The binary choice nature of the wager always seemed bizarre to me. The real-life choice isn’t “Christian God: yes or no,” it’s “try to pick the right option among these very many religious choices.” It also seems to me that some possibly right choices have rankings that go: my god > no religion > wrong religion. None of this necessarily means that you shouldn’t take the wager, but given the above it definitely isn’t obviously right to me.
But even if we were in a world with where we had only heard of one religion as an alternative to atheism, I still wouldn’t be convinced by the argument for Pascal’s wager. Would you?
That’s a good question. I’m not sure. I was raised very religious and for a while when I was younger I found the logic compelling, so maybe? At this point in my life I think the answer is “no.”
This is not enough to claim that Christianity as a whole holds this position, but there certainly exist sentiments in this direction such as
Revelation 3:15--16
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (Holy Bible, New International Version)
Many rankings will add the required complexity, I think, but I’ve definitely heard this said about Jews (by Christians). Surely many Christians would also disagree ofc.
The way I see it, the wager IS binary, but the choice is “act as though heaven/hell exists: yes or no”. If you answer “yes”, then of course there are multiple ways to proceed from that point, but that doesn’t mean the wager itself isn’t binary.
If I decide to accept the wager, the next step will be a WHOLE other thing and definitely not binary.
But as I understand it the whole point of the wager is the heavenly pay off. In that case, you can’t just say “I pick heaven” and defer the part where you pick a religion, as that influences whether or not you get the payoff. So I think this is less like a binary decision and more like picking the right card out of a deck.
It does seem to me, if you think the general reasoning of the wager is sound, that the most rational thing to do is to pick one of the cards and hope for the best, as opposed to not picking any of them.
You could for example pick Christianity or Islam, but also regularly pray to the “one true god” whoever he may be, and respectfully ask for forgiveness if your faith is misplaced. This might be a way of minimising the chances of going to hell, although there could be even better ways on further reflection.
Having said all that I’m atheist and never pray. But I’m not necessarily sure that’s the best way to be…
While I still disagree that the decision is non-binary, you do bring up a possibility I hadn’t thought of which is that NO ACTION could be the BEST ACTION if you think practicing the wrong religion makes you more likely to go to hell and less likely to go to heaven.
Although now I think about it, that wouldn’t imply no action, rather that you should encourage atheism, behaviour generally agreed upon across religions, and possibly converting people from one religion to a more likely one.
The binary choice nature of the wager always seemed bizarre to me. The real-life choice isn’t “Christian God: yes or no,” it’s “try to pick the right option among these very many religious choices.” It also seems to me that some possibly right choices have rankings that go: my god > no religion > wrong religion. None of this necessarily means that you shouldn’t take the wager, but given the above it definitely isn’t obviously right to me.
But even if we were in a world with where we had only heard of one religion as an alternative to atheism, I still wouldn’t be convinced by the argument for Pascal’s wager. Would you?
That’s a good question. I’m not sure. I was raised very religious and for a while when I was younger I found the logic compelling, so maybe? At this point in my life I think the answer is “no.”
What major religion are you thinking of that has that ranking? Islam seems to treat Christianity/Islam as preferable to paganism/irreligion.
This is not enough to claim that Christianity as a whole holds this position, but there certainly exist sentiments in this direction such as
Revelation 3:15--16
Many rankings will add the required complexity, I think, but I’ve definitely heard this said about Jews (by Christians). Surely many Christians would also disagree ofc.
The way I see it, the wager IS binary, but the choice is “act as though heaven/hell exists: yes or no”. If you answer “yes”, then of course there are multiple ways to proceed from that point, but that doesn’t mean the wager itself isn’t binary.
If I decide to accept the wager, the next step will be a WHOLE other thing and definitely not binary.
But as I understand it the whole point of the wager is the heavenly pay off. In that case, you can’t just say “I pick heaven” and defer the part where you pick a religion, as that influences whether or not you get the payoff. So I think this is less like a binary decision and more like picking the right card out of a deck.
It does seem to me, if you think the general reasoning of the wager is sound, that the most rational thing to do is to pick one of the cards and hope for the best, as opposed to not picking any of them.
You could for example pick Christianity or Islam, but also regularly pray to the “one true god” whoever he may be, and respectfully ask for forgiveness if your faith is misplaced. This might be a way of minimising the chances of going to hell, although there could be even better ways on further reflection.
Having said all that I’m atheist and never pray. But I’m not necessarily sure that’s the best way to be…
While I still disagree that the decision is non-binary, you do bring up a possibility I hadn’t thought of which is that NO ACTION could be the BEST ACTION if you think practicing the wrong religion makes you more likely to go to hell and less likely to go to heaven.
Although now I think about it, that wouldn’t imply no action, rather that you should encourage atheism, behaviour generally agreed upon across religions, and possibly converting people from one religion to a more likely one.