The odds have changed on Pascal's wager

by Nathan Natas 2 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    From Wikipedia:

    Pascal's Wager is an argument based on probability theory for why one should live as if God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. It was formulated by Blaise Pascal.

    • If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
    • If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.[1]
    • If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
    • If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.[2]

    Mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. Therefore, he concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.

    For the moment let's disregard the several weaknesses of Pascal's logic.

    The WTB&TS could have used a similar argument back in the days of the 1914 generation when Armageddon was imminent. Today, however, the "generation" teaching has been abandoned, and R&F Dubs are left to figure out for themselves that they are not likely to see Armageddon in their lifetimes. Of course the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" could TELL the R&F not to pin their hopes on a cloud of Jehovah's all-consuming antimatter, but the FDS won't do that because it would end their free lunch, paid for by the JW contribution box.

    As a consequence, the Watchtower version of Pascal's Wager has become inverted, and that is because of the Watchtower's teaching of the resurrection. In fact, had Pascal known WT dogma back in his day, he would have argued at my side that the wisest bet is to

    LIVE YOUR LIFE WITH NO CONCERN FOR GOD'S COMMANDS, BECAUSE IF YOU DIE BEFORE ARMAGEDDON YOU ARE GOING TO GET RESURRECTED. IF YOU GET RESURRECTED, THEN YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND LIVE FOREVER.

    So here is my re-framing of the bet:

    • If you believe in Jehovah and Armageddon and they both do exist, and Armageddon comes before you die, you will be rewarded by surviving Armageddon and will enjoy eternal life on earth; thus an infinite gain.
    • If you do not believe in Jehovah and Armageddon and they both do exist, and Armageddon comes before you die, you will be condemned to die and remain dead (non-existent) forever; thus an infinite loss.
    • If you believe in Jehovah and Armageddon and they both do exist, and Armageddon comes after you die, you will be rewarded with the resurrection; thus an infinite gain.
    • If you do not believe in Jehovah and Armageddon and they both do exist, and Armageddon comes after you die, you will be give a second chance for a reward AND you have lived your own life the first time around; thus a better infinite gain.

    Since Armageddon is not going to come in "this generation," it is better to live your life than to be a celibate fanatical spinster waiting to marry Brother Bethel Elder after you step across the threshold of Armageddon together. That way you can enjoy at least one lifetime, and best of all, the first life you get to enjoy is the life you have NOW.

  • betterdaze
    betterdaze

    LIVE YOUR LIFE WITH NO CONCERN FOR GOD'S COMMANDS, BECAUSE IF YOU DIE BEFORE ARMAGEDDON YOU ARE GOING TO GET RESURRECTED. IF YOU GET RESURRECTED, THEN YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND LIVE FOREVER.


    That's exactly how my [fleshly] sister explained it to me... 20 years ago! Took that long to sink in.

    Technically, we're all good for the go regardless.

    Thanks for the reminder.

    ~Sue

  • I quit!
    I quit!

    Both Pascal and the Watchtower version are based on a belief in a god that would get all worked up and want to kill you for not believing in him. Who would want to spend eternity under a god with that kind of petty nature. I mean if you don't believe in me so what. I don't want to do you harm for not believing in me. Hopefully I'm not a better person than god. I think both arguments start from a false premise or at best assume some a very bad characteristic about god. A person can believe in god without believing in that kind of a god.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit