Aranamuss!: Pascal the Rascal - Book reviews, atheism, science ...

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson

Recently, on Atheist Revolution, the following argument against Pascal's Wager was made:

There is no reason why you couldn't turn the argument around and ask the Christian why he or she doesn't believe in [insert any particular god here]. If the wager is really about self-protection, the logical extension would be that one would need to simultaneously be an adherent of all religions.

Second, it does not take a genius to realize that belief does not work like Christians imply when they use the wager. Suppose for a second that I became genuinely concerned about the possibility of roasting in Christian hell. Even if I wanted to, it isn't as though I could simply flip a switch and start believing in the Christian god. The best I could do would be to feign belief. Perhaps that would be enough to appease the Christian, but it hardly saves my "soul."

?I've heard many arguments back and forth about Pascal's Wager, and these are two of the most common responses atheists make to it. Though I think Pascal's Wager is a terrible argument, I have to admit, these are two of the weakest responses to the argument.

For the first argument, consider this: Many religions are mutually exclusive, so being an adherent of all religions is out of the question. But, if it is true that you have infinite to gain from believing in at least some god, it may be rational (in the self-interested, not normative, sense of the term) to abandon atheism and take a bet on some god. The argument then becomes which sorts of gods are most likely, but atheism is excluded.

As for the second argument, while it is clear we can't "flip a switch" to change our beliefs, it is clear we have at least some control over our beliefs. We can put ourselves in situations which will challenge our beliefs, or which will be likely to foster certain beliefs. Perhaps, by actively trying to cultivate a religious belief, attending churches, steeping yourself in religious literature, avoiding conflicting points of view, etc. you could genuinely cause a belief in a deity. It doesn't need to be as easy as flicking a switch, but some control over beliefs some seem possible, and so it seems silly to place so much weight on the idea that on this particular issue, it may be impossible to create a belief.

It's not that I think the above arguments are completely without merit, just that they are not fatal, and there are much larger problems with Pascal's Wager. By ignoring the larger issues, too much is being granted to the wager.

The biggest problem? All of the bizarre implicit assumptions of the argument. Why assume all gods care that you believe in them? That seems like an odd trait for any god to have. Some conceivable gods have this property, but why think those gods are any more likely than the conceivable gods who like critical thinking and want us to come to the conclusion that there are no gods, or gods who are shy and hate for people to worship/believe in them? To me, it is bizarre to think a god exists who is so petty that it will punish or reward based entirely on whether you happen to believe in it, despite not giving evidence for itself. Slightly more believable is a deity who likes humans to use rationality, wherever it brings them. Hence the above Jefferson quote.

Source: http://aranamuss.blogspot.com/2011/05/pascal-rascal.html

vatican hyundai sonata barclays premier league white house correspondents dinner tina turner papaya mariah carey