Pascal's Wager: A Good Argument?

Dr. Craig shares his thoughts on Pascal's Wager!

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[achristian]

Dr Craig, would you use this in the argument: It's like going to Vegas and if you are allowed to place a $100 (50/50) bet on a bet that can win you $100 or on a bet that can win you a Billion dollars then off course you should place your $100 bet on the bet that can win you one billion dollars (eternity)

[dotails]

An even better argument is a purpose driven wager, if you have no ultimate purpose then it doesnt matter what you do but only if you do can you matter, you loose nothing by trying to fulfill your purpose, because nothing matters if you have no purpose, but otherwise you have the possibility of gain.

[STREEEEEET]

If you don't have strong convictions either way, then Pascal's Wager should be applied.

[winstonbarquez]

It is betting on the safe side on a cost-benefit analysis.

[uniquepolyglot]

I strongly disagree that Pascal wager is a strong arguement. Pascal wager is a weak arguement because a person can also chose to follow a false religion such as Islam, Shintosim, Zooristraism, Sikkisim and other religions.

If a person converts to a false religion they wil go to hell not heaven. Therefore, their was no need to believe in God in the first place.

[isaiahmorris]

The issue I have with Pascal’s wager is it doesn’t help people become Christian’s it only helps them believe in god.

[jamesveerdog]

let me break down this argument for those that don't understand. Believe in God if true-Good, nonbelief-bad. Believe in God if not true- inconsequential, non belief -inconsequential. The argument hereby shows that belief in God trumps non belief because the outcome can only benefit you and never be worse.

[snakeb]

What if the test is to not believe in and worship the God of the old testament? Seems reasonable since he seems so viscerally immoral to us.

[clarekuehn]

It's a great argument. Deniers of God simply don't want it to be. It bothers them. It is not simply a Christian argument.

[brantk]

Didn't Cameron bertuzzi convert to catholicism?

[equaltemp]

The fact that we're not able to choose who or what we believe in makes the wager nonsensical. We can't simply decide to believe in something on demand. Yet Pascal is asking us to do just that. Unfortunately, that's not how our beliefs develop.

[skylinefever]

If it wasn't for Pascal's Wagering kids and hellfire sermons on kids, how many people would be in church?

[mac]

Unfortunately, the simple belief (wager) goes beyond that in Christianity. There is a necessity to embrace much more and love in a way as if it’s true.

[aguyontheinternet]

The problem is this argument is also true for buddhism, hinduism, and every other religion. So you would have to worship all gods and believe all religions. You never touched on this, despite the fact that it is the main reason why many people don't believe Pascal's Wager is a good argument.

[ianmartinesq]

This is my issue with Pascal’s wager, what about other religions? Couldn’t you use Pascal’s wager to argue for judaism or Islam? Or even Hinduism, for that matter?

[brianw.]

Atheism is a wager, too. We're all wagering our lives on some religion or atheism.

[cryptofactsu]

He didn't deal with any of the issues of Pascal's wager

[jdshl]

Regardless of it's dependence or independence, even if the result is false, there is no actual loss to taking up this particular wager. To the skeptic, believers are living a lie. To the believers, they believe they are living a purpose-driven life in search of a higher plane of existence. What do the skeptics have to offer?

[manofthehills]

This isn’t an argument for God’s existence. It really doesn’t prove anything. As a Christian, I see it as a reassuring thought to have, that I am saved and I believe in the one true God which will reward me for keeping the faith. I have other reasons for believing in God in the first place, this just isn’t proof, in fact, it can be seen as a manipulative fear tactic if used in a certain way.

[Trollkvinnan]

Why should (not) believing be a reasion for endless punishment? It is not a wager but a threat.