Early in the year, I did write a refutation of Pascal’s Wager where I did show that it seems to me as one of the weakest reasons to believe in god. I don’t think it can or should be taken as an argument for god. It is an argument that seeks to make faith a virtue. At the onset, Pascal has already said reason cannot arbitrate.
The assumption that we must wager is not valid. Why assume we survive our death? And why should the christian think that a god who could create the universe would care one way or the either whether I worshiped it or not?
Peter has given several analogies and he thinks they can be compared to the case of god belief. I don’t think this is the case. In the case of god belief, there is the bigger question on which god to place your bet on. Is it to be Jupiter, Zeus, Krishna among the many gods? Pascal thinks we should wager on the christian god, but the question is what happens to those who by a fault not of their own were born in the Amazon where there are no gods?
The question is what is there to lose in betting on god? The answer is everything. If gods don’t exist, everything depends on us, even happiness. If gods exists, then nothing depends on us but their whims.
To the high-minded objector who refuses to believe for the low motive of saving the eternal skin of his own soul, we may reply that the Wager works as well if we change the motive. Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth.
and as a conscientious objector, I say slavery is not justice. If there is a god and that god created the universe, the evidence for such a god would not require such tortuous apologetics. If there is a god, and that god is as described by believers, we owe it nothing.
Pascal’s Wager is not a good reason to believe.