A Different Angle on Pascal’s Wager

[Cure of Ars]

For those who don't know Pascal's Wager it is an argument for believing in God. The basic argument is to look at the big scheme of life as a bet. If you place your bet on there not being a God and are wrong, then you are in trouble. If you are right you gain nothing. But if you place your bet on their being a God and there is in fact a God you gain eternal happiness. If you are wrong then you loose nothing.

 

The only logical bet is to bet on God.The logic behind this argument is solid but I never thought this argument was convincing for a couple of reasons.

 

1. The faith is not a saving faith motivated by love but only a cover your butt type of faith. This isn't a huge problem because in reality we probably all start our faith here and at least it gets us searching and listening for God to knock on the door.

 

2. The whole thing seems conniving and self-centered.

 

3. It does not really inspire people to change because the argument is based on a low self-centered motive.

 

But there is an angle that satisfies the weakness I found in the argument. There is an argument that has its core in Pascal's wager but is based on the higher and more altruistic motive of justice. If there is a God, justice demands total faith, love, hope, obedience and worship. If we do not worship and there is a God then we commit an infinite injustice against an infinite being. The only way to be just is if we worship. And the only way to be infinitely unjust is to not worship. God bless

[Down-In-A-Hole]

I find your argument very confusing because your definition of justice is extremely strange ("justice demands total faith, love, hope, obedience and worship"). Why did you define justice this way?

 

Also, Pascal's Wager, as you presented it, is shown as a type of belief that works off of the "might as well because you've got nothing to lose" type of system. However, your "justice" argument is based on the notion that one should believe because it is the "right" thing to do. There is really no betting going on and, thus, I fail to see its correlation to Pascal's Wager.

[Cure of Ars]

I find your argument very confusing because your definition of justice is extremely strange ("justice demands total faith, love, hope, obedience and worship"). Why did you define justice this way?

 

 

The problem that you might have is not with my definition of justice but the definition of God. If God is all good, all powerful and infinitely worthy of our worship than it would be unjust not to worship, because it would not be giving God his due. My basic definition of justice if give what is due to someone.

 

 

Also, Pascal's Wager, as you presented it, is shown as a type of belief that works off of the "might as well because you've got nothing to lose" type of system. However, your "justice" argument is based on the notion that one should believe because it is the "right" thing to do. There is really no betting going on and, thus, I fail to see its correlation to Pascal's Wager.

 

The correlation is that the first argument is based on salvation of the soul. The second is based on doing the just. Both are outcomes that we can bet on because both need an act of our will. The first is act of belief, while the second is the act of worship. They are basically the same argument applied to different wanted/possible outcomes.

[Down-In-A-Hole]

The correlation is that the first argument is based on salvation of the soul. The second is based on doing the just. Both are outcomes that we can bet on because both need an act of our will. The first is act of belief, while the second is the act of worship. They are basically the same argument applied to different wanted/possible outcomes.

 

So you're saying if God exists and you are just to him, then you are doing justice. And if God doesn't exist and you are just to him, then you are still doing justice and, thus, it can't hurt either way? That's the only way I can correlate Pascal's Wager with your proposition.

 

See, I am still confused at what you are trying to prove here.

[Cure of Ars]

I am saying that if God exists we should worship him because of who he is (an all powerful and good God). If you worship God, if there is a God, then you are being just. But if you do not worship and there is a God then you are being unjust to God because you are not giving him what he is due (worship). If there is not a God it does not matter. The logical bet is to bet that there is a God and worship. If you are wrong about God's existence and because of this you do not worship, then you are being unjust because you are not giving God his due. It is not that hard of an argument. [/u]