Pascal's Wager Debunked - (Arguments For God Episode #2)

After tackling the 'free will defence' to the problem of evil, I thought I'd take a look at one of the least imposing arguments I'm familiar with for God's existence, yet one of the most prevalent: Pascal's wager.

Social Links:

Snapchat: cosmicskeptic

[CosmicSkeptic]

How do you respond to "What if you're wrong?"

[jennal]

I absolutely adore how you dont' attack people you disagree with and only address the ideas and beliefs. you have completely inspired me to do the same. Thanks so much Alex!
also love your haircut😂

[trainertaylor]

You’re wrong on one thing though Alex

You’re assuming Australia exists

[JMUDoc]

I have a three-word answer to "what if you're wrong?" :
"Depends who's right."

[autumnx]

google searches for Australia went up by 5% because of this video

[OrtegaFitnessFactory]

You my friend are helping me to win arguments with theist. My goal is to catch up with all the books you have there :)
Well said and hope you do more videos.

[robertcooper]

I submit that if there is a God, He has a very unusual sense of humor.

[jjmisclove]

If I'm wrong, I will have a truck ton of questions for this "God"; all the unanswered questions that led to my atheism, the ones that even the highest of religious authorities fail to answer.

[WhollyWill]

Alex: "Australia does not exist."
Me, an Australian currently in Australia:
*Starts to sweat*

[DesGardius-megf]

"But Marge, what if we chose the wrong god? Then each week, we're just making him mader and mader."

[LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

_What if you're wrong_ is
a) shifting the burden of proof
b) extremely vague
c) assuming that one can _choose_ what he believes
d) showing that people using this phrase don't actually care, if they are right or not
e) demonstrating, that claimed god of christianity doesn't give a rat's ass about intensions
f) demonstrating that the most important aspect of christianity is fear
g) not helping us determine, whether god exists or not
h) not christianity specific

[SinthiaVicious]

I consider wasting my entire life groveling and begging an unseen, undetectable being not to smite me "something to lose"

[rezandi]

i put some onions in front of my door incase there's vampire. hey! i got nothing to lose if im wrong!, beside my precious onions that i've left rotten for nothing ;(

[LittleMAC]

I think Pascal has the premise wrong.

Someone who needlessly observes various rituals in the hope that their God may be watching is missing out on living and treating others well for the sake of it rather than fear of retribution.

[liisakuivalahti]

To me this Pascal's wager seems more like a threat than an argument. "What if you're wrong? You'll go to hell if you are wrong." Do people really want to make others believe by threatening with hell and making them scared of it? Seems a bit weird to me.

[laurameszaros]

Believing in God "just in case" is pure cowardice, and I'm sure God would see through it.

[SkittlesInYourHand]

Oh, I hate Pascal's Wager, I hear it all the time when debating. It's like a 1% chance that the God you were raised up with is the correct God.

[curthall]

Here's just a few of the things that can be said about the infamous wager:

*The wager assumes that belief is more important or more virtuous in some way than honest inquiry.

*Wagering on the existence of God betrays a tacit realization that the logical and evidentiary arguments designed to support the God hypothesis cannot withstand scrutiny, and simply fail to demonstrate anything convincingly much less conclusively, thereby conceding disbelief rational. But the point of the wager is to establish disbelief irrational.

*The wager is incapable of demonstrating the truth of any biblical claim, such as the penalty for unbelief.

*The wager is no help to us in identifying which God exists; or how many gods exist; or whether any gods continue to exist; or whether there exists a personal God worthy of our worship, etc.

*The wager ignores the possibility that a God exists who does not want to be worshiped, or who values intellectual integrity more than blind faith. If such a God existed, who would send people to hell for worshiping him, or for believing in him without evidence, then the atheist would be far better off than the theist in this case.

*The wager ignores the possibility that a god from a competing religion might exist, such as the God of Islam, who threatens eternal damnation for anyone claiming that God has a son. Surely the atheist is no worse off than the Christian if such were to be the case.

*The wager assumes that we can always choose our beliefs and simply takes for granted that God would not be able to detect insincere belief. If you cannot force yourself to believe that 1 + 1 = 3, or that the earth is flat, or that you'll fail to hit the ground after jumping out of a plane, then there is no reason to believe that you could force yourself to believe in gods or other mythical creatures you have no reason to believe in either. If the inventor of hell really exists, and is endowed with omniscience, then he'll see right through any pretense of belief and it's off to hell with you!

*The wager assumes that the chances of God existing are equal to the chances of his not existing. But if the chances of God existing are almost zero, as atheists believe, the wager is likely to persuade only those who already believe.

*The wager incorrectly assumes that there is no cost associated with false beliefs. It is no secret that devout Christians often sacrifice significant portions of their income or savings by making tithes or
donations to churches and other ministries. But if these institutions are in fact spreading lies, then these funds would be much better served by aiding some charitable organization that is making a real difference in the lives of the needy and less fortunate. There was also a time when people sacrificed their finest animals, their food, their possessions, and in some cases, even their own children to the gods. Surely it cannot be argued in these cases that belief came at no significant cost. There is also a considerable investment of time involved in living the Christian life: reading the Bible daily; daily prayer or meditation; attending church services; participation in some form of ministry unrelated to alleviating suffering, etc. If Christianity is a lie, then this time could have been better spent learning something useful, or in helping to make the world a better place for everyone, or in simply spending more time with your loved ones. There is also the issue of inter-family conflicts which often arise when one member of the family simply can't get themselves to believe in myths or fairy tales. This often invokes a believing parent or sibling to disown one of their own family members and curse the day they were born. If Christianity is a lie, then this is too huge a price to pay for belief in my estimation. Many Christians interpret the Bible to mean that they should abstain from certain potentially life-saving medical procedures. Others interpret the Bible to mean that they should abstain from certain pleasures that life has to offer that have the potential to greatly enrich their experience of life in general. Perhaps the worst cost of all is that of intellectual honesty. Attempting to force oneself to believe the unbelievable--not because evidence warrants the belief, but due to threats of undesirable consequences for unbelief--is to sacrifice one of the greatest of human virtues: integrity.

*Pascal’s Wager is not concerned with what is true, but in how chance may be of service to an otherwise unjustifiable belief. But most people who champion the use of 'chance' in deciding whether or not to believe in God usually mock or disdain the role that chance plays in the development of species through random genetic mutations which are seized upon by all living organisms in order to exploit environmental conditions, giving them a better chance to successfully reproduce more of their genes. If chance isn't good enough to explain the biodiversity we see on this planet, then why should it be good enough to elicit a belief in the existence of something far greater than the powers of random genetic mutation?

[no_idea_is_above_scrutiny]

Pascal’s wager would be a sin. To claim to believe something that I do not to avoid the possibility of hell fire would be lying, and also intellectual cowardice.

[milk]

I've been binge watching all his videos...I need help 😌