Pascal’s Wager. Totally ignores that there are hundreds of gods and religions, trending toward infinity if you count all of human history and potential other worlds. The wager only works if it’s one religion versus missing out on the afterlife.
I’d also say, the fundamental point of it (that finite cost in life is worth the chance at infinite reward or avoiding infinite punishment) is pretty abysmal morally. Pretty easy to justify atrocities for any concept of God that way as a rational approach to life.
What if the “real god” prefers non-believers to believers in the wrong gods? What if he’s jealous, and only his believers and non-believers go to heaven, while all believers of wrong gods go to hell?
This is really the primary death knell for the argument. Yes, there billions and billions of “god” variations - but at least believing in one might get you a (near-zero) better chance at a decent afterlife.
…until you realize the category of “Gods who dont want your worship”.
I wouldn’t say it was weird, I think it’s one of the better arguments since it only relies on pure hard nosed practicality, but it still doesn’t hold water for the reasons you say. I think at least within the constructs of what it considers, it’s logical, it’s just that it fails to consider too much, among which, whether or not belief in the existence of something like that can just be chosen on the basis of what would be practically expedient.
It could be demonstrated to me that belief in Santa Claus can have material benefits, and failure to believe will mean that, if he does exist, you will no longer receive gifts. With that logic it would make more sense to believe in Santa Claus than not to, since there’s no downside to believing and being wrong and a potentially negative consequence to lacking that belief and being wrong. The problem is that, I can’t sincerely believe in something that for all intents and purposes I can say I “know” isn’t real simply because I would like to enjoy the hypothetical benefits and avoid the hypothetical consequences. I can say I believed in Santa Clause, if doing so meant that someone was going to give me gifts, but saying it and believing it are distinct concepts so the wager would be more persuasive as a means of deciding whether or not to declare belief in something than believe it.
Pascal’s Wager. Totally ignores that there are hundreds of gods and religions, trending toward infinity if you count all of human history and potential other worlds. The wager only works if it’s one religion versus missing out on the afterlife.
I’d also say, the fundamental point of it (that finite cost in life is worth the chance at infinite reward or avoiding infinite punishment) is pretty abysmal morally. Pretty easy to justify atrocities for any concept of God that way as a rational approach to life.
There’s also one massive miscalculation in there.
What if the “real god” prefers non-believers to believers in the wrong gods? What if he’s jealous, and only his believers and non-believers go to heaven, while all believers of wrong gods go to hell?
This is really the primary death knell for the argument. Yes, there billions and billions of “god” variations - but at least believing in one might get you a (near-zero) better chance at a decent afterlife.
…until you realize the category of “Gods who dont want your worship”.
I wouldn’t say it was weird, I think it’s one of the better arguments since it only relies on pure hard nosed practicality, but it still doesn’t hold water for the reasons you say. I think at least within the constructs of what it considers, it’s logical, it’s just that it fails to consider too much, among which, whether or not belief in the existence of something like that can just be chosen on the basis of what would be practically expedient.
It could be demonstrated to me that belief in Santa Claus can have material benefits, and failure to believe will mean that, if he does exist, you will no longer receive gifts. With that logic it would make more sense to believe in Santa Claus than not to, since there’s no downside to believing and being wrong and a potentially negative consequence to lacking that belief and being wrong. The problem is that, I can’t sincerely believe in something that for all intents and purposes I can say I “know” isn’t real simply because I would like to enjoy the hypothetical benefits and avoid the hypothetical consequences. I can say I believed in Santa Clause, if doing so meant that someone was going to give me gifts, but saying it and believing it are distinct concepts so the wager would be more persuasive as a means of deciding whether or not to declare belief in something than believe it.