You might note I still haven’t had a chance to add to my current argument as promised. I was a little ambitious in saying I would have finished the book you linked me to by now, but I do intend to get to the update. I haven’t forgotten or anything, just taking longer than I hoped.

I certainly agree with you that the assumptions you listed aren’t assumptions I would grant, though I do hope to approach my argument from an angle that might get through to more people on the religious side of the fence by framing it in religious terms. Once I finish working through the book, I’ll get back to working on that.

Also, thanks for the link, the book itself is an interesting read

I agree with you that the wager seems to have morphed into something far less sophisticated than it originally was. However, this seems to be the case with nearly all such arguments. They all too easily get distilled into some simplistic layman’s version.

In this case what people seldom take note of is that Pascal’s wager was meant as an argument for what one should do (how one should conduct one’s life) and not as an argument for the belief-content itself. “Reason cannot decide (whether God exists or not),” Pascal says, so how should one handle the question? Pascal then thinks that since it is equally likely that God exists and that he does not (he compares it with flipping a coin), the infinite reward justifies conducting one’s life as if he does (note that Pascal does not mention Hell much at all. Lesser people than Pascal seemingly like to focus on punishment rather than reward).

What I think is wrong with the argument is Pascal’s assumptions. He assumes an epistemic parity between the God of Christianity and no God at all without considering the probability of other options. He also assumes that religious piety is somehow morally superior or desirable. Atheism is to him an illness to be cured of. If you are – as I am – disinclined to grant these assumptions, Pascal’s argument just falls flat.

I would like to point out that I am not an atheist though. I do believe in God, but I don’t think anyone must believe to avoid going to Hell or anything like that. I’m one of those who believe in universal salvation, for lack of a better term. Just to clarify.

In any case, I will have to read through that and address this part of the argument as well. From the snippet you posted, I already have an inkling of where I still disagree, but it seems it would be better to read the whole thing before adding to my argument. As I have a lot of plans through the rest of the week, this will most likely be next week sometime. I’ll make a note on the post when I’ve added to it.

- “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.–”But this is what I am afraid of.”–And why? What have you to lose? – Pascal

Mind you I’m an atheist, so I don’t agree with Pascal. However, bringing a criticism to bear against the man, which he explicitly foresaw and responded to in his original writing, without at least mentioning Pascal’s response is just plain ignorant and silly. It makes you a bad philosopher and a narrow-minded atheist.

Unclean texts of the big-3 monster theisms. We don’t need more 1-god-talk, pointless scripticism, or authoritarian god proxies nibbling at the edges of sedition.

No sadistic nihilist tarted up as a 1-god-of-love:

God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are…1Cor1:27-28 NIV.

We don’t need more moralists; we need more immoralists. We don’t need more preachies, we need more Nietzsches.

We’ll always make Saul of Tarsus the butt of jokes in the agora: Stoic and Epicurean, Cynic and Cyreniac, atomist and hedonist.

We proclaim the exuberant, skeptical words of Petronius, Apuleius, Lucian of Samostratos. Of Xenophanes, Epicurus, Diogenes Laertius. Bring on the Satyrica! The Golden ****! The lives of the philosophers!

“For who are we to believe a rabble of mistaken prophets, or the philosophers?”
— Celsus* (ca 175 CE)

the anti_supernaturalist

*On the true doctrine — against the christians. (ca 175 CE) trans/intro RJ Hoffmann. Oxford. 1987. p. 108.