Pascal's Wager - Any Way to Live a Life

Last night driving home from work I was listening to a Christian radio station and it was one of those right-wing nut job talk shows. Not sure what talk show it was but the guest was Dinesh D'Souza and the discussion was concerning a debate between Dinesh-Hitchen's at Kings College. They played sound bites of Christopher Hitchen's of which I found interesting, insightful and truthful (however their intent was the opposite).The topic came around to Pascal's Wager. Both the female Talk Show Host and Dinesh and following callers were all in strong agreement of the wisdom behind Pascal's Wager and they used C.S. Lewis and Pascal himself as an appeal to intellectual authority on its validity.I often hear this argument within Christian circles and have notice Christians here such as ICANT, NJ and others employ Pascal's Wager in defense of their faith.Laying aside the fallacy of Pascals Wager itself (hey maybe theist are punished in the end as some cosmic plot twist). This brings me to my question: is employing Pascal's Wager in your approach to life an authentic and intellectually honest way to live!?

I probably should have been clearer. One could acknowledge the Fallacy of Pascal's Wager on one level but still cowardly and nervously cling to the wager because of the potential infinite/nothing gain ratio that involves a world view that they are already committed to for reasons other than logic. Also, the wager has a built-in defense mechanism - regardless how improbable there is always this small chance to win infinite.Whenever I hear people using this Wager I note that they are really admitting that God, far from a loving God, is one evil SOB by organizing a universe where the only point is one cosmic crap shoot with ultimate stakes.

Consider yourself fortunate. Isn't it funny how peer pressure works in multiple ways? There are other circles pressuring the other way.I have been embedded in that Church going circle before when I lived with by brother. Going to "meetings" was not an option but a requirement. The only thing is that the meetings (church) were really just a device for someone to talk a lot about the coming end-time with a captive audience that ate it up like it was wisdom and not the manifestation of a depressed psychology that is was. This is where I strongly disagree. I am with Archer on this, one cannot decide or will oneself to genuinely believe.The mind believes in something because of:1) A preponderance of evidence
2) A desire to quell some strong personal anguishBeliefs based on the latter often lead to intellectual dishonesty and overshadow the former.I will grant you that evidence may be objective, subjective or even subconscious. In your case, it was some personal experience in others it maybe some answered prayer or an unlikely set of coincidences, etc. However, I suspect that many of the subjective evidences go unexamined and suffer from confirmation bias as the result of a self-centric world-view.Pascal's Wager is often trotted out as a reason to believe to overcome the lack of evidence and hence leads to intellectual dishonesty. Pascal's Wager is really stressing the threat side of a chain-letter theology ( Message 1 ) and providing a possible solution to comfort the anguish of hell.As an aside I believe that a life lived authentically, courageously and honestly and with reverence to life is in itself a form worship to the creator, if indeed there is one. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Nahhh it is not a wager against God. It is only a wager that God is not akin to a Nazi death camp guard sitting at the gates of heaven with a thumbs up or down for arriving souls. This really is the vision of the Christian God.In other words...

Refusing to believe in a god due to the lack of evidence is only a wager that God is not a cruel unjust spiteful revenge driven sadist.

​

Believing in a god (as means of saving your ego) without sufficient evidence is a wager that God is indeed a cruel unjust spiteful revenge driven sadist.

​

NJ writes:

​

For the Christian its a win-win situation. For the atheist its a win-loss situation.

​

You are considering too small a range of possibilities.

​

What about the possibility that those who do not believe in superstitions go to heaven to be with God and superstition believers go to hell? Now for the atheist it is a win and for you a loss.

​

Maybe there is more meaning in the passage "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it" then is given credit.

​

NJ writes:

​

The problem with the argument is that its prefaced upon a false dichotomy.

​

Ah so you do realize it is a false dichotomy so why would you make the above statement which framed the false dichotomy?

​

NJ writes:

​

There is ample justification to believe that not all theistic beliefs will save you. Also, if you are a Christian, simply believing that God exists does not constitute salvation.

​

There is as much "ample justification to believe that not all theistic beliefs will save you" as there is justification that having _no_ theistic beliefs will save you.

​

Actually I would say the justification is weighted towards the possibility that _no_ theistic beliefs will save you as those beliefs tend to be more uniform while theistic beliefs are all over the map. It would surely make the selection processing more straight forward

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Actually i think pascal's wager fails because it is inconceivable that the creator of the material universe would play a game requiring what is in essence a blind bet - for what reason would God hide behind obscure, incomplete and questionable evidence?Here is paraphrase of something I heard a while back (not sure of the source) that puts a bit humor into the bizarre notion..."God doesn't play dice.... no no.... he plays poker, in a dark room with blank cards, and he doesn't explain the rules" Edited by iceage, : No reason given.