Question for Atheists: Paschals Wager

[Sculptor1]

People who promote Pascal's Wager, in common with many theists, seem to think that their view of God and their religion are self evident and uncontroversial.
Is this why they never answer this question (below)?
Is it simply simple arrogance that means they do no think of this question?
I asked this question already, but never got my answer; and not for the first time has this gone unaddressed.
So here it is AGAIN.

"So let's say Pascal had something.

Tell me which particular god, and which particular religion of what particular god I should surrender my life to, in the vain hope of some reward of a future state following the end of my, now, wasted, life?"

[Karpel Tunnel]

People who promote Pascal's Wager, in common with many theists, seem to think that their view of God and their religion are self evident and uncontroversial.
Is this why they never answer this question (below)?
Is it simply simple arrogance that means they do no think of this question?
I asked this question already, but never got my answer; and not for the first time has this gone unaddressed.
So here it is AGAIN.

"So let's say Pascal had something.

Tell me which particular god, and which particular religion of what particular god I should surrender my life to, in the vain hope of some reward of a future state following the end of my, now, wasted, life?"

This is a good question for current theists who use Pascal's Wager, but actually Pascal himself, which they do not seem to realize, directed his Wager not at atheists and agnostics but at theists. The idea was there is no good reason, he felt, to STOP believing, if one already does. He never intended it as a 'you should choose to believe if you don't cause you can't lose if you start but you might lose if you don't.'

So the PW will likely continue to appear in online forums off into the future, but actually the way it gets presented is not Pascal's Wager, but some thing invented much later, sort of inspired by the PW.

[Sculptor1]

People who promote Pascal's Wager, in common with many theists, seem to think that their view of God and their religion are self evident and uncontroversial.
Is this why they never answer this question (below)?
Is it simply simple arrogance that means they do no think of this question?
I asked this question already, but never got my answer; and not for the first time has this gone unaddressed.
So here it is AGAIN.

"So let's say Pascal had something.

Tell me which particular god, and which particular religion of what particular god I should surrender my life to, in the vain hope of some reward of a future state following the end of my, now, wasted, life?"

This is a good question for current theists who use Pascal's Wager, but actually Pascal himself, which they do not seem to realize, directed his Wager not at atheists and agnostics but at theists.

This does not take away the problem; it only compounds it by asking why theists think they have the right version

The idea was there is no good reason, he felt, to STOP believing, if one already does. He never intended it as a 'you should choose to believe if you don't cause you can't lose if you start but you might lose if you don't.'

So the PW will likely continue to appear in online forums off into the future, but actually the way it gets presented is not Pascal's Wager, but some thing invented much later, sort of inspired by the PW.

Indeed, so no help here. No answer to this question.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This does not take away the problem; it only compounds it by asking why theists think they have the right version

I am not sure what the 'it' refers to in this sentence, but the knowledge that the Wager is actually directed at theists does not compound it by asking them....what you say here. And the PW doesn't ask why theists they think they have the right version.

One way what I said can take away part of the problem, is by pointing out that the theists who use PW this way, don't understand PW. Does it eliminate theism to point this out? Hardly.
The question doesn't fit Pascal's Wager. AGain, it's certainly a good question to ask theists who misuse PW and are confused about what it was and so use it in these contexts. Those who Pascal aimed his wager already had a particular, Christian God they believed in.

[_attano_]

As an atheist, with little to no doubts that there is no existence of a divine creator or afterlife,

If an atheist is who denies a creator and afterlife, then I am one. If the attribute "divine" can be placed next to other substantives than "creator", then maybe I am not.

are you certain enough to deny God in your last dying breaths? Obviously it’s not entirely possible to know exactly what your thought process would be, assuming you haven’t faced near death before.

This is some unfair question, and in a way you acknowledge how one's behaviour is unpredictable in that kind of situations,
God knows what kind of superstitious beliefs people may accept or embrace when feeling death is approaching. And, really, you need not to look at extreme circumstances, just subscribe to a health/diet newsletter, and you'll see...
So, no, I am not certain, maybe 'enough', but not absolutely certain. Anyway, as of now, I stick to my position.

However, do you see any merit in Paschal’s Wager?

Not really, or I would say I find it interesting, if that can count as a merit.
"Interesting" does not mean I buy into it. That fragment (Pensées, III, 233) is curious, questionable from a strictly philosophical point of view. It looks more like a draft of a rhetorical exercise. Actually scholars say that it was intended to become part of an 'Apology [defence] of the Christian religion', and as such one should read it, in my view. Anyway, I think it's interesting in order to try to understand better that peculiar man who Pascal was. And it is also interesting because some people find it appealing, and for what that may mean.

If you have the smallest, most microscopic inkling of a doubt, would it be worth it to accept a God that you don’t believe exists.

What does it mean "to accept" something you doubt of, or you don't believe? Would you sign a contract with someone you find dubious, to whom you don't believe? Maybe... if you fear you are about to die, and you see no other way out of your predicament. But would you still do that in more ordinary circumstances?

Assuming you don’t believe in an afterlife, then, if you are right, your final destination will be the same whether you accept God or not. The basic argument remains: You have nothing to lose.

And, if you are wrong, you have a huge payoff...
Somewhere you may find the wager represented as a game matrix, loss is equal to 0 and gain is equal to ∞, and that should seal off the inescapable conclusion: you'd be a fool if you don't 'accept'.
But... seriously?
How is it that giving up your life, abiding by a code you think it's worthless, denying your impulses and instincts, would be "nothing to lose"?
And what for? an eternity of the same dull stuff?
Why no one ever questions this?

Or is your “intellectual integrity” enough in itself to lose that you see no merit and making such a wager?

Pascal says that waging on the non-existence of God happens because people give in to their passions, and that people should learn to repress passions in order to get faith (in the Christian God). Maybe that's what you mean with the quotation marks around “intellectual integrity”. Well, actually I may even agree with that. In my personal case, I'd rather use the words 'healthy instinct' instead of 'passions', but that's semantics after all. That said, I would readily acknowledge that stereotypical atheists (Dawkins or Hitchens) are more moved by 'passion', more specifically by a hyper-moralistic passion, than intellectual integrity.

[Clay_10]

As an atheist, with little to no doubts that there is no existence of a divine creator or afterlife, are you certain enough to deny God in your last dying breaths? Obviously it’s not entirely possible to know exactly what your thought process would be, assuming you haven’t faced near death before. However, do you see any merit in Paschal’s Wager? If you have the smallest, most microscopic inkling of a doubt, would it be worth it to accept a God that you don’t believe exists. Assuming you don’t believe in an afterlife, then, if you are right, your final destination will be the same whether you accept God or not. The basic argument remains: You have nothing to lose. Or is your “intellectual integrity” enough in itself to lose that you see no merit and making such a wager? I guess whether or not a divine creator would accept one into “paradise” based on a “just-in-case” dying whim is a different question entirely.

After considering many of the responses given, as well as doing more research on my own, I realize that this take on Paschal’s Wager is flawed in ways. And also now realize that PW wasn’t intended for atheists. And as LuckyR pointed out, it’s interesting to see that it does have a “statistical logic” that applies in other situations, but not so much when it comes to the topic of god.

[Prof Bulani]

As an atheist, with little to no doubts that there is no existence of a divine creator or afterlife, are you certain enough to deny God in your last dying breaths? Obviously it’s not entirely possible to know exactly what your thought process would be, assuming you haven’t faced near death before. However, do you see any merit in Paschal’s Wager? If you have the smallest, most microscopic inkling of a doubt, would it be worth it to accept a God that you don’t believe exists. Assuming you don’t believe in an afterlife, then, if you are right, your final destination will be the same whether you accept God or not. The basic argument remains: You have nothing to lose. Or is your “intellectual integrity” enough in itself to lose that you see no merit and making such a wager? I guess whether or not a divine creator would accept one into “paradise” based on a “just-in-case” dying whim is a different question entirely.

If the theist version of Pascal's wager is valid, then all versions of this wager should also be valid.

Hang garlic in your doorway to keep away vampires. If vampires don't exist, you've lost nothing. If you don't, and vampires are real, you lose everything.

There are potentially an infinite number of equally valid versions of Pascal's wager. Should the Christian version be considered any more sound than any of the others?