Why Pascal’s Wager is a bad one

This video explains why Pascal’s famous wager fails as a reason to believe in a god.

Common Sense Atheism beat me to the video.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , by Jon Adams. Bookmark the permalink.

About Jon Adams

I have my bachelors in sociology and political science, having recently graduated from Utah State University. I co-founded SHAFT, but have also been active in the College Democrats and the Religious Studies Club. I was born in Utah to a loving LDS family. I left Mormonism in high school after discovering some disconcerting facts about its history. Like many ex-Mormons, I am now an agnostic atheist. I am amenable to being wrong, however. So should you disagree with me about religion (or anything, really), please challenge me. I welcome and enjoy a respectful debate. I love life, and am thankful for those things and people that make life worth loving: my family, my friends, my dogs, German rock, etc. Contact: jon.earl.adams@gmail.com

6 thoughts on “Why Pascal’s Wager is a bad one

  1. Really annoying song. While I think the video is a little unfair to the Pascal’s Wager at times, I don’t mind so much. Pascal’s Wager is highly overrated. It is really too bad people focus so much on it since it is (in my view) one of the least interesting things Pascal ever said. His Pensees are pregnant with all kinds of profound insights. The Wager is not one of them.

  2. Siding with Kleiner (shock) here. The first I heard of the wager, essentially a best bet argument, I wasn’t too impressed by it. To me it borrows too much of a sort of “if you’re wrong you burn in eternal hellfire, wanna take that chance?” thinking, which I see lds missionaries practice and it annoys me. Some okay points in the video, though I guess it was trying to say religous views are as dumb as explaining things through sci fi/ dreamworld paranoia. It shows well the problem of a wager argument to begin with but I think falls into the assumption later on that religious people don’t take reason or accounts of the world into their view. Plus the near end bit about respecting people, since we can’t know of laws beyond the scientific or physical, who cares about respect? Its not like empires haven’t been built by viewing people as tools and not ends.

    Sorry for the rant, some good points in there but I think this is a low fruit issue. Also I think working as a music screener for the radio station has me somewhat desensitized to horrible music, so now I can say without emotional attachment that it is beyond awful.

  3. I am also not impressed by the wager argument except for it’s historical setting. He was very original! Pascal is not impressed by the enlightenment rush to truth based on logical and reason. Instead, he saw that there are ways to assess future outcomes through risk analysis and this is frequently the better basis for decisions than deterministic reason. Think of all modern investment strategies, hedge funds, etc. The basics of his wager within a materialistic universe is stunningly valid, so perhaps his adolescent thought in a metaphysics is not completely insane.

    I am impressed with his innovation in the midst of the flood of deterministic analysis in science and metaphysics.

Leave a Reply