One objection to Pascal’s Wager involves many-gods. The idea here is that just like you could argue you should believe in the Christian God to hedge your bets, so, too, you could argue that you should believe in ancient gods such as Zeus or Thor to hedge your bets as well. What do you think of this objection, and do you think it shows that Pascal’s Wager is not plausible for people today?
I agree completely with the objection that Pascal’s Wager ignores beliefs of non-Christian religions and their conception of what happens after death. It argues solely from a Christian worldview, using the concept of eternal hell as a deterrent for behaviour that the religion does not consider moral. Our world comprises of about five major religions, apart from countless others. It is not practically feasible or even impossible to follow their preachings of the after life to guide our behaviour. To this, one may argue that individuals should behave in accordance to the religion that they practice. But to this, I would question that would the reality of life beyond our earthy existence change based on the religion an individual follows? The theory seems highly implausible to me.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.