Uhuh...which religion?

since im using a mathematical argument ( to the best of my abilities) it would i suppose apply to all doctrines of religion.

I suppose that the EV + of the major religions ( Christianity, Islam, Judaism), heaven would apply

EV- under the above religions would be hell.

EV+ for Buddhaism and Hinduism would be a higher life form or a positive state in nirvana and EV- would be a negative decline in your next life.

Ok but what he meant is that if you are a Christian, the same argument applies for converting to Islam.

Also read this.

I like it

Boils it down to simple mathematical and decision theory principles. Excellent for a poker player

did you read the criticisms?

Anti- Pascal Wager ?

because the other criticisms are based on incorrect gods worshipped and whether god rewards belief. These criticisms, however, then again bring us into a state of confusion and indecision which is at the origin of religion and its veracity indeed. Therefore, for this argument to work , we will have to base ourselves on probabilities conceived and actions that reward and don't. The veracity of the religions and which one the correct one, we will leave to frustrated theologians and fanatics.

Or more worrying, the god vhawk has often preached about. The deity who punishes everyone who does anything remotely religious of any kind whatsoever. Apparently, he only rewards those who live a life of religious indifference.

That and it looks like two others are mentioned in the article. They're under the heading, "criticisms."

My point was that you're not bringing up anything new here. We've had entire threads on it and I'm pretty sure even most theists here don't give Pascal's wager any credibility.

Are you sure? Oddly enough Pascal's wager gives theists credibility imo.

No it doesn't because it's silly.

Let's look at Christianity for example. Suppose I buy into Pascal's wager and decide to become a Christian. How exactly do I go about forcing myself to believe that Jesus was the son of God? Do you find it easy to believe things that you are convinced are not true?

Richard Dawkings and the Anti-Pascal Wager. But it throws confusion on veracity of religion which is best left to theologians and fanatics.

Keep it simple and look at it from a straightforward simple mathematical concept , easier for us simple mortals.

Hello, Pascal's wager gives theists credibility not a certian theist. Your conviction is upto you. Pascal uses christian biblical reference being it the book of reference that he could have at his disposition at his time, however, can be used for all major religions and most minor ones as well.

You're not getting this. The bolded is exactly why it does NOT give theism any credibility.

Do you not think that an all-powerful god would see through your cynicism? If you don't *truly* believe in god, but are just claiming to believe in case there actually is a god, I don't think this "belief" will wash with any omnipotent being worth his salt. Paying lip-service is probably not going to cut it.

In any event, I've always tried to live my life as morally as possible. I've always figured that if there is a god of some sort, I won't be condemned to "hell" for my actions while alive. It's a form of adherence to Pascal's wager, I guess.

I admire your conviction, and yes because we can not have a similiar level of proof with atheists or theists, you are i believe, free and would be correct in living your life in any form you wish to.

I just keep that saying repop in my head once in a while. " If you don't believe in God, you better be right."

P0Tat0Cheeps,

think about what happens if you replace "believe in God" with "eat Lucky Charms every day"

You completely missed the point of my reply.

Fine, but Pascal's Wager suggests that we pretend to believe in god, in case god is real. My contention is that an omnipotent being would see right through this and wouldn't be fooled by your feigned belief in him.

I have no idea what this sentence is intended to convey, sorry.
Well sure, it's simpler to ignore a whole lot of options and say "Out of options 1 and 2, 1 is higher EV, so I'm gonna go with that".

The question of what religion to follow is not as simple as call or fold though.

It doesnt help save the wager, of course. However, the original pascal's wager was not suggesting you could pull a swift one on God and trick him into letting you into heaven. Pascal was cleverer than that.

Pascal's argument was that one has the choice:
1. to attend church, do everything you can to be a devout christian, earnestly try and believe, pray, tithe, send your kids to sunday school, etcetera...
2. to live as an unbeliever.

The claim is that if you follow the first course then you are more likely to come to believe (sincerely) than if you follow the second. By the time it matters, you'll be a real, genuine, god-fearing christian. I think it was much more powerful in the days when the choice was christian or atheist though. Nowadays it doesnt help (unless you're ignorant of all but one religion of course) but it's stronger than it appears on a cursory glance.

Here's a good take on Pascal's wager:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

i have not read the thread, but you just gotta believe yo

Those who claimed Pascal's wager to be false, never really got to sway me.

Though I see the logic the counterarguments use as valid, I refuse to give up the hidden premise. In the end the wager only applies if you believe that we know enough about God that he won't send us to hell for revering Him on Sunday. I believe that. I need another non-existant wager to pose this premise as valid and believable.

"There could be a God that only accepts everyone that is an atheist, and send the rest to hell, so Pascal's Wager is rubbish".

Are not you playing Pascal's Wager here yourself by making such a statement? But instead you are playing on the chance that God only accepts atheists?
Eventhough we know nothing about these chances and so each is about as likely, can't you even predict the chance that God only accepts atheists is smaller than devout theists?

Pascal's wager does apply to the happy agnost who deep down agrees with the hidden premise and the Judean-Christian interpretations of the properties of God.

For them the wager still holds meaning, no matter if the wager is meaningless for you. Even if Pascal's wager was logically valid for every possible person and view, than I doubt that atheists would take it to start believing in a sincere way. Applying Pascal's Wager on atheists is therefor dishonest, but deeming Pascal's Wager meaningless for everyone is also dishonest.

No true Christian believes in God only because it possible enlarges his/her chance to heaven.

Good post 46:1

Sucks to know you're going to hell, but you had your chance.