That's exactly my point, people that use pascals wager seem to think its a two way bet, heads they win, tails they lose. However this isn't the case, there thousands of versions of gods and thousands of heavens and thousands of hells.
If they think it is a two way bet, it doesn't make it a two-way bet. From what I have to hand about this, once again, he says God. There is no necessity about this God being the only one you could believe in. Pascal may have had a particular God in mind, but the wager does not impose it. Nowhere in the wager does it state that belief in any God guarantees you passage. You have to believe in the right one and conduct yourself accordingly which may include sincere belief, though it might not require it if the true God is half-arsed. The only requirements are to act in accordance with the dictates of the true God.
Say you agree with Pascal and decide to follow the religion which by random chance you were raised in, in no way have you covered ass, because choosing the wrong god would be just as bad, or in a lot of religions worse than choosing none.
Pascal's argument was about eternal salvation and damnation. More damned and more saved was not part of the argument. You could reasonably add it as a supplementary set of considerations (which I would have no problem with), but this is not Pascal's wager. Under a salvation/damnation paradigm, Pascal's wager is correct. Under your paradigm, it is not.
You could argue that his paradigm is junk. However, the set up and conclusions drawn do flow and are internally consistent.
So does believing in the wrong one.
Discussed above.
giving up things in this life, the one and only life we know for sure exists, is not a small cost, It's a huge cost depending on which faith you fall into. Imagine being in a faith that caused you to reject your children because they were gay, that's not a small cost.
It is not a small absolute cost, as you say, but it is assumed to be small relative to eternal damnation. Child and human sacrifice have been part of human culture. Killing and maiming in the name of religion still goes on. If the true God requires requires violence or other behavior that seems odious to us, that's what must be done. Who ever said that the God had to be kind? Do you observe all-encompassing kindness in the world? From microbes to insects to primates and animals to humans? Maybe some violence or other odious behavior was He intended. Any belief which results in a change to your behavior is a cost. There is no real scale that measures the size of cost. It may be that a choice not kill some idiot who hurt your family is also costly. What is the market price for that relative to whatever cost you could come up with? In whose currency?
he is suggesting that a person that doesn't believe, should just start believing to be safe, But belief is not really a choice, your either convinced or your not. If an atheist just started believeing to be safe, that would be half assed.
Foe the purposes of Pascal's logic, I have to take the concept of 'believing' to mean taking the actions required to get a pass through. After all, if belief in God was present, but your actions weren't consistent with the ultimate dictates, belief is not sufficient. Nonetheless, those actions may involve deep and utter belief and devotion to God. Note that these actions may not even require belief in God as per my prior post about the strange outcomes depending on the actual needs of the true God if He exists. You just have to act in concert with the requirements. Who ever said that God isn't half-arsed? That's an assumption from outside the wager. Take a look at the evidence and it takes a little bit of effort to refute!
Per DH70, is it reasonable for a kind and loving, all encompassing, forgiving God to disallow the entrance of some 6mth old infant who died in a piss poor country that never came across the concept of the true and correct God because they hadn't yet mastered the language or developed cognitive skills to figure out how to act and what they believe? If the God is kind...passage would be allowed even if belief was not present. Quite possibly, the same God created the circumstances of the infant's death because...they are God and God possibly controls all...thus all choices made even if wrong are God's doing anyway - at least to a fairly large extent. Belief may not be necessary. It might, but it might not. It depends on the needs of God, which we cannot ascertain for sure. You cannot assume anything for the wager itself. The wager does not impose such an assumption.
Yes, They can't all be right though, but they could all be wrong.
Leaving aside the possibility that the true God is pretty chill and loves all His children whether they believe in Him or worshipped pet rocks or committed Crimes Against Humanity, you are absolutely right.
The point Pascal's Wager is making is that your chances of avoiding damnation are increased if you 'believe' (ie. take actions consistent with the needs of that God) in something that you think isn't a complete joke. Doing so increases your chances of avoiding eternal damnation (with the extent of damnation not considered. Damned is damned).
Your chances of being right are utterly miniscule. However, the chances are better than what they would be otherwise if you did not do anything at all. That is the essence of the wager. It is rational to play.
Nope. Pascal may, himself, have been thinking of a particular God. His wager does not require any particular God to be chosen. Further, his wager does not require that this is the only God which is possible. He would have been aware of all sorts of religions and prior beliefs. His logic was basically binary...heaven or hell. Not different grades of heaven or different grades of hell. You can disagree with the setup. Personally, I would have no problem with that at all. However, the logic expressed in the wager flows from his setup. As for sincerity, I am puzzled as to why the belief has to be deep and achieved without logic to be valid. If it were so, why are there apologist bookstores loaded full of arguments to support the belief in a particular God? Then, when taken in, why are there often a bunch of texts telling a follower that they will suffer for leaving a religion if their belief is sincere? Those who stay from fear...are they sincerely frightened, or sincere believers? Presumably, those who read apologists texts and become convinced, or have their faith enhanced or preserved, by their purported logic are insincere for they need this because their belief is not absolute enough? Or perhaps they are out of bedtime reading?
It is an assumption, not a flow of logic, that Pascal's wager leads to insincere belief. Sincere belief and insincere belief comes from all over the place. If you just get born into a belief set, are you actually sincere? Or are you just lacking in imagination/opportunity? It may also be that sincere belief is not required. It may be that avoiding cracks on the footpath and avoiding walking under ladders is sufficient to grant passage. Some people are sincerely superstitious. Maybe they are the chosen ones.
That's pretty much all that Pascal's wager is on about. It's just a logical set up and then exploring the flow. It works. Whether you think the set-up is reasonable or not is another matter entirely. As you have done, change some elements of the set up (ie. the true God is a punisher, all possible true Gods require sincere belief without logical or ****-covering motives...) and everything changes. If those are the set-ups, I've got no problem with them. Many others are reasonable too and would lead to other actions. The world and the heavens probably do not follow the dictates of Pascal's logic....though I can't rule it out entirely. The scenario/wager is just a logic-toy. I believe that sincerely.