden by any religion is meaningful. So Pascal's Wager only works as phrased if there is only one reasonable choice once you make the decision to believe in God, or that none of the rational choices contradict each other. If there are contradictory choices, then you can still rephrase it that the infinite value comes in choosing any one religion, but it loses a lot of the force since now just believing in God doesn't save you from damnation.