Have I Committed Pascal's Wager?

Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Have I Committed Pascal's Wager?

I choose to believe in Global Warming and I think that governments should take action to stop it from happening, even if it has negative economic consequenses to rich countries...

 If I'm wrong, no big deal.  But if I'm right, it will save our world from hell. (not literal hell, but terrible, long term consequenses.)

Pascal's Wager?? 

Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Not really. Even if you are

Not really. Even if you are wrong, the actions taken as a result of belief that Global Warming is destroying the planet will save the planet anyway. Because global warming aside, it is pretty clear that we are destroying the planet. So warming or not, you win either way by taking action. No wager needed.

That is not to say that I do not consider Global Warming a real threat. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.


Books about atheism

Medievalguy's picture
Posts: 281
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
No, i don't think so. The

No, i don't think so. The kicker is in Pascal's Wager you can ask "but which god must i believe in?" whereas you can't ask "but which global warming should I believe in?". Although it might sound like you have from the standpoint of "better to be safe than sorry", the real test is in the flaw of the argument, so no, you haven't commited pascals wager....if that makes any sense..... Sticking out tongue

Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I agree - and moreover,

I agree - and moreover, there is massive evidence for global warming, unlike for a god.

BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
There are cases where this

There are cases where this applies, where there is a poisitive consequence if you're right and no negative where you're wrong. However, it's irrational to choose one side without evidence. Did you do that? Probably not, there's tons of easily accessible evidence for global warming. So, no.


Plus, Pascal's Wager refers to a very specific argument on a very specific subject. Unless it was about the existence of the christian god,  and you chose to believe in the christian god over "atheism" because of that wager, then you're using Pascal's Wager. Otherwise you're using the same principle, but a different subject.