Talk:Pascal's Flaw

I just wanted to add a few suggestions maybe giving some more detail on why Pascal's "wager" is a flawed logical argument to some degree. I do not know if I necessarily agree with the validity of Pascal's “wager” from a certain perspective, which I believe is more true to the way I think God might look at this “wager.” I read through a section of Pascal's Pensees, or “Thoughts” in English. Pascal analyzes the belief in the existence of God in terms of the costs or benefits of either belief, or unbelief (atheism). He believes that it is very reasonable to believe in God's existence even though there are may be a lack of evidence proving the fact. In essence, if the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven (making the proposition that God exists a neutral concept), it is up to the individual to choose either for or against God's existence. Since choosing an atheistic view, thus choosing against God, would cause a person to lose the possible benefits faith in him would bring (heaven and eternal life), a person should choose to believe in God because of these benefits faith in him promises. In other words, since the issue is neutral, people should gamble on faith in God because of the benefits. This can be seen in practice today as some people believe in God because it is more convenient and cultural to do so. They have deluded themselves into believing the promises of the Bible because they want them to be true, not because they believe they are true. I do not believe God smiles upon someone who believes in him simply because they prefer the odds of that “wager,” and really are looking at how they can benefit themselves. If we are going to be true to what the text of the Bible clearly indicates, people are to believe in God because of the creation they see around them, and how God has worked in their lives. The God of the Bible is the rewarder of people who diligently seek after him, not the rewarder of those who like the odds and the profit they will gain if what they believe in is accurate. If we are looking at what the Bible says God cares about intentions, because he looks at the hearts of people. Someone who believes in God because the cost of not believing is a worse alternative for them, does not truly believe in God. They believe in pleasing themselves, and if what benefits them most is God, then sure, why not? Pascal's “wager” is true in that it is a great indicator of how the hearts of many people operate. It is flawed in representing actual and logical truth. Pascal in his writings clearly indicates that it is alright to delude oneself into believing something you initially question, as over time you will numb yourself to your disbelief. In his view this would be legitimate to do with the existence of God, because if you are right you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose. People do want to believe what benefits them most, and that will become truth for them after they have deluded themselves long enough. But one cannot find truth via selfish intentions and clever gambling skills. They may believe in a god, but that god is more likely themselves than the God they think they are believing in. Mancalf

What Fallacy?
This seems to be a peculiar entry since "Pascal's Flaw" is not a recognized fallacy category in any logic book that I know.

In fact, the name itself seems to involve a fallacy since it assumes that there is a readily identifiable flaw committed by Pascal and implies that he is somehow noteworthy in committing it. This is at least debatable. (What other fallacies are named after persons?)

It would be a very good idea to drop this entry and incorporate any content of value into the article on the Wager.


 * Interesting, I was just experimenting with redirecting this page to the right section in the article, but I think maybe even this redirect should be deleted. I have not seen this usage anywhere, except internet forums where people cite this wikipedia entry! :) --Merzul 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Pascal's Flaw is another name for a specific case of circular definition. It is not a fallacy category, but it is a fallacy.  That is why Pascal indeed commited a flaw; and he is indeed noteworthy because he proposed it, apparently seriously, despite its fairly obvious lack of value.  I do not know how common the usage of "Pascal's Flaw" is, but by rights it should be very widespread. Luis Dantas 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)