A lot of theists seem to really like the theological argument known as Pascal's Wager. They genuinely seem to believe that they can convince others to accept their theism merely because it seems, superficially, like a good and safe bet. What on earth is going through their minds?

In the December 2004 / January 2005 issue of Free Inquiry, Richard T. Hull writes about the various flaws in Pascal’s Wager and concludes:

Accepting Pascal’s Wager as a persuasive argument for belief is an act of an irrational, gullible mind. We would be far better off being agnostic about supernatural possibilities, investigating claims about them scientifically, and using the powers of critical reasoning to guide our lives. That’s something I’m prepared to bet on.

I believe that we need to distinguish, at a minimum, between those who accept Pascal’s Wager as a good argument for believing in God and those who adopt Pascal Wager’s as a good argument to use on others, even though they don’t actually believe in God because of it. Hull is probably right that the first one is the act of an irrational, gullible mind. No one can, with intellectual and moral seriousness, believe for such a reason.

That’s why most theists don’t seem to believe for that reason — they may offer this as an argument, but I never see any indication that they use this argument for themselves. It’s not necessarily wrong to offer someone an argument that you think they’ll accept but which you don’t actively accept, but in this case at least there is something rather fishy about it.

Any time someone offers you such an argument or in fact any argument that appears really weak, ask them if they believe because of it. If not, tell them you aren’t interested in pursuing it — if you’re going to discuss any arguments for the existence of God at all, you’ll only discuss the ones which this person finds persuasive. Even better, insist on only discussing those argument which, if refuted (or at least severely weakened), would cause the person to question their belief in God.

If there are no such arguments, then the person simply isn’t worth talking to — they don’t believe on the basis of rational reasons, so what’s the point in offering a rational analysis and critique of the arguments they offer? You might as well be discussing things with sophisticated computer program for all the progress you’ll make.

 

Read More:

• Philosophy 101
• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?