PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Pascal's Wager
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- In this Wireless Philosophy video, Susanna Rinard (Harvard University) explains Pascal's Wager, Blaise Pascal's famous argument for belief in God. Lifting an approach from the gambling hall, Pascal argued that, given the odds and the potential payoff, belief in God is a really good deal. Even if the chance that God exists is low, rationality, he claimed, compels us to wager for God.
Subscribe!
bit.ly/1vz5fK9
More on Susanna Rinard:
bit.ly/2nXlrTo
----
Wi-Phi @ TH-cam:
bit.ly/1PX0hLu
Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:
bit.ly/1nQJcF7
Twitter:
/ wirelessphi
Instagram:
@wiphiofficial
Facebook:
on. 1XC2tx3
----
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/5VMn/
Einstein: God does not play with dice.
Philosopher: What happens if he does?
I mean Pascal was a mathematician and physicist (and not a lightweight in those fields either) and sorta predates Einstein. I get it's a joke but it sorta falls flat in this case for me.
It's not God who is calculating the chances. This makes no sense
I know this is a joke, but I just wanted to say that Einstein's 'god' is the god of nature. God of the unknown, or whatever. It's a placeholder for whatever we are yet to understand.
Secondly, Einstein was proven to be false with that statement, Bell's theorem proved it.
@@SiddiqueSukdiki Thank you from Ireland for mentioning Dr Bell. He should be a national hero over here but his is not an easy concept to demonstrate so it is difficult to stir up enthusiasm.
@@SiddiqueSukdiki So God does 'Play with dice'?
"But what if we've chosen the wrong god? Then every time we go to church, we're just making the real one madder and madder."
-Homer Simpson
I think a just and fair God would forgive honest error and honest ignorance. By going to church, we seek to know God.
@@matthewtenney2898 doesn't get around the problem
@@alisonaizlewood475 How so?
@@matthewtenney2898 because no "god" is described like that in any of the story books..
The bible god is a jealous, insecure character that insists you have no other gods before him.
Worshipping the wrong God is like signing your own death warrant.
As far as I can tell, other religions gods feel the same way.
Almost as if the writers of these books needed to scare people into believing.
Its as if they knew they had no evidence of their God, so they needed threats to make it stick...
Threats and empty promises
Smoke and mirrors.
All the hallmarks of clever con artists
@@alisonaizlewood475 John 9:41
"If you were blind," Jesus replied, "you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. " ~GBS.
When a drunken man sobers up he is decidedly unhappier than the man that was never drunk at all. If there is no G0d you never sober up so may as well stay happily drunk.
"Drunk" but still as functioning as a sober atheist...
7
The hyperbole of your obtuse non sequitur oblique argument is as much a nonstarter as a professional football team playing a high school team and the fact that any random lottery ticket may get you $1 billion.
This gibberish makes as much sense as your statement
Only difference is that a believer stays happy for as long as their blind faith exists. I often wonder if it would have been better to be born a little dumber so i would be convinced of god
Is this supported by credible data?
The lottery ticket analogy doesn't work for Pascal's wager because the lottery doesn't send me to an infinite lottery hell if I don't buy the ticket lol
Well I'd rather have fun with Hitchens if there's an afterlife than the pathetic thug called god...
That's exactly why it does work though
actually it does, because the lottery ticket is free and costs you nothing.
And that person has a PhD. This really shows that having a degree proved nothing about your intelligence.
Spending the rest of eternity kicking yourself for not getting a ticket?
Anyone else noticed that the name of the cat was Richard Pawkins? 😂
what a pun 😁😁😁
That was a little troublesome!
Pascal would be a nice name for a cat
I'm searching for the game Pascal's Wager but now I'm learning what the real meaning of those words lol.
Blaise may have been a genius but he was an idiot the moment he defined his Wager.
Came here because of a video game too
Pascal's Wager is refutable in one sentence.
For every possible god that will send you to hell for not believing and heaven for believing, there is a possible god with the opposite rules.
Guy, wanna chat about your statement?
Adam Andrew, didn't see your comment. Sure, I do.
Are you alluding to the fact that 'a god that punishes belief' is just-as-much a possibility as 'a god that rewards belief'?
Total Water, yes, exactly.
Any belief or lack thereof you could possibly imagine must be factored into the probability of being sent to heaven or hell. Which means any one person with a certain set of beliefs is just as unlikely to go to a heaven or hell as another person with completely different beliefs.
Pascal was a Christian and the notion of 'being sent to hell for holding belief' is so counter-intuitive to Christian theology that it probably never occurred to him. It's certainly a very easy way to show that the wager is invalid.
What if God exists and prefers non believers to believers because he happens to hate kissasses?
Then why would he care about people worshiping the abrahamic god who is clearly not like that
That is essentially why in the book of Job God likes Job more than his allegedly devout friends. Job acknowledges that he doesn't understand God whereas his friends claim clear understanding of divinity despite their ignorance.
powerone1 the Bible seems to say other wise.
@@davisfranklin6042 you do remember how that ended? Jobs friends had too make a sacrifice thru job. So they were required too follow god.
What if God exists and he's not the Christian one but likes the Christian ones more than the secular ones for believing in a God period? This line of objection doesn't really work.
If you are using a risk management strategy rooted in self-interest to determine the truth, then the actual pursuit of the truth is not important to you. You are just hedging your bets like an after-life long-term investor. There may or may not be an absolute truth, but choosing a belief based on individual payoff just comes off as unenlightened. That being said, Pascal was a genius mathematician.
There's some truth in that, but at least it is a start to living a better life
It’s not about determining the truth. Pascal’s Wager is a choice and shows the best possible outcome. Hell is real and it warns about the consequence which is God’s justified judgement. I know that Atheists want better arguments to be convinced, but Pascal Wager is good for Atheists who are willing to make the best possible choice. It worked for John Von Neumann who converted to the true Catholic faith at the time of his death. ✝️🇻🇦
It doesn’t determine the truth, but it’s based on the truth.
Richard pawkins lol i was focused on that the whole time
I heard a Pascal scholar (Tom Morris at Notre Dame at the time) say many years ago that the wager has to be understood in the broader context of the Pensees in which reason has a very important role in faith. Pascal was not an irrationalist or fideist. He certainly didn't believe faith was simply a useful fiction! He believed in God for reasons. Read the Pensees - it is full of reasons. He was trying to convince his atheist and apathetic friends using arguments (not the traditional arguments of natural theology for which he had little time). The Wager was not an admission that there are no reasons! It was meant as a final push for those who might still remain on the fence even after considering all the other reasons Pascal had been providing. The wager was a response to someone who said something like, "I see all your evidence for God, Pascal, but you're expecting me to commit myself 100% and I don't feel like I have 100% confidence. So I remain undecided." Then and only then, he introduces the wager. Thus, the wager is broadly misunderstood and its real brilliance lost.
Joel Allen thank you!
I’m tired of the simplistic responses to his wager. They think haha silly pascal!!
You’re right, you have to take his full presentation of belief.
thank you for this! I'm planning on writing a paper on this for class.
@@laurakosch It's still silly Pascal, if he doesn't understand that religious faith is not a matter of choice. It means he is either insincere in his own faith or ignorant to workings of faith.
Exactly. Pascal's wager applies to agnostics and not to atheists. It makes a lot of sense to someone that's sitting on the fence of Christianity.
I don't expect people who meditate
So deeply in Biological terms to sharply grasp the metaphysical & philosophical constructs at play! If a Deity were to exist who would put a great emphasis on faith for perhaps reasons of discretion or Liberty one should not expect to find evidence so beyond circumstantial to render faith useless as most virtues seems to me the favorite haunt of Faith!
One of the many problems with Pascal's Wager is you can't choose to believe in something you don't believe in. It's completely absurd. It's like asking someone to believe that 2+2=5.
You CAN though. People can change their character, their beliefs etc. Not INSTANTLY though, but over time. It's about desire.
You can, though it takes time.
Even if you can't, by many interpretations, faith in God isn't just intellectual belief in God, but living like He is real and you have faith in Him.
...if you have chosen Not to believe, why can't you choose To believe?...
hi I'm from 2022 and u bet we have insane people pushing 2+2=5
You absolutely can. If you start talking to believers and go to curch every week you will start to belive as well
there can be a case in Pascal's wager where
1.A rational God exists who likes athiests because they have chosen rational side of arguements rather than lure of a reward..
2. Or there might be a god who only likes those that have lived a good selfless life. He doesn't care whether you believe on the divine or not..
3. Or Jainism might be true which doesn't even have a god but only a universal law which judges based on adherence to non-violence..
All 3 above have equal prospect of being true as Islam or Christianity.. there can be millions of possibilities in which afterlife exists but a god doesn't.. and in those possibilities there are millions of criteria on which a human will be judged..
Only a narrow minded person will limit Pascal's wager to belief..
All of those thoughts are generated by the selfish human mind. And what rational thoughts do atheists ever have?
I like Pascal's wager as a concept in regards to practical things like what do you to lose by having a spare tire in your car. but using it as some legitimate reasoning for lending credence to the existence of a god presupposes a black and white outcome that are equally legitimate. it's not just yes or no, it's many shades of no vs a singular yes
The alternative to Pascal's wager is Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy.
Pascal's wager doesn't attempt to legitimize the existence of god. It specifically states that it is not trying to. Pascal's wager just says it is more pragmatic to believe, based on the payout vs. penalty.
@@RENEG4DE4NGEL exactly.
Alex Franco rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Unfortunately that saying just doesnt work for believing in a god.
@@fatsuschungus744 How do know? Did you follow the wager ALLthe way to the end?Also, It's not about believing in A God,
It's about the practicality of believing in The God
Or Not...up to you
Pascal is not REALLY believing, though
Belief is like virtue which in turn in that a person can basically 'practice' it enough times that eventually it comes second nature to them than actually needing to work for it. Aristotle thought so, and in this case I'm inclined to agree
Everything stands on beliefs if some of those belief repeats often we call it science else we call it faith.
Well he does give more arguments then the wager so he probably believes
@@daniele7989 Beautiful....Thank You
@ Here's my reply:
There is no 'rub' because...
Who cares?Your belief is just that...Yours
There you go...another answer to support your 2nd question
Then 'They' can go screw.
If you gonna waste brain juice on the Doubting Tommies,and Judgement Judys, then when will you find time to determine YOUR belief?
Ultimately,everything comes down to YOU.All the other factors from before to now may have shaped the way YOU make decisions and shit, but when you look in the mirror,metaphorically and/ or literally, happy, sad, mad, glad, buzzed,sober,whatever...Who looking back?
This was a nuanced and informative presentation. Thanks for uploading :)
How to make time travel a good idea
1. Invent time machine.
2. Travel to the 23rd century.
3. Invent a device that can change the odds in the 23rd century.
4. Use probability device to make the odds certain that time travel is a good idea.
Which 23rd century? The fact that you made that comment and I commented back added yet ANOTHER possible future outcome. Or Not...
And since you came up with the Idea, you probably are the inventor of A time machine.Or Not...
How would changing odds in the future do any thing now?
And why the 23rd century?
And will there be a viable world in the 23rd century?
And do you really want to find out?
@@thekalaoakidd also, global warming
I mean, I've missed a bunch of other reasons here, but global warming is the first thing I thought of
I always thought I was alone in thinking this way. I’m 30 and I’ve only now heard of Pascal’s wager, but I’ve always thought this since I was a kid
Me too. But don't you think that it would do nothing bc their belief is not sincere?
@@sgt.reznov6156 you can never prove if god exists or not. In such situation, moving forward with logic is most reasonable way to do it. God shouldn't expect me to believe in him sincerely, because i was given no physical or mental skill to prove it.
I’ve got a real hard time believing that if god exists, they’ll punish you simply for not believing. Who’s to say god wants us to blindly follow and not question?
Living your life doing things in fear of heaven and hell seems much less morel than simply being a good person for the sake of being a good person. God would care for all who lead a good life whether or not they believe Gods existence
@@arya_shm if god can send people to hell just for not believing in him he could care little about your physical or mental skill to prove anything.seems that god is slave to his desires just like humans
It's so stupid. You could believe in spiderman because if he did exist he'd be great for fighting crime. So, it's better to believe in spiderman than not. It's so stupid. Pascal is a legitimately stupid person and we should treat him as such.
Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).
God is invisible and the threat of eternal punishment is all that needs to be considered.
@@bigbusiness3000
You're just parroting what religion has indoctrinated you with. You are not saying anything intelligent.
@@bigbusiness3000 If God is invisible how did we find out about this eternal punishment?
One thing people don’t consider for the cost of theism is *time*. Imagine how much time you’d spend going to church, reciting prayers, and other religious activities. If there really isn’t a god, then all of that went to waste.
Random indoctrinated person: Unicorns exist
Skeptic: Prove it
I think the biggest flaw with Pascal's wager is that one cannot choose what to believe. A claim either makes sense to you or does not. Your mind can change from the presentation of facts and logic, but you can't just simply flip a switch because you want to. No matter how hard I try, I can't genuinely believe that 2+5=9 unless someone was to come along and lay out a very convincing proof.
Maybe it’s just that at least you tried?
I obviously can’t speak for god, but I would prefer someone who tried his best to believe but never could instead of someone who “worshipped” me but never truly believed.
That's the last flaw in this stupid argument. Pascal's wager can be applied to anything. Do martians exist? "well, it'd be far better that they did, and can teach us their tech thus its better to believe in Martians than not" Pascal was an idiot.
@@ELFanaticI know. Think of all the dudes that died in war or became disabled believing that God would divinely intervene and protect them from harm. Think of all the prayers that asked for peace or their sons to come back home from war in one piece. Praying is such a waste of time and it also takes the credit away from the doctors who spend almost a decade in college learning to become a medical practitioner.... patient gets operated on for 6 hours in a life saving surgery and the family thanks Jesus.
another flaw is that assumes the existence and non-existence of God as a 50 50% equal chance
If I lived a good life, being kind and fair to the people I knew throughout all my life, but went to hell because I didn't believe in God, then I don't think he's worth worshipping.
I am so glad i am not the only one who feels this way.
The only reason christians believe is because of the heaven reward, its totally selfish. Would they still believe if the reward was removed? Probably not. They are so stupidly brainwashed however that they don't even analyze that there are other religions which offer them even greater rewards.
Will you be saying that if you go to Hell? Noel Gallagher: Some might say, we don't believe in Heaven. Go tell it to the man who lives in Hell.
Precisely
@@hunterotails2015 Cherrypicking another theist trait
Here is a faster version of what she said:
If God does exist, it’s better to believe in him either way.
If God does not exist, the outcome won’t matter.
And the counter point: “what if there is more than one god?”
Great video.
I think pascal's second premise don't consider de value of life for non believers. To believe in a finite and unique life may let you appreciate it more than living looking for an eternal life restricting things you do in this terrenal life. Sure, religion isn't a bad thing if you apply it to a reasonable life that allows everyone to live in community, but it can also be twisted and make you don't enjoy your life (that could be just one, and not eternal) or even affect life of others like in extreme radical religions.
Then, if God doesn't exist and you believe and end up being unhappy (waether you accept it or not), you will lose your only chance to be happy in all eternity (if there is no afterlife)... that seems to me like a infinit bad outcome.
Belief in God is in everyone, we were made in His image, and He implanted His laws and identity in our hearts.
Man's search for meaning by Viktor Frankl may be a good place to start for you.
If God doesn’t exist and I die believing he does, at least I won’t be around to sulk about it.
Living a good life (as in godly) does lead to a happy life
My response to Pascal's Wager:
Give me twenty dollars, or Sithrak the Blind Gibberer will torture you and everyone you love after you die.
Wow this is actually an incredible response.
Don’t forget that you love them
Give me ten dollars and a Tall Boy, and I will pray for UmmFoofoo the Nut Puncher to nut punch Sithrak the Blind Gibberer BEFORE you die.
Now there's TWO options
Love this.
This argument should not be called a theistic argument. It has an implicit assumption that "God" requires you believe in him/her or you will get punished. It's more religious than theistic in my opinion. In fact it's more Abrahamic religion than anything. It also has the implicit assumption that there is life after death. There can be a god but no life after death. That also makes this argument silly. If you keep on asking questions, you begin to see numerous implicit assumptions in this theory that make it much more irrational than you would at first imagine
From a biblical perspective, the pascal wager falls short because it assumes there are people who actually don't believe in God. This is false. Everyone believes in God, according to the scriptures, but unbelievers suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness. Romans 1:18-20 An unbeliever isn't someone who lacks total belief in God, but rather, someone who lacks faith in God or someone who refuses to submit to His will.
bob polo good point
Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that a person can simply believe, or disbelieve. Belief is not the same as flipping a switch. If you put a million dollars in front of me with the notion that the money was mine if I believed in Santa Claus, I could never take the million dollars. The best I could do is fake it.
West African Gooner no its basically a mathematical logical argument. Its probability for a person who is 50/50 on the issue, and it concludes that you might as well believe since your chances are better after death as a believer then an atheist.
These are all simply your assumptions. You're making too many assumptions here. This is a simple probability that holds 25% chance for 4 different outcomes. Part of your assumptions are based on your disbelief in God. So, there is about 50% of wonderful/meh outcome and 25% of meh outcome and 25% of horrible outcome. It is simply up to you to make up your mind to which outcome of that probability you want to go with.
I'm gonna wager a belief in the Norse God Ra. Wish me luck!
Ah yes Ra the Egyptian sun god, well known to be worshiped by the Norse. To be fair it seems about as plausible
Great video. For me the argument does not come down to how good or bad one's life becomes in belief or non belief. The argument is one of Authenticity which is mentioned in the video of not being able to be a true believer. It becomes a point in which inauthenticity causes negative consequences within a life. If one forces belief by ignoring their own mind, skepticism, or being then they are condemned to live in a self inflicted conflict. I do not see how life can be fulfilling living in authenticity. Pascal, if I remember right, would claim the "fake it till you make it" program in that if one chooses to believe long enough they will eventually truly believe. However I have not been exposed to this being validated. I would more abide to the Heidegger notion of anticipation and resolve through the death of projection of being.
@James Henry Smith uh huh so it took ya five years to come up with that and it is just a word salad. Try harder next time, suggestion: engage with the opponents argument instead of stroking your crazy.
A theory produced around 1600 that people should play it safe by just believing in God whether or not the existence of that god can be proved. Despite the many flaws in such a presumption, it's worth noting that only two religions threaten unbelievers with eternal damnation: Christianity and Islam. Considering both religions are heresies from the original theology of Judaism, which doesn't include such myths in their doctrine, it's just as safe to conclude that the threat of hell is as empty as the minds which conceived of such a fiction.
There are no "Options." Either you're conviced a God exists or you're not. You can't simply choose to believe. It's a falacy to think otherwise. If God does exist you're not going to fool him by a false declaration of belief.
I think you misunderstood. It's not a desperate act for salvation based on odds thus being in vain. Pascal suggests that there is no risk in believing in God despite any contradicting evidence presented to you or doubt you may have. This gives people more freedom to make a choice based on their own self-developed reasoning rather than ones handed to them by academic means.
About the second premise in the second version of the argument, 'Even if no god exists you are better off as a believer', that only works within that scenario if the believing majority oppress people who prefer the reality and truth over illusion. Posing the wager this way is nakedly asking another person to consciously join in hypocrisy and tyranny.
At least Pascal's original version (that says that it is not possible to know if a god even exists) isn't asking another person to join in oppressing the minority and suppressing the truth.
WBWhiting that exists if you actually know what the truth is. Thats why the scientists coming up with possible ways the universe started can only come up with something that looks like the creation from the bible. So they call it a theory ( big bang theory ) And when did theories become truth? Never until proven.
Jes Fruean scientific theories have always been a fact. You’re conflating the term hypothesis. Evolution theory. Big Bang theory. Germ theory. Adam theory. Theory of relativity. These are all scientific facts backed by an amalgamation of data collected over a vast span of human study.
LOL and you have the truth?? That believing in nothing is the truth?? You don't even want to accept that there is a probability of the presence of God, but you say that what you're saying is basically the truth?? Your comment is hilarious man.
@@eldeebcampeador Believing in reality is not believing in nothing. I merely do not believe that reality contains supernatural magic, after having examined reality and finding that every person who advocates for supernatural anything is confused, lying, or making unwarranted assumptions.
@@WBWhiting It would be the same with you. You're someone who is limited by what they see only. That would mean, that if you were born a 100 years ago for instance and I told you that there is something called the internet, you wouldn't believe it, because you lack the curious mind to say, hey, maybe there is truth to this and I should probably investigate or research more. That's exactly what you are, you only believe in what you see and this is never going to take you anywhere forward. Your mind is stagnant and isn't accepting of at least trying to challenge your limited worldly views.
Blaise Pascal was smarter than all the thinkers on TH-cam combined. He didn't publish his wager, rather they were taken from some rough notes found in his room after he died. It is almost certain that he didn't mean for it to be taken as it is today.
The wager came after he wrote 250 pages why Christianity is true.
Even smart people can have stupid beliefs.
The problem with your critique of Pascal is that his argument is in the context of their being one true God. And the only way to truly believe in that God is by revelation through His Word which you cannot receive on a Ferris wheel or playing a guitar.
Im assuming you're referring to the Abrahamic God. Do you think thats the only god that could exist?
Belief isn't voluntary is it?? Do we choose to believe or are we lead to believe??
Belief is opinion.
#1 Inspect an anthill. Any anthill.
#2 Choose an ant at random. Any ant.
#3 Ask yourself: "What can I do to get this ant to believe in me? To worship me, to praise me, to pray to and sacrifice to me?"
#4 Then ask yourself: "Why am I asking such stupid questions?"
#5 Then ask yourself an intelligent question: "If I'm so much more advanced than any ant, and I don't care what it thinks about me, then how much more so would any sentience capable of creating universes care about what I think?"
#6 Then go about your way confident in the ability that you've chided yourself successfully.
@@ANDROLOMA I agree
At 5:24,the 1st premise is clearly false,because it presents a false dichotomy.It assumes that the only possible options are "either god exists and he'll reward me infinitely if I believe in him" or "god doesn't exist",which is not necessarily the case.What makes you believe that if God exists,he's good?If you say something like"all the good in the world proves God is good" I could easily reply "all the Evil in the world proves God is Evil".There's the chance that if there is a god,he is evil and punishes infinitely believers,but rewards non-believers,meaning that the expected value of believing in God wouldn't be infinite,as Pascal claimed.
goktrenks, you need to consider the context of Pascal's writing as he is living in Catholic France. His worldview is Catholic. Pascal's apology is directed to the Trinitarian Christian God, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As recorded in the historical scriptures and tradition of the Church (which according to the scholastic has been deemed as historic fact both accurate (true), his writing makes sense that God would indeed be deemed 'good.' When you discuss the concept of God vs Evil you need to put on what the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church teaches about Good and Evil. Then you can understand more about the nature of God as portrayed by Pascal. I encourage you to read and learn more. '
Wow, you need to start over, slow down and present your opinion in a cogent manner. Otherwise, I must assume your brain has been polluted with Christianity and you're beyond guidance.
one of the problem i have with pascals wager, something that alot of other people brought up in the comments, is that what if you choose the wrong god? what religion is correct? i guess the safest route would be to go with the oldest, or the most popular. worrying about religion (to me) is existential, and it places a very large burden on those who are not able to decide whether its a good idea to have a religion or not.
Pascal wrote 250 pages why Christianity is the true religion. The wager comes after.
@@brianw.5230So F-king What! I'm sure followers of other religions have penned trestles on why THEIRS is True! Why should I take Pascal's word for it?
@@WingDiamond read "Pensées" and see. :)
@@brianw.5230at the end of the day or death it could be a load of horseshit and maybe you see shiva or Zeus and say “Oh shit picked the wrong religion”. Or the preferable option which is nothing and a eternity of peaceful rest
@@brianw.5230your missing the point as religion is based of faith everything is up to interpretation and there is no 1 true answer. All these religions claiming theirs is correct what makes Christianity any different other than denouncing them as acts of the devil?
"Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy!!!"
Just found your site and have subscribed. Thanks for the cool and short lessons.
Imagining that believing in God makes you a happier person than not believing in God, makes the argument that you are somehow a better person for believing. And you take satisfaction and gladness from that.
I think the evidence is (in the aftermath of the Renaissance) that man has many, many paths to happiness and the taking on of guilt that many religions offer up as a default existence may indeed make you rather unhappy.
You forgot about the actually most ingesting point about Pascal's wager: You have to gamble.
tobi2731 yes.... you gamble with your soul. Goodluck
@@IvikosDigital And the key phrase here is 'YOUR soul'.
Only the individual can make their own decisions
Nice explanation, I sent my students to this. I had a thought on the problem of indecision due to the possibility of infinite reward. If you allow infinite utility, it seems like the conclusion that every action and its complement both have infinite utility is unavoidable, given that there is some probability, however small, that they will lead to a conversion experience. And if you allow infinite punishment as well, the same is true for the theist. Every action has, for them, some probability, however small, of leading to a conversion to atheism as a result of some anti-religious experience. So the infinite utility of an action, and the infinite utility of its complement, cancel each other out. At that point, wouldn't we simply revert to making the decision based on the finite utilities of those actions in this world? Sure, this wouldn't solve the problem of answering the question, "What is the ultimate objective expected utility, from a "God's eye POV," of any given action?" But the EU, for the agent, is relative to the agent's information set anyway. Also, on some philosophies of probability, there is no ultimate objective EU, right? (I don't know that much phil of probability, but I thought that was a view, although it does seem like there has to be one to me.) And calculating based only on finite utilities would allow for a decision procedure. Anyway, just wondering what you thought. You probably have a paper on it, yes?
So what IF you don't allow for 'infinite utility' and/or 'infinite punishment'?
According to Pascal's Wager, you statistically have just as much a chance as going to heaven if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster than if you believe in Jesus. Not a very good advertisement for Christianity.
Who said ' believe in Christianity' I just have a belief that God exists and I am not even spiritual. I just believe that God exists. 🤷
@@secondarymailaddress4470 If your god is the Jewish YHWH, that makes you a Jew. If your god is not a believer, then your god is theist.
Imagine being convinced by this nonsense. Pascal should've stuck with mathematics, outside of that he had a very narrow-minded view of the world.
this isn't nonsense
Ok but hear me out... what if God created all these religions to punish anyone who believes in them because they aren't thinking critically enough
This is so cool! I was struggling in my faith a while back, and the reason I am still a Christian, and not an agnostic, is because of Pascal's Wager. I just want to say that I have "decided" to believe, or really to keep believing, and it is possible. I actually wholeheartedly believe. But I do get how other religions cause problems with Pascal's Wager. I guess which religion you choose is a gamble too. I chose the God who saves me so I don't have to fail at saving myself through works.
I got a notification that there was a reply, but I can’t see it for some reason.
Well that's a completely different story. At least, you believe that there is a God. And that is very important. To be more specific, the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Jonah, Job, Noah and Muhammad. What you do next is you need to read more into all the different Abrahamic religions, your natural instinct that God has instilled within you will guide you to the truth.
@@CombatBanana or you know, you can read some science books and see what happens. My all time favorite is "The Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan.
SmashEX Entertainment Imo it doesn't matter how much knowledge I have about science having to do with God. There are many geniuses who can give reasons why God can't exist, and many geniuses who can give reasons why God must exist. This is because at the end of the day science as a whole can't prove or disprove God's existence. And if God exists, he is certainly beyond science and human reasoning.
@@CombatBanana I didn't mean to disprove your belief. Just you know, having a perspective on who you really are and where you live might be interesting and also useful. Where as reading into every religion is just a waste of time.
Maybe I had this explained to me wrong, but I always thought of Pascal’s wager as a counter arguement to agnosticism. The reasoning is very similar to the versions mentioned in the vid, as you might expect. The version I learned goes something like this: either god exists or he doesn’t and if god exists it is better to believe in god and have an eternity of happiness versus not believing and living in eternal damnation. If god doesn’t exist it is worse to believe in god and waste what little time you have on earth preparing for a nonexistent afterlife versus living to the fullest potential otherwise permissible by the circumstances. Pay off and risk of either choice varies based on perspective but one truth remains constant: you are better off picking one or the other rather than none at all. (Then again, this arguement is not infallible because one could make the counterarguement that agostism reaps the benefits of both belief and non belief rather then reaping neither)
Yes! The time wasted "preparing for a nonexistent afterlife" is an important cost to consider, and doesn't seem to be brought up so much? Also, I'm not sure agnostics could "reap the benefits of belief" if we're talking about escaping eternal damnation. Pretty sure that usually requires whole heart acceptance of god, (at least within the Christian context).
There are a couple of different versions, or variations on "free will". The definition I go with has to do with the concept that a person's thoughts and actions are a combination of environment and genetics aged through the years a person has lived. A person starts out at birth and his first experience is not of his doing. His genetic make-up is not of his doing. There then is a steady, rapid-fire chain reaction of one experience on top of the other, each experience dictated by the previous experiences, starting with that first experience at birth. The other factor is genetic make-up of the person, including I.Q., brain chemistry, physical abilities, etc. If the notion of "free will" is that a person has options throughout life, then yes, there is that type of "free will" too. However, that is not my version of "free will".
Wow. I came up with the same thing
Free Will is ultimately an illusion. Determinism is impossible too escape. However just because we ultimately do not have free will does not mean that we do not feel as if we do.
I like the 'options throughout Life' version
@@capcrunch7838 Well shit!...Now I'm determined to ultimately believe that Free Will is not an illusion because I just freely willed to do so
Or did I...?
And...Is freely accepting the 'illusion' free will?
And...Is freely refusing to accept the 'illusion' free will?
@@thekalaoakidd we may believe we have free will and however we cannot prove it. Could you have done otherwise unless we grab a time machine it is impossible to prove.
The largest fault in your "mathematical" premise is that some infinities are larger than other infinities. Therefore, even though the expected payout appears the same for different actions. If there is a larger likelihood going to church would invoke belief the expected payout is higher
Pascal is brilliant, and in the comments are just “know-it-alls” idiots, because they did not read the whole book 100% Info
But what is the reward if you believe. Oh you forgot, it isn't defined. I am not a child to be manipulated. Define this reward you are so sure is there. You can't! Your answer is to have faith ..... childish BS!
I find this video and premise very tiresome and repetitive. I'm not even impressed that it's from Harvard. Harvard isn't impressive beyond it's top 5% of students. The rest are probably affirmative action appointees or kids of entitled families. No, I wouldn't attend Harvard unless they gave me a full scholarship. Regardless, arguing faith is a death spiral of wasted energy. "To those who have faith, no explanation is necessary. To those who lack faith, no explanation is possible." You are either called or you're not called. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convert someone without faith. You may deny Jesus as God, but what he said and accomplished can't be seen as anything but the greatest wisdom and sacrifice humanity has EVER seen. Refuting this TRUTH can only lead to eternal darkness.
"I Am."
-God
Just think: who has it worse in the end if they're wrong, the atheist or the Christian?
Atheists would only be worse off if gods are evil tyrants who punish honest opinions (we're assuming that gods care about beliefs instead of deeds), so believers would also be in bad shape, having to worship such tyrants.
If you’re Christian and it turns out Islam was right your pretty fucked ain’t you
@@mrsentencename7334 Why would islam be right? It's a fabrication. Six hundred years after Jesus, all of a sudden it's wrong. Mohammed made it up, so he could gain power and control over people. And, look what it has become.
Hunter O' Tails I’m aware all religion is bullshit I was just saying that Pascal’s wager doesn’t give religious people anything
@@mrsentencename7334 And, that's the wager you made.
If you believe God exists..He has violated his own scriptures claiming that He is compassionate..
By creating HELL or even Heaven..
And also Afterlife..
Man created God to fulfill the desire of punishing those who caused them pain and to have pleasure for themselves..
Silly Humans
The funny thing is I had this thought myself a while ago and I never knew it was a actual theory. Cool to think I’ve had profound thoughts😎. Just the concept of infinity and Probability is actually so ridiculously insane when you break it down. I get lost in my thoughts and get anxiety just thinking about it.
Everyone has thought of this. We all must have joked about following every religion at the same time to go to heaven
@@Sea-qv4sd Sadly "following every religion at the same time" isn't even possible due to the requirements and individual actions following from each.
Pascal was an idiot. He's only profound to idiots.
But if the Christian god doesn't exist, you would have spent your whole life trying to live by his laws, which means you'd be close-minded and living in fear your life...... But then, what about all the other gods and religions? why would you just use the pascal wager on the Christian god?
wow this video brought out all the god haters.
...Theist/Religious thinking is NOT a Free/low stakes wager as original content suggests. Its extremely difficult to be a theist. There are many debts, taxing of mental, physical, and moral barters/transactions. Theory and thought is free, BUT theology and religion is Expensive, because they require action and sacrifice, unlike rhertoric/dogma!!!
I find it odd, that A simple premise of a coin flip, "there is or there is not" is compared to a lottery with multiple choices. Pascal (although a Christian) doesn't define the Christian God, but defines an eternity to those who believe in God. The educated tend to over think this premise and redefine the terms of Pascals wager.
So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct.
Malcolm Muggeridge
×
I think this is great , and I agree but you don’t ‘just believe’ to kiss the Lords ass save a trip to hell.. you have to wholeheartedly believe and repent and not just believe to not go to hell
Honey...you’ve squarely hit the nail on the head 👍
Uh.....
Which god are we talking about here?
The belief in the existence of a God is different than an argument about which God. I will accept and agree that they cannot all be the one true God, and therefore, it is either the right God or no God. However, the pragmatism of the situations is that if there be no God, there can be nothing beyond death. but if there be any God then the consensus is that there is always something beyond death. There are justifications and reasons one might wish to believe in either scenario. you are either living a good life and want rewarded or you are living a life you know is against the common religions' God and want to avoid the punishment. Either way you cannot prove with physical evidence the validity of wither belief, but a choice must be made. even agnostics accept the idea that God may exist and therefore they live in a way that they believe that God would approve of just in case. it's a psychological inevitability. And I'd be willing to say that even some atheists are in that same boat. they just try to claim that their borrowing or utilizing of God-prescribed behaviors and traits are somehow not actually God-prescribed, but that they were able to arrive at the value of those traits through other means. the result is the same even if they deny the source, or at least deny knowledge of the source.
scott banta If there is a god that doesn’t mean there has to be something after death. If it’s a deistic god he might have absolutely nothing to do with us. Might have created the universe and died himself or other scenarios I’m sure you can think of. I disagree with the consensus. If that indeed is it. One can not make a choice about belief in a god. Believe deals with conviction. Either one is convinced of something or they’re not. But one does not have the power to choose what convinces them. Most atheist are agnostic. Agnosticism and Gnosticism deal with the knowledge of gods existence. While atheism and theism deals with the belief in gods existence. “Deny” is a poor choice of wording. Atheist do not “deny” the existence of god. That would imply we are unwilling to admit to something. Which is generally untrue in this matter. we simply are not convinced of his/her/it/their existence.
@@merikijiya13 If a God dies like the rest of us, then how is He a God then?? A supernatural entity that is stronger and better than all humanity and ends up dying like the rest of us is the most absurd claim I could ever possibly hear.
@@eldeebcampeador A god doesnt have to follow any rules that you come up with. If a god can die then a god can die period regardless of how absurd you THINK it is.
@@merikijiya13 LOL yeah, so basically, you want to place a super natural entity in the same limited capacity of the human life and that's supposedly true?? So, does that mean that this God of yours needs to eat?? Drink?? Have sex?? Shit?? Your view of God is very limited by your very limited view. That's if you think that there is a God in the first place.
The problem with many comments is the separation of God from a final judgment. It's based on knowing if something is true or not and since we don't know for certain due to our limited knowledge, the wager is simply saying err on the side of caution, get ready just in case, make provision for, have a contingency plan. Pascal wager is in the context of soteriology. Overcoming your own mortality.
When I was around 14, Jehovah's Witnesses tried to convert my mom who was a bit depressed at the time and I stepped in to answer the door so that I could talk to them instead - I didn't let them in. We had a nice chat about what heaven means, since they kept pushing this similar idea that if you just believe, you will have eternal happiness. When I asked what would happen to all the non-believers that I know, they said they wouldn't be there - so I declared that it wouldn't be paradise for me then - I'd be miserable without these people. They stood there quietly without an answer for around 15 minutes until I closed the door, wishing them a nice day.
I think the argument that you're better off believing is flawed in many ways, but since for most of us even the reward itself is impossible, it makes Pascal's original idea seem even more silly.
Pascal's wager is taken out of context. It's original intent was as a closing dealbreaker for people already on the fence and not as a general argument to be presented to atheists. It's more of a solid argument if you're 75%+ on the way to believing rather than this broad win/win argument. The thought experiment of it is interesting though and I think that's the focus here. When taken out of it's original context the wager quickly breaks down
@@VitaeLibra " It's more of a solid argument if you're 75%+ on the way to believing"
So if you are 75% of the way to Islam then the wager works for you.
So if you are 75% of the way to alien overlords then the wager works for you.
So if you are 75% of the way to (insert name here) then the wager works for you.
Problem is that many religions are exclusive so by following one you loose in the others. This leads back to you have to have the evidence for the religion and if you have the evidence then you have no need of the wager.
Wager also only works for narcissistic deities that value worship above morals. A moral loving deity would only be concerned with people doing good not how much they grovel, but that does not keep paying bums on seats in church.
Non believers go to hell
@@Cbevly I'm sorry to hear that you're having a bad, only life that you'll ever live. Please seek aid and make it count instead of threatening people with fairytales.
Well, how do you know that you would even remember your non believing cohorts? You are not presenting a very good arguement against eternal life.
He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice!!!
The first three objections persist in other versions of Pascal's wager. The problem is that the definition of God and belief is distorted. You can't choose to believe, and you can't know which is the right God. and this refutes all versions of this argument.
You could potentially put yourself in situations that cause you to believe.
I can't make myself blush through sheer will, but if I summon a specific memory or I knowingly do something stupid in public I know I will blush.
It seems conceivable that, while it might take tremendous effort, you could construct such an environment where belief in something eventually becomes genuine.
The one fallacy that I see in the argument here is that if God is all-knowing, and your belief in Him is out of fear of going to Hell as opposed to a genuine love for Him , won't God see through the charade, and bar your entry anyway ? Even if He lets you in for fear of going to Hell, does that not make one's love for God an exercise of coercion, hence making the case for free will a sham ??
Pascal’s wager may be flawed when used regarding god. But I’ve found the the method in which charted can be used in other arguments. The only difference is that you would need to establish that the positive claim has only ONE counterclaim (X vs not X), and that the consequences and rewards for being right or wrong are worth even considering. If there’s another name for this method other than the Pascal’s Wager method, someone please let me know.
When you start moving shit around and adding or taking away,and wager-ing other questions,then it's not ''Pascal's Wager'' anymore. It's YOUR wager now
@@thekalaoakidd makes sense
There is no reason for God to exist if He is all complete and does not need anything , Does He need to create life with consciousness to make Him complete..
I see Humans and animals do have a tough life, God does not seem to be compassionate..
Higher Power within
makes more sense ,to sustain life.
As per Patanjali yoga .
"Atheists...What if you're wrong??"
Ok so I die right and, and much to my surprise I find myself standing before the god of Christianity.
What do I do how do I feel about this, what would, I think what should I say what if I’m wrong.
When I think about this question, I think about the fact that there are two very interesting characteristics that have always been attributed to this god and ONE is Omnibenevolence optimal love, optimal compassion, optimal mercy, optimal concern for the well-being of others and the other is omniscience, knowing everything that could possibly be known about anything from any point of view at any time in any context and one inescapable conclusion that follows this, is if this being exists it knows me, I mean really knows me, understands me as well as I can possibly be understood.
This is not a mystery he is not sitting up in heaven racking his brain trying to figure out why Jeff can’t seem to believe in it.
This God would be acutely aware of my history of the causal chain of events and experiences that cumulatively contributed to the development of my entire personality and psyche and outlook on life.
This being would understand impeccably that I am nothing more and nothing less than a product of that which I’ve experienced every interaction that I’ve ever had that changed me or forced me to think differently down to the exact moment in my life which caused me to care about philosophy, religion and theology in the afterlife.
This being would have a perfect appreciation for that God would understand intimately my reasoning and my thought process and how I arrived at the conclusions I did even if Christians don’t, he would know my views on morality and ethics and understand specifically why I think it’s more virtuous to approach religious claims critically and prudently then to accept them at face value on faith.
He would understand why I think I’ve lived a good life. Why I think that I’ve made good choices even if Christians don’t.
He would be aware of all the actions and all the characteristics that I’ve seen attributed to him by Christians as well as scriptures and why those actions and characteristics seem undeniably incompatible to me not just with one another but with the observable world, he would know about the time in my life when I actually picked up a bible and made it a point to read the whole thing and he would know the hundreds of verses I came upon which, Which I found Horrifying or absurd or completely incompatible with the notion that this was inspired by a just and loving being concerned with ensuring our salvation even if Christians don’t.
So if I found myself standing before this being it goes without saying that my immediate would be one of complete shock complete shock and utter shock. I would be absolutely floored if I found out with certainty that the Christian God specifically exists and the first question, the first thought that would even enter into my mind I know, would be what was wrong with my reasoning.
I would beg, I would plead regardless of whether I was on my way to Heaven or Hell just to know what the flaw was in my thinking and reasoning where along the way where the mistakes I made that led me to the wrong conclusion. I would give anything to know that.
I would give anything to know the answers.
Of course this God would know all too well I took truth very seriously in my life, I never believed anything simply because I wanted it to be true or because I thought it would be beneficial in some way to assume it was true and likewise I never doubted any claims simply because I preferred it not to be true but, I would take comfort in knowing that the being responsible for judging me for evaluating me.
Ultimately deciding my fate knows me so perfectly that I don’t have to make any excuses for myself.
The omniscience of this being would allow me to feel perfectly represented I don’t have to plead a case I don’t have to persuade anyone that my intentions were pure; these things are already known to this being.
It would be known that I never doubted God’s existence out of rebellion or spite or disregard for authority it would be known that I’d have preferred the existence of a loving God all along and would have had no problem obeying the command of this loving God but I just found too many problems inherent in the concept too many Contradictions too many holes too many propositions that require special pleading or circular reasoning or ad hoc speculation and that I simply didn’t observe anything about reality that couldn’t have been the result of natural cumulative processes it would be known that my cognitive faculties do not allow me to choose what I am and am not convinced is true about reality that my disbelief is an involuntary reaction to what I perceived as a deficit of evidence for god’s existence and most importantly it would be known that I thought it insufficient and even immoral to pretend that I believed in this being simply because I feared punishment or sought reward.
When I take into consideration of what follows naturally from the knowledge attributed to this being and I combine that with what follows naturally from the compassion attributed to this being it’s difficult for me to conceive that this being wouldn’t be in some sense proud of me and pleased with the way that I’ve employed the intellect and the moral sense with which he would have endowed me even if it turned out that I was wrong.
I have a hard time imagining that this God would be offended by me and my thought process.
Offended enough to allow for me to endure unbearable torment foe all of
eternity and not as a form of discipline or correction or redemption since it would never end. There’s nothing constructive about hell you don’t come out of hell a better person, you don’t come out at all and so the only reason for the existence of hell is vengeance. According to the Bible and according to most Christians hell is exactly where I’m heading, no matter the life I lead the choices I make the intentions that I have, if I don’t at least think that a God exists well, sucks for me and in the meantime, you know extreme rapist, murderers, and Child molesters are welcomed in heaven with open arms so long that they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior before their demise and if it turns out that this is the case and that’s okay too because I.
I don’t know how I would be able to handle spending eternity alongside of a being whose idea of compassion and fairness makes me sick to my stomach, a beings whose empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity so that’s my answer.
Good thing I’m
not wrong.
By ~ Theoretical Bullshit
if i died right now and god was real I would simply say "well fuck" and spend my eternity in hell thinking about how horrible my life already was... but I'm a strong believer in reincarnation and I'm also an atheist so I doubt that's gonna happen
That's why Jesus died for you so you would not go to Hell he paid the price of your soul no other religion has a savior only Jesus Christ paid the price.
Your mention of God’s perfect knowledge ( knowing everything that could possibly be known about anything at any time in any context ) speaks some to free will. If God knows all of your thoughts and the outcome of your life before your born, where does free will factor in? Free will presupposes you have choices and you would make ethical ones to earn your way to heaven. If God is omniscient, God has foreknowledge of every individual who will make it to heaven and every individual going to hell. Seems inconsistent to the concept of free will. How is God glorified when the fate of every soul is foreknown or predetermined? Why not just assign the souls destined for heaven directly into heaven. Why have them live out their lives first? On the other hand, pleasing God by living righteously presupposes the existence of free will since one’s salvation would necessarily be self-determined based on the decisions and actions one takes. However if free will exists, God would not be omniscient since God would not have foreknowledge of the self-determining decisions that individuals will make. Taking into account human nature and self-preservation, "the wager" no doubt influences the faith for many believer’s far greater than most would admit. And basing any degree of one’s faith on payoff vs. penalty is especially reprehensible. .
Don't just pretend to believe in God because of Pascal's wager. If you pretend you are not a true Christian or whatever religion you choose. Corinthians 13: 1-13.
O St. Blaise, pray for us!
The god depicted in the bible is a psychopath.
Worship of a psychopath is a waste of time.
Even if you have to believe,
you'd rather just enjoy the time you have without him.
That's kind of the opposite of what Pascal states, you'd rather try your best not to believe.
very articulate in your explanation, the narration was perfect, thank you
so if someone tells me that he will guarantee me 1 million dollar next month, when i give him 100 dollar today, than i should do so, cause the outcome is so much more than the costs? ... snowball inc
3:30 well I wanted to kow about those objections! i hope a video about them will come soon.
If you believe there is no afterlife,no soul, until now there is no evidence in terms of Science.
Only one life .then why worry .We have the law of the land.
Also the higher power is within you to sustain your life
This is bs god is up there 👍
No hes not
Doubtful.
Pascal's wager assumes that "God" could not tell the difference between a true believer and someone just hedging their bets.
i think the “god” pascal was referring to is the christian god, in which he is all knowing, always present, and all powerful. that’s still a good point, though. who knows what “god” knows, or sees, or if any god exists. sometimes i wonder if WE are god, exponentially multiplying ourselves to create an endless stream of new experiences and feelings. we had to start at one cell, one form of being, which had to multiply on its own continuously until the universe was created. we are scientifically descendent from that single original form of being. wouldn’t that mean we are all one and the same with each other as well as the universe and everything in it? sorry lol i just realized how much i typed
This is extremely flawed, it's actually safer to be an athiest, why? Because let's say that the Muslim god is the correct one, and an atheist and a Christian are standing in front of the Muslim god, wouldn't the Muslim god be more accepting to the atheist who didn't believe in any god? Rather then the Christian who believed in the wrong god? Same goes for every other religion, what if the Jewish god is the right one, and a Muslim and an atheist are standing before them, wouldn't the Jewish god be more accepting of the atheist who just said "I don't know" rather then the Muslim that believed in a completely wrong god?
Zovlo, wanna chat further about your question?
ur actually right.There's an event in islam when allah is said to forgive everyone without 3 qualities
1U must not believe in any other god.U either need to be an athiest or a muslim.
2U must not have pride
3I don't remember this one
No, he wouldn't
You know what, all Abrahamic religions believe in the same God. Christian God and Muslim God are the same.
Zovlo you obviously haven’t read a single book about any of those religions. All those religions come from the same god. The first testament from the bible is similar to the Quran. And the chistians and jews read the same bible. The Jewish religion came first - then Christianity was created from a jew name Jesus. Then a millennium later, the Muslim religion diverted from christianity because of a man name Muhummed.
In the modified 2nd premise at the end of the vid… it has ZERO utility to anybody because if you've been exposed to the claims & arguments for god and you come away unconvinced such an entity exists, you're back to the issue mentioned earlier in the video whereby one can't make one's self believe anything. We believe what we're convinced is true (whether it is or not).
This theory seems to be so one-dimensional and It is hard to believe people were buying the story.
All the (opportunity-) costs which arise to the whole humanity when people believe in god and god does not exist make it actually so much worse to believe in him.
Just imagine the history of the world without religious conflicts...
This theory waged people to believe rather than to think and critizise rationally.
i don't disagree with you, but religious conflict is one of the worst examples you could've used to explain your point. almost all "religious conflict" was just political conflict with religion as an excuse - it would've happened either way.
semper aportos I disagree, even if religion didn't exist, massive conflict like that would still arise. Conflict comes from something people believe in enough to fight about, and as long as there are humans, there will be something to believe in. I mean, the biggest wars in human history, World Wars 1 and 2, were independent of religious motives (Hitler's reasonings were purely biological, and not religious. If I'm wrong, please correct me).
You're missing the point. Pascal's wager isn't looking at if believing in god is better for Humanity, its looking at if it is better for the individual.
"It is hard to believe people were buying the story." You just don't understand what philosophy is about. It's not about buying a story. It's about the story itself.
semper aportos Maybe, but nobody is going to teach a full course on theological philosophy on TH-cam.
Better believe in EVERY god just in case! That's just being logical!! lololol
Pascal's Roulette..... but you only get to make one choice.
Then I choose to believe in the greatest God named Leeroy who immediately eats all the gods as they appear, no matter their strength, so that there can't be any other god to exist except for him because they instantly die as they appear. Thus it's not logical to believe in all gods simultaneously, because Leeroy and other deities can't exist at the same time.
@@kimbanton4398 Kim, you made me laugh. Thank you.
Richard Dawkins as a cat makes so much more sense than this wager.
Modest Mind25
R. D. makes too much of himself and very little sense generally. He is a bigot who looks miserable all the time; and so he should, with a miserable doctrine like that.
In the words of the ancient psalmist, whose words demonstrate that atheism is anything but 'new'-----------------
'The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." '
to you i agree
I think this video illustrates the problems of having a woman try to explain or clarify logical concepts. I think she's trying to prove how smart she is. If only there was a man in her life to tell her, "No! Don't waste people's time with your 'logical' thinking. "
I would have enjoyed this break down of Pascal's Wager years ago(it appears knowledge is timeless,lol).
Excellent layman's approach,many thanks...
Seems to me belief is not something you consciously choose. You either do or you don’t. You can act like you believe or pretend, but I can’t believe something because I want to or think I should believe it
This is the long way of saying Nothing!! That is Academia for you.... Waste of time
not at all if it gets you to think critically or examine problems from a different angle
Dave, pal... Are you arguing that philosophy is pointless, because there is not necessarily a practical value in thinking about a concept?
Because if so... Man, that's a sad, narrow minded attitude you got there.
Spoken like a typical home-schooled "Christian." Your comment reminds me of listening to "Christians" going on-and-on about about Jesus, who probably never existed or questionable son of a god. Since you don't appreciated academia, then go back to your cave and give-up all modern conveniences, including health care. And don't forget your whale spermaceti candles.
@@kennyw871 it is widely known and accepted among academics that Jesus did exist. Both creationists, atheists and evodelusionists alike. You seem to be a bit behind the times.
And why would he need to give up modern conveniences especially health care? Religious people pioneered every field of science and medicine. Maybe you should give it all up and get your ass back in your cave, ape man.
thermal 15 Evodulsionist? I recommend you read the origin of species by Charles Darwin. A phenomenal read of biology.
Pascal's wager is just a terrible argument every way you look at it.
How NEEDY would a creator have to be, that it not only requires worship, but it also gives you an afterlife insurance as a 'sweetener' for doing so. To punish independant, intelligent thought and reward empty minded, cowardly sycophancy....nice. WHAT a lot of tosh.
LMAO Richard Pawkins!! love this!
Not only does Pascal's reasoning lead to mathematical errors and practical absurdity, it is flawed from the start. Several religious philosophers believe that the abrahamic God doesn't actually despise skeptics. I can't remember my source for this so my apologies but a student of a philosopher/priest (can't remember which) asked his teacher "why did God create atheists if they are only ever destined for hell?" His teacher responds with "they were created as a lesson for us believers. Without threat of eternal damnation or promise of eternal happiness, the atheist will still do the right thing more often than not. God created the atheist without the ability to believe so that the atheist could teach us." I think Pascal was probably an idiot, but to fair to him religion is mostly used as a weapon by zealots and authoritarians to further their agenda, doubly so in his time.
There is a flaw in your line of thought: not all infinites are the same.
How many natural numbers are there? Infinite. Now, how many rational numbers are there? That's right. Also, infinite. But there are more rational numbers then natural ones. So, there are degrees of infinity, so to speak. If an event has a non-zero chance of giving you an infinite reward, and another has a higher chance of yielding that same infinite reward, the second event is more valuable, because the expected return is a higher infinite.
Weird, I know. All in all, nice video!
What is your native language? An off-top.
Portuguese. I'm Brazilian.
Rodrigo Lima Diniz it sounds wonderful. and.... good point.
"But there are more rational numbers then natural ones"
Check your math, there's exactly as much rational number as there is natural ones
It's relevant to the video in the sense that she points out (around 4:40) that there can't be identical (in this case, infinite) expected return values for every different action. I'm saying that even though they are all infinite, acording to her line of thought, they are not necessarily equal.
Also, the degrees of infinity have more to do with degrees of freedom than with arbitrary human constraints. How many infinitely small dots are there in a square inch? Infinite. How many are there in 2 square inches? Twice that, which is also infinite, but the second infinite is greater than the first.
I'm not trying to disprove her point. I'm just pointing a mistake in a small part of it.
Thank you. Been meaning to revisit this subject
Why revisit it? It was wrong when Pascal wrote it and is wrong now.
Look, there is no God. Grow up.
Aleks Accuser To claim anything as an absolute truth is ignorant and irrational, I would suggest instead that you state instead that you are of the belief that the existence of a God has a low probability. Additionally, I would also advise that you do no insult those you oppose, as it only makes them more firm in the absolute belief and degrades the value of your point.
Elliott Welsford, I totally agree with you, I usually use arguments for these stuff, but I have concluded that the internet does not contain any rational and critical thinking theists, therefore my attitude. I also have concluded that there is no way to convince theists to change any of their dogmatic views over the internet. In person I have done it many times! So as you can tell I am messing around with their innocent and ignorant minds.
My friend Lucas, that depends from much you will be able to doubt something the society brainwashes you since you were born. But just for your information I have managed to change at least 15 of my friends(the ones i mostly care about), all born in a orthodox christian nation. The way I changed their beliefs is not by force but by setting them questions and mindsets that required them to use critical thinking, reasoning and understanding of the human nature and feelings. I definitely cannot change your believes through Internet. But you can if you start using more your brain(and LOGIC) :)
LOL.... Somebody protests too much!!
Big Bang = in the beginning nothing exploded. And here we are.
Regarding the author's critique of the first formulation of the wager, I don't see how positing the infinite value of the payout negates the differentiation probability between various methods of winning it.
And, come to think of it, Pascal doesn't say anything about going to church, he only says, "believe in God." He assumes this decision is readily available and is sufficient (with consistent implementation in lifestyle) to win the infinitely valuable payout of Divine approval and reward. It is not belief in God that is infinitely valuable, but the reward that results from it.
you do understand that biblically belief in God is the only criteria, right?
@@EugeneVerster The sort of belief that results in righteous works, yes. But lest you pigeonhole, let me clarify:
The belief itself is the first and foundational work, and indeed, all other works are encompassed within it, because true faith cannot help but triumph over the futility of the world.
But it is for that very reason that its presence is reliably evidenced by its corollaries (doing the sort of works of love that are impossible without actionable knowledge of Divine Abundance i.e. the sure inheritance of God, and all things, in Christ).
Therefore I append "consistent implementation in lifestyle" to differentiate true belief from the sort of belief that James says the demons have, and yet tremble.
@@777Looper again mate BIBLICALLY salvation is through faith alone. It is very clear on this. No man can be righteous and we cannot earn our place into heaven through works
@@777Looper so nothing then?
@@EugeneVerster (Forgot to put a "genuine" in front of "belief" in first sentence of third paragraph, which is an important one. Also, I'll be updating the google doc with more references and formatting.)
When you believe in a religion, you have faith in the religion. Not trust, but faith. Hence, you blindly trust a religion is correct. It may be right, or it might not be. Even if you have an ounce of faith, you're going to heaven. Also, God has given us signs all around us. Personally, I believe that there is a God. Evolution of humans, forming stars, and other scientific phenomena occur due to very small chance, just as if it wasnt due to chance. I'm looking for the right religion, and I think its Islam. I'm gonna put my lottery ticket on Islam.
Islam is a religion turned into a vehicle for world domination. Christianity is not a religion, rather it is a journey of seeking God.
Islam is the right religion :) It's the final revelation from God (Allah) for all humankind
There is an infinite number of ways of life which could potentially lead to infinite value. In this theory however, the infinite value is attributed to living in accordance to the Abrahamic God only. Moreover, it is assumed that this way of life must give infinite value if this God indeed exists, for which we have no proof.
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662
Mathematician, Physicist, Philosopher, Inventor.
Pioneer of Probability Theory
"There are two kinds of people one can call reasonable:
Those who serve God with all their heart because they know him
And those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him."
since when is serving god reasonable
@@waifu_png_pl6854 since they provided evidence that God is real
Jk we both know Christians don't have evidence.
@@darklogic6998 How would you know Christians don't have evidence? I've been providing evidence all over the place for years.
It just missed one things that there are a lot of religions in the world.What if Islam is true and ur a Christian ur still going to hell.
Shohan Tutorial. No, Islam and Christianity are both true but only certain parts of them. If you can just remember the main message of both religions is love, peace, and justice then you'll be able to determine what parts are true.
The problem if you're wrong and it turns out that we become reborn is no eternal happiness in a stereotypical Heaven, but the plus is no Hell, unless you believe Earth is Hell. The good news however is your spirit/essence/energy/consciousness will continue to experience life, have more experience and grow through suffering of course but, I would rather work towards being whole (whatever that may be defined as) than in a stagnant state for all eternity..and Hell, well that's part of the gamble to keep things interesting eh, or a test.
False premise. Let's assume god exists and if you believed in him then you're sentenced to eternal damnation. If you don't believe in him then you'll be sentenced to eternal peace. This outcome is equally as likely as the outcome of Pascal's wager.
Stephen Struble: Yes, that is what I have always said. I think that god, religious doctrine, the supernatural, churches, etc. is all a test to see how many people can see through the BS.
@@anonymousjohnson976 Well that's all fine and dandy, but all skeptic and nihilistic views aside Pascal also had this apologist work that described why if there was any one true religion it would be likely to be christianity, meaning that you first accept or reject the arguments put there before taking the wager. In response to the Bizzaro God, since until now such a deity has never been spoken of save for the hypothetical argument to counter the wager, it is dubious to think that such a being if truly the creator hasn't already made contact with us if they truly cared about how we were living our lives. Point being everyone would be saved because they didn't worship him, though likely not since this kind of god would have a lot of explaining to do in regards to their motives.
The problem is some part or command in religion are irrational...if you dedicated to a religion, you must sacrifice your rationality. If you not fully dedicated, you will still get infinite loss