These are the standard objections to argument #20 on the list provided here...
Pascal's wager is structured as follows:
1. "God is, or He is not"
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
7. There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
8. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
Important Note: Pascal did not present the argument as proof of God, so the argument should not really be on the list of 20 arguments.
Common Objections
Voltaire famously provided a general objection to the argument stating that as a "proof of God" the argument was "indecent and childish. The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."
Pascal’s point was that God is a necessary pragmatic decision which is “impossible to avoid' for any living person. Reason is incapable of divining the truth" Thus, a decision of whether or not to believe in the existence of God must be made by "considering the consequences of each possibility".
Étienne Souriau explained that in order to accept Pascal's argument, the bettor needs to be certain that God intends to honour the bet and that God also accepts the bet, a fact which is not proved.
There have been many religions throughout human history providing many conceptions of gods or God. If we factor all these gods into the wager it leads to a high probability of believing in the wrong god which eliminates the mathematical advantage of the wager.
A person might find the wager convincing, but still be unable to believe in God. The person would be pretending to believe, which an omniscient God would be aware of. This false belief could be considered dishonest and immoral in which case the person not benefit from the wager and arguably is worse off than before being aware of the wager
The wager assumes a certain character for God. It is possible that God prefers the beings he created to be honest, rational inquirers. If God is watching us and choosing which souls to bring to heaven, perhaps He only wants morally good people to share eternity with Him. Perhaps He will select those who made a significant effort to discover the truth, regardless of their religious belief which is often indoctrinated culturally during childhood and not a free choice..
Statistical Refutations of Pascal's Wager
|
|
God exists as benevolent (BG)
|
God does not exist (-G)
|
God exists as malevolent (MG)
|
|
Worship (W)
|
Time wasted
|
Time Wasted
|
Statistically likely that time wasted
|
|
Abstain (-W)
|
No loss
|
No loss
|
Arguable gain
|
This shows worshipping is more likely to be a waste of time than of benefit.
|
Malevolent God
|
Guaranteed Outcome
|
Possible Outcome 1
|
Possible Outcome 2
|
|
Worship False God
|
Doomed
|
|
|
|
Abstain
|
|
Doomed
|
Saved
|
|
Worship True God
|
|
Doomed (God was malevolent)
|
Saved Statistically unlikely to choose "correctly")
|
This shows that worship is more likely to yield an infinite loss than it is to yield an infinite gain and abstaining from worship has a statistically equal chance of ending in infinite gain.
If we assume a benevolent God…
|
Benevolent God
|
Outcome
|
Time Spent Worshipping
|
|
Worship False God
|
Saved
|
Wasted
|
|
Abstain
|
Saved
|
No waste
|
|
Worship True God
|
Saved
|
Unnecessary
|
Therefore, if there is a benevolent god, any time spent worshiping is ultimately unnecessary. You are statistically more likely to waste your time through worship of a false god than you are to spend unnecessary time worshiping a true god.
You said, "Important Note: Pascal did not present the argument as proof of God, so the argument should not really be on the list of 20 arguments. "
ReplyDeleteNote that Kreeft qualifies its inclusion: "There is another, different kind of argument left. It has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. We mention it here and adapt it for our purposes, not because it is a proof for the existence of God, but because it can help us in our search for God in the absence of such proof."
So notice that Kreeft acknowledges it is NOT intended as a proof for God but as an aid in the argument from a different angle.
I am not saying that the argument Kreeft is using is correct or logical (and equally I'm not saying it isn't) I am just saying that your objection to Pascal's argument being included in the list fails to account for Kreeft's qualifier. He clearly lets the reader know that the argument is NOT "a proof for the existence of God."
I am aware of Kreeft's qualifier, but my point is that he explicitly entitles work as "20 arguments for God's existence" and yet includes an argument which he says is not an argument for the existence of God. So either the title is wrong, or the list is wrong. But admittedly, that's a technicality.
ReplyDelete