Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[DavidGYoung]

Are there any Christians here who seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument holds water?

If so, why?

[Athanasius]

Do I find it compelling? No.
Do I think someone can choose to believe on the basis of it? No. (As Pascal himself gets at.)
Do I think that between the two options as presented in the wager, it makes more sense to (try to) believe than not? Yes.

Do I think that anyone who uses Pascal's wager as an attempt to demonstrate the truth of Christian belief has only ever read the wager and not the book it belongs to? Yes.

The wager does exactly what it was intended to: show the deficiencies of logical reasoning on matters of faith and God.

[RabbiKnife]

True

Trying to prove the metaphysical/spiritual by use of the scientific or philosophic always leads to a requirement for faith in the presuppositions

[tango]

Are there any Christians here who seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument holds water?

If so, why?

It's very loosely compelling as far as it goes, but obviously it completely fails to consider other options.

If it were as simple as "God" vs "no God" then it would make sense to assume the "God" option given the consequences of the two decisions. The trouble is that if you choose "Yahweh" but subsequently find out the correct answer was "Vishnu" then you get all the downsides of this life plus all the downsides of the next life. So unless you want to go around trying to pacify every possible god out there, while not falling foul of inconvenient complicators like "You shall have no gods before me", you have to accept there's more to it.

[DavidGYoung]

I wonder how a missionary who uses the argument would react to the following:

"Hello. I would like to become a Christian because, although I do not believe in the existence of God, life after death or any supernatural authorship of the Bible, I am aware that I may still be wrong. If I convert to Christianity, I will continue to maintain that I do not believe in any of those, because it would be dishonest not to. What do I do next?"

I can see the point Athanasius is making, that it is more aimed at people who have never heard of Christianity as an attempt to persuade them to find out more or who have and are not all that enthusiastic to investigate further. However, that is not how it is conventionally used.

[Athanasius]

I wonder how a missionary who uses the argument would react to the following:

"Hello. I would like to become a Christian because, although I do not believe in the existence of God, life after death or any supernatural authorship of the Bible, I am aware that I may still be wrong. If I convert to Christianity, I will continue to maintain that I do not believe in any of those, because it would be dishonest not to. What do I do next?"

I can see the point Athanasius is making, that it is more aimed at people who have never heard of Christianity as an attempt to persuade them to find out more or who have and are not all that enthusiastic to investigate further. However, that is not how it is conventionally used.

Its conventional use, to be fair, is a fundamental misunderstanding of Pascal's point in proposing the wager.

As to the missionary, "I would like to become a Christian" and "I will continue to maintain [my current beliefs]" are dissonant notions, so, at a bare minimum, the person speaking those words might be met with something like, "Okay well, when you make up your mind let me know". Meaning there has to be at least some level of curiosity, not outright bald assertion "I'm going to keep believing what I believe now".

[tango]

I wonder how a missionary who uses the argument would react to the following:

"Hello. I would like to become a Christian because, although I do not believe in the existence of God, life after death or any supernatural authorship of the Bible, I am aware that I may still be wrong. If I convert to Christianity, I will continue to maintain that I do not believe in any of those, because it would be dishonest not to. What do I do next?"

I can see the point Athanasius is making, that it is more aimed at people who have never heard of Christianity as an attempt to persuade them to find out more or who have and are not all that enthusiastic to investigate further. However, that is not how it is conventionally used.

I'm not sure how you can convert to something if you don't believe in any of the things it holds to be true. How would you propose someone convert to Christianity, if they don't believe that God exists or that there is a life after death?

Someone who isn't sure about whether God exists is usually referred to as an agnostic rather than as a Christian.

ETA: I'd have thought a missionary would use a more compelling argument than "ah yes, but what if you're wrong?". I think if I was going to dedicate my life to reaching people in some far-flung location I'd have a few more inspiring presentations up my sleeve than that one. Especially since the question could so easily be flipped - if we as Christians are wrong and we should be following the ways of the Qu'ran we're not going to have a great time in the afterlife. At least if the Hare Krishnas are right we get another go at it, even if we do come back as some lesser life form because we missed the point so badly this time around.

[IMINXTC]

Folks will follow Pascal into hell, as all have sinned and are in desperate need of the rebirth, which does not happen by mere intellectual assent or synthetic religion.

[DavidGYoung]

The point about an unbeliever or doubter becoming a Christian is as follows:

The atheist believes there is no God, but acknowledges that there is always an outside chance that they might be wrong. They acknowledge that being wrong will send them to hell if Christianity is true. However, this second acknowledgement does not in any way persuade them that they are in fact wrong.

Their message to the missionary goes like this:

"If there is a talisman I need to wear that rescues me from hell, on the off-chance that I am wrong, then I'll wear it just in case. That said, no amount of threatening hell will make me believe something I don't believe. Therefore it is only a version of Christianity that requires no belief that I could ever be persuade to become part of, at least while I remain unconvinced. What is this version of Christianity which I am supposed to convert to?"

[RabbiKnife]

There is no religion called Christianity that is salvific

There is a personal faith in Gods that is

[IMINXTC]

The notion that one can escape condemnation by adopting a lifestyle that approximates that of the believer - faker's heaven. An absurdity that many seem to adhere to.
 
Certainly there would be benefits in this world but not In the next.

And how does one work out these so-called probabilities when Rm 1 declares it a matter of conscience? Who needs probabilities for what the heavens declare?

Abstruse medieval theology.

[tango]

The point about an unbeliever or doubter becoming a Christian is as follows:

The atheist believes there is no God, but acknowledges that there is always an outside chance that they might be wrong. They acknowledge that being wrong will send them to hell if Christianity is true. However, this second acknowledgement does not in any way persuade them that they are in fact wrong.

Their message to the missionary goes like this:

"If there is a talisman I need to wear that rescues me from hell, on the off-chance that I am wrong, then I'll wear it just in case. That said, no amount of threatening hell will make me believe something I don't believe. Therefore it is only a version of Christianity that requires no belief that I could ever be persuade to become part of, at least while I remain unconvinced. What is this version of Christianity which I am supposed to convert to?"

It's pretty simple - in your analogy the talisman does nothing unless you believe it will do what is claimed. Anyone can put a rock on a string and wear it as an insurance policy. Believing it is not only an insurance policy but a guarantee is a different proposition entirely.

[Athanasius]

The point about an unbeliever or doubter becoming a Christian is as follows:

The atheist believes there is no God, but acknowledges that there is always an outside chance that they might be wrong. They acknowledge that being wrong will send them to hell if Christianity is true. However, this second acknowledgement does not in any way persuade them that they are in fact wrong.

Actually, I'm not so sure that's what Christianity teaches, so much as it is what theologically illiterate sound-bite Christianity teaches. That one doesn't believe there is a God doesn't entail that one has rejected Jesus in believing so (one might have experienced severe trauma at the hands of a religious figure, for example).

You know what they say about desire coming after you've already started. But again, someone who is saying, "I won't believe" isn't someone any competent missionary is going to spend time trying to 'convince'.

[tango]

But again, someone who is saying, "I won't believe" isn't someone any competent missionary is going to spend time trying to 'convince'.

Reminds me of an evangelist I knew some years ago who once told me about someone who was constantly asking him questions, but in a manner that suggested he was trying to play games rather than understand anything. The evangelist asked this guy straight, "if I answer all your questions will you become a Christian?" and the guy said he would not. So the evangelist asked why he bothered asking the questions.

As you say there's a huge difference between someone who is looking for a reason to believe and someone who refuses to believe even if presented with something solid.

[IMINXTC]

The wager also sort of flies in the face of Pascal's Jansenism leanings which insist that grace cannot be resisted or aided by human assent.