« The Life of Ted Kennedy | Main | Fawning Eulogies »

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager

August 28, 2009 | Permalink


Which religion's God, which heaven, which hell?

The wager presupposes only one religion's notion of God, heaven, and hell is is worthy of consideration--and that we know which one it is.

Posted by: Gherald L | Aug 28, 2009 4:56:40 AM

Huh? I wonder if Gherald L left his brain on autopilot from some other discussion. Pascal's wager presupposes no such thing.

Posted by: The Reticulator | Aug 28, 2009 7:20:53 AM

Nothing Happens, here I come.

Posted by: Andrew Clunn | Aug 28, 2009 8:43:02 AM

You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Posted by: MKR | Aug 28, 2009 10:58:41 AM

> Pascal's wager presupposes no such thing.

Yes it does. You would need to draw a column for gods from all the religions of the world that have some kind of heaven and hell, otherwise.

Either way, it's useless.

Posted by: Gherald L | Aug 29, 2009 1:14:36 AM

In that case, you would have to say it presupposes a religion that has concepts of heaven and hell. There is more than one like that. You wouldn't have to specify which one.

Posted by: The Reticulator | Aug 29, 2009 11:09:15 PM

Look multi-culturalists, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution assumed a single God. Would it have been better if Jefferson's document said: All men (and women and minors as the state sees fit and certain animals according to the Swiss) are created equal and are endowed by their Creator (whether he be Jehovah, Zeus, or whatever Goat god the savage's believe in) with certain...

Posted by: 4blockhead | Aug 30, 2009 7:22:36 PM

Gherald L: Destined for the lower-left block.

Posted by: Sparticus | Aug 31, 2009 12:59:52 AM

Oh noes! Now he's saying the Constitution only applies to non-monotheists!

I'm with Gherald. Pascal's Wager implies that you know which God to bet on.

Posted by: John Foust | Aug 31, 2009 8:23:56 PM

> I'm with Gherald. Pascal's Wager implies that you know which God to bet on.

I'm with God. I have enough Faith in Him that I'm not worried that He's going to require me flip "heads" 2000 times in a row just to get into Heaven.

And if you think otherwise, you've got a pretty screwed up vision of God.

I recommend C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" to get a much better picture of how the decision occurs on who gets to go in and who doesn't. That may not be THE Answer, but it seems to fit the definition of a divine and omnibenevolent God a lot better than the classic view.... so it's a lot closer to The Truth than the notions suggested here, from what I can see.

Posted by: O Bloody Hell | Sep 7, 2009 3:38:19 AM

Of course Pascal has to have some notion of what God is so he can say something about it. His wager is sound.

The atheist takes the easy way out. In set theory, one can work on a tiny set of known things within an infinite universal set. The atheist commits neither to the tiny set (because he/she is afraid that he/she might by 0.1% wrong within the tiny set) nor to the infinite set because it is infinite.

Posted by: n cheng | Nov 27, 2011 10:39:27 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.