The Failure of Pascal's Wager

[Guest shiloh357]

Pascal's wager is often used an apologetic argument, namely that if one bets his life on the Christian faith, and he dies and finds out he was wrong, he hasn't lost anything.  The assumption is that if the Christian faith's truth claims turn out to be false, then at worst, we go into "limbo."   And if you lived your life to the fullest as a Christian any way, then there is no significant loss.   However, if one bets on Christianity being wrong and it turns out that the Christian faith's truth claims are true, then he spends eternity in hell.

As a Christian I find Pascal's Wager to be faulty because it is unscriptural.    I don't think Paul would agree with Pascal: 

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1Co 15:12-19)

What Pascal's wager doesn't take into account is that if we are wrong, as Christians, then we still face judgment for our sins.  Jesus' resurrection is the singular pillar of the Christian faith.   The Christian faith stands or falls on that singular event. According to Paul, if Jesus is not raised, we are still in our sins and still face eternal punishment. So if our primary truth claims are false, and Jesus wasn't who He claimed to be, then there is no redemption, no salvation.    I don't think I would use this wager in an apologetic discussion.

That is not the only problem with the wager, but this is a big one to me.

 

[Guest]

Pascal's wager is that if there is no GOD, than when we die we become nothing. If there is a GOD, than we are saved and those who bet wrong go to eternal damnation. As followers of Christ, the wager is either we are saved (one is not a Christian unless they already believe that Christ rose from the dead) because of our faith, or if we are wrong, we become nothing just as those who don't believe. So, the wager is: do I take the change that there faith in Christ really saves or is it a false hope that leads nowhere? Will I go to Heaven, will I go to "Hell", or will I go to nothing? It's a win, lose, or draw proposition.

[simplejeff]

Actually,  if someone is not born again before they die,  they won't ever see heaven, irregardless of their faith or lack of faith or pretend faith.  

[Jeff2]

While the Wager is not Biblical, it is logical. I believe that it was not stated to be anything but a philosophical argument.

 

As a philosophical argument, it "makes sense" to the average person. However, casting your lot with a religion on that basis alone is a fool's errand. Who is to say that the Wager could not be argued for almost any religion; Christian or not? Could it by itself not be just as valid for Islam? Hinduism?

The Wager has to have more to it than just itself. It has to be based in truth. There is no virtue in believing a lie.

[Omegaman 3.0]

To me the real shortcoming of Pascal's Wager, is that the same logic could lead you to Mormonism, Islam or maybe even the Buddha. I doesn't make the case why Christianity is the only way.