Should we use Pascal's Wager?

[Sierra Grand]

The 17th-century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal came up with the following theory:

We should believe in God as a wager. If we believe in God and he does, Eternal Bliss. If we believe in God and he doesn't, Nothing. If we don't Believe in God but he does, Eternal Hell. If we don't and he doesn't Nothing. What is the best option? Believing in god

What are your thoughts on this issue? Personally, I digress this theory since look at this: Would a supposed God send us to bliss since we just believed in him for personal interest and it doesn't take into account other religions.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Funny how I can't get people to believe in evolution or vaccines with evidence but Pascal's wager is enough to argue for believing in God.

If you don't believe in God it is 99.99% likely you will not go to hell. If you don't believe in vaccines, the likelihood of contracting a deadly illness is far higher.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

You then have to choose which god to worship, which sounds a lot more dangerous for you in the afterlife if you chose the wrong god.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You then have to choose which god to worship, which sounds a lot more dangerous for you in the afterlife if you chose the wrong god.

Divine roulette.

[No State Here]

I personally see belief in God as a way to improve yourself and your life, I wasn’t very religious until this year, I believe posted on TET a few times about my experiences

IMO believing in God just to "not be burned in Hell" completely defeats the purpose of faith

[Loeje]

There are better reasons to believe in God. Pascal's Wager isn't one of the best.

[Sierra Grand]

You then have to choose which god to worship, which sounds a lot more dangerous for you in the afterlife if you chose the wrong god.

Divine roulette.

Except it's 1500 bullets to one empty spot

[Kilobugya]

It's utterly flawed in three ways to me :

1. It's a false dichotomy - under the wager, either God exists or God doesn't exist. It completely ignores the fact that are many other alternatives, and many religions to chose from.
2. It assumes that a God, if he exists, would actually prefer an hypocrite who worship him even if he doesn't really believe, rather than someone who is honestly wrong, and that's actually quite insulting to that theoretical God.
3. It validates a very dangerous and harmful way of thinking called "motivated cognition" (what I would call "Dark Epistemology"). You should look at the world around you, using available evidence, to make the map you use to navigate reality. Your goals (such as avoiding Hell) have no room in the making of the map. Your goals should only matter after the map is drawn, on how to use the map.

[Sierra Grand]

It's utterly flawed in three ways to me :

1. It's a false dichotomy - under the wager, either God exists or God doesn't exist. It completely ignores the fact that are many other alternatives, and many religions to chose from.
2. It assumes that a God, if he exists, would actually prefer an hypocrite who worship him even if he doesn't really believe, rather than someone who is honestly wrong, and that's actually quite insulting to that theoretical God.
3. It validates a very dangerous and harmful way of thinking called "motivated cognition" (what I would call "Dark Epistemology"). You should look at the world around you, using available evidence, to make the map you use to navigate reality. Your goals (such as avoiding Hell) have no room in the making of the map. Your goals should only matter after the map is drawn, on how to use the map.

Then it brings the question: If we were designed perfectly: Why do we believe in god while others don't? Would God make us not believe in him? It's like a Cannon maker telling the cannon to shoot backwards towards your allies

[Senkaku]

If it’s the only reason you believe, won’t God know that you’re being insincere and only worshipping in hopes of avoiding punishment, rather than because of genuine faith?

[Heloin]

If it’s the only reason you believe, won’t God know that you’re being insincere and only worshipping in hopes of avoiding punishment, rather than because of genuine faith?

Go for the third option.

[Rusozak]

If it’s the only reason you believe, won’t God know that you’re being insincere and only worshipping in hopes of avoiding punishment, rather than because of genuine faith?

Go for the third option.

That video is blocked in the U.S. for some copyright reason.

[Sierra Grand]

Go for the third option.

That video is blocked in the U.S. for some copyright reason.

Same

[Heloin]

That video is blocked in the U.S. for some copyright reason.

Same

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ha18O1dAI

[Ainland]

There are very strong objections to Pascal's Wager. I think that mentioned in the original post is the best one - can you really choose to believe something, out of fear or convenience? It would seem unlikely, since you can't just make yourself believe you're a millionaire without knowing it's true. And, as indicated, surely God would recognise insincere belief. However, I do think this objection can be overcome. Pascal's Wager could be a good motivator to work at one's belief, to open one's mind and truly investigate, and try, without giving up. Perhaps with such motivation, one may come to true belief, through actively reviewing and considering evidence they might not previously have spent any time on. They may interpret personal experience in a different way, too. So I think an effort to believe can certainly help achieve belief.

The other main objection I'm aware of, is that there are many gods, so how can Pascal's Wager really work if every believer in one god faces the same fate for disbelief as all the others? But I think this is far easier to overcome. This part of Pascal's Wager is really only dealing with belief in God, a god. There are further arguments for belief in a particular God, such as the Christian God.

[Baloo Kingdom]

Although Pascal's Wager is flawed and defeats the purpose of actually following a religion, in the context of reasonably backing your own faith subconsciously, I'd say it wouldn't hurt. Coming from a Christian background and faith, and being a reader of the Bible, I can fairly easily determine that, "requirement" for salvation is just simple genuine belief in the existence of God and acceptance of salvation from him. However, I believe that the typical Biblical translation of Christian salvation can be misworded. A more accurate, in my words, explanation of salvation is as follows, "Salvation is a free gift, all that is required of you is accepting the gift, without receiving the gift in some form, you are unable to enter the kingdom of Heaven, therefore, when your body dies, the consequence is the only other place you can be after dying besides Heaven." That's my explanation. In regards to the harshness of Hell and the question of whether if a God who claims to love everyone why would let someone go to Hell, I can say that I know that even those who end up in Hell will be given multiple chances to believe and follow God even after death as stated in the Book of Revelation. That's all I have to say on this matter. I know I kinda went a bit off-topic there, but I had a lot to say.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Although Pascal's Wager is flawed and defeats the purpose of actually following a religion, in the context of reasonably backing your own faith subconsciously, I'd say it wouldn't hurt. Coming from a Christian background and faith, and being a reader of the Bible, I can fairly easily determine that, "requirement" for salvation is just simple genuine belief in the existence of God and acceptance of salvation from him. However, I believe that the typical Biblical translation of Christian salvation can be misworded. A more accurate, in my words, explanation of salvation is as follows, "Salvation is a free gift, all that is required of you is accepting the gift, without receiving the gift in some form, you are unable to enter the kingdom of Heaven, therefore, when your body dies, the consequence is the only other place you can be after dying besides Heaven." That's my explanation. In regards to the harshness of Hell and the question of whether if a God who claims to love everyone why would let someone go to Hell, I can say that I know that even those who end up in Hell will be given multiple chances to believe and follow God even after death as stated in the Book of Revelation. That's all I have to say on this matter. I know I kinda went a bit off-topic there, but I had a lot to say.

Are you mormon?

[Baloo Kingdom]

Although Pascal's Wager is flawed and defeats the purpose of actually following a religion, in the context of reasonably backing your own faith subconsciously, I'd say it wouldn't hurt. Coming from a Christian background and faith, and being a reader of the Bible, I can fairly easily determine that, "requirement" for salvation is just simple genuine belief in the existence of God and acceptance of salvation from him. However, I believe that the typical Biblical translation of Christian salvation can be misworded. A more accurate, in my words, explanation of salvation is as follows, "Salvation is a free gift, all that is required of you is accepting the gift, without receiving the gift in some form, you are unable to enter the kingdom of Heaven, therefore, when your body dies, the consequence is the only other place you can be after dying besides Heaven." That's my explanation. In regards to the harshness of Hell and the question of whether if a God who claims to love everyone why would let someone go to Hell, I can say that I know that even those who end up in Hell will be given multiple chances to believe and follow God even after death as stated in the Book of Revelation. That's all I have to say on this matter. I know I kinda went a bit off-topic there, but I had a lot to say.

Are you mormon?

No, I am considered a Lutheran, but I have some varying fundamentals. (Also, at first glance I thought you said, "Are you a moron?", lmao)

[Esalia]

Pascal's Wager is far too simplistic to be a good reason to believe in God.

It only works if a) there's one possible God (or interpretation of said God), b) we know that God's rules for absolute certainty, and c) that God's rules are "there's a good afterlife and bad afterlife, if you believe in me you go to the good afterlife, if you don't you go to the bad afterlife".

A quick look at reality tells me that we fail all three conditions (there are many gods out there, many interpretations of said gods and their rules, and those rules vary wildly and aren't always "believe = heaven, don't believe = hell"), so Pascal's Wager is kinda useless.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Are you mormon?

No, I am considered a Lutheran, but I have some varying fundamentals.

The idea of people in hell being given a chance to repent is an idea the Mormons hold. My mother knows a woman who is Mormon and they believe that if a person in hell accepts christ, they can be sent to heaven.

[Sierra Grand]

It is important to note that Pascal used this as a form to convert atheists then they would further believe themselves

Pascal's Wager is far too simplistic to be a good reason to believe in God.

It only works if a) there's one possible God (or interpretation of said God), b) we know that God's rules for absolute certainty, and c) that God's rules are "there's a good afterlife and bad afterlife, if you believe in me you go to the good afterlife, if you don't you go to the bad afterlife".

A quick look at reality tells me that we fail all three conditions (there are many gods out there, many interpretations of said gods and their rules, and those rules vary wildly and aren't always "believe = heaven, don't believe = hell"), so Pascal's Wager is kinda useless.

That means by that time in people's minds those requirements would be fulfilled

[Baloo Kingdom]

No, I am considered a Lutheran, but I have some varying fundamentals.

The idea of people in hell being given a chance to repent is an idea the Mormons hold. My mother knows a woman who is Mormon and they believe that if a person in hell accepts christ, they can be sent to heaven.

Interesting, I would never consider myself a Mormon, but apparently, I might have a bit in me. I disagree with about every other Mormon value though. But on the topic of souls in Hell being able to still repent, I believe that God is loving and forgiving enough to save those already in Hell. I don't see why he wouldn't.

[Old Tyrannia]

Speaking as a theist myself, I've never found Pascal's Wager to be a particularly convincing argument.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Since hell is considered to be "separation from god," I wonder if it would be within the realm of Christian theology to interpret hell as being not a place of physical pain, but rather separation from God where all the sinners are segregated away from the saved?

[Baloo Kingdom]

Since hell is considered to be "separation from god," I wonder if it would be within the realm of Christian theology to interpret hell as being not a place of physical pain, but rather separation from God where all the sinners are segregated away from the saved?

According to the average Christian ideology, this would be factually correct. Naturally, Hell is the separation of God from man, and separation from God can lead to pain. So yes, you are technically correct.
tl:dr: Sepration from God is Hell, and total separation from God hurts