Originally posted by Arrowman:
1. False premise: Pascal's Wager assumes there is no cost in belief; there is. You have to give up your rationality, your intellectual life, your independence, your free will, even. You have to start making life decisions based on your interpretation of an ancient manuscript, instead of on logic and reason (which, given Pascal's Wager purports to be a rational, logical argument, is particularly ironic).
This is just plain nonsense. If I were to all of the sudden give up meat because of some sort of vegetarian conversion, I would be modifying my lifestyle. There are costs to almost anything you do, to say there is not is nonsense. And besides, what does this have to do with Pascal's Wager? Just because there is cost to actions doesn't mean Pascal's Wager is void of value.
As for the uneducated comments about giving up free will, rationality and intellectual life...well...they are just that. Uneducated. Do you really think that as soon as one becomes Christian they loose they're free will? They give it up? Rationality? Intellectual life? You either don't understand any central tenant of Christianity or you are so hardened towards Christians and Christianity that you can't see how one could be a Christian and exceedingly rational and intellectual. I am sorry for this. I am sorry you wrongly believe this hateful, ignorant stance.
2. False dichotomy: Pascal's Wager assumes there are only two choices - Christianity or atheism. What about the many different Christian sects, doctrines etc? What about the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Taoists, etc, etc, etc? Which shall I choose?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have never taken even slightly advanced math, chemistry or physics. If you had explored any of these subjects in any matter other than trivial you would find that simply proofs are expounded upon to give greater insight into other areas. Pascal's Wager, while designed to combat the irrationality of Atheism over an agnostic god (not the Christian God), could easily be applied to other areas by substituting atheism and the agnostic god with other systems.
If you were to start and apply them against each other, take the winner of round one and then pit that winner against another system. Keep doing this until you are left with only one winner. You will find it is Christianity.
Ex. Atheism vs. Hinduism. Winner Hinduism.
Hinduism vs. Islam Winner. Islam
Islam vs. Christianity. Winner Christianity.
This is a simple example with no proof given for each round. You can do the research yourself, it would make for an interesting homework assignment.
3. A rational person cannot simply "choose to believe" in something for which there is no evidence. You either act on faith, or you don't. You can't "choose to have faith".4. And if God is omniscient and all that - can see into my heart - what God is going to be fooled by me taking Pascal's Wager anyway? If I just "choose to believe" because there might be something in it for me, is God going to be fooled by that? Or is there a special corner of Purgatory reserved for those who took Pascal's Wager?
These two should be lumped together as they are similar thought processes.
1. It matters not how you come to God, only that you do. Saying that you cannot "choose to believe" is ignorance verbalized. Rationality is one of the way that many people come to God. To quote Ravi Zacharias; "What I believe in my heart has to make sense in my mind".
I would be lying to myself if I were to accept anything without extensive research into the areas, and all surrounding areas. Just because I am extremely rational and logical, almost to a fault, has no bearing on my salvation as long as I truly believe and put faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (which I do).
2. If I sincerely love God, do you really think He cares whether I came to Him because of faith, fear, pain or reason? Is there only one way to justify yourBy your (faulty) logic, an alcoholic whom came to Christ through desperation is not truly a Christian because you cannot come to believe in Christ save through faith alone. This is counter to any biblical principle. It matters not how, only that you do.
I have a feeling that you mean salvation when you say 'choose to believe'. If that is so, you have a point. No one can be saved because of logic or desperation or whatever. The only way to salvation is putting your faith in Christ our Lord. This does not, however, mean you cannot rationally realize the answer then choose to put your faith in Christ. The link you were trying to make is not thin, it does not exist.
3. Someone could easily rationalize a belief then come to actually believe it afterwards. It may take some time, but it is most assuredly plausible, let alone possible.
I find it amusing that atheists, people who believe in nothing, now say that even if there was something to believe in, only faith is an acceptable reason to believe.
As I said before - Pascal's Wager purports to be a rational and logical argument, but it is anything but. I have more respect for those who argue on faith alone - at least they're not pretending there's logic and evidence involved.
Rational and logical is just what Pascal's Wager is. To say otherwise is to spout tired and old nonsense mostly held by irrational atheists who are against anything which may lead people to God. I am truly sorry you feel this way, but then again, I am not surprised.
jason
