Pascal's Wager

[JepSnertRF]

To take my mind off of current events for a moment, I went back over some past research and came across Pascal's Wager. We all know Pascal from science, but less average people know he was a Christian philosopher. Pascal’s Wager vies with Anselm’s Ontological Argument for being the most famous argument in the philosophy of religion.

As I am new to this forum, I would like to bounce this heated discussion off this forum, to see how things go. I agree with Pascal's position, but I believe that any theological argument will still take a movement of the heart i.e. faith, to be taken to its fullest potential. (Although most of everything in our world is by faith, even the subliminal faith we have, for example that lightening will not strike one's wiring and transmit through the house to a computer as one types, or that one's chair will not collapse)

But anyways, here is Pascal's Wager, directly from his mouth:

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, you knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

So, take it for what you will, and let the discussion begin.

[super_head]

I will suggest a search of the archives - I can almost promise you this has been dealt with thoroughly multiple times. As a start - which god?

I'm out.

[astorian]

I'm a fairly devout Catholic, so obviously I believe in God. But what do I think of Pascal's Wager? Not much.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is, it doesn't necessarily lead one to embrace Jesus. Rather, it leads one to embrace the god who offers the greatest reward for the least effort.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by JepSnertRF
"God is, or He is not."

Or he is a jealous bastard who will strike you dead for picking the God of the Bible, or some Hindu god, or a Wiccan Goddess, and we haven't come up with the right religion yet.

[JepSnertRF]

It is presumed that we are talking about the Supreme Creator of the Universe. Again, this is Pascal's argument and he is coming from the Christian perspective. And God did state (in Exodus 20) that He is a jealous God and he wants our attention, he wants us to love him. In which case, he will not make us love him. You may be jealous of your girlfriend having another love, but yet you do not want to make her love you. God is the same, he desires our love, but by our own personal choice.

[elucidator]

Archibald McLiesh (sp?), poet, playwright (J.B.)

"If God is God, He isn't good
If God is good, He isn't God"

Rational cogitation on spiritual things is chasing butterflies with a hammer: you might succeed, but the result is mutilated. It leads to theology, the Amish porno of human thought, and theology leads to such idiotic concepts as infant damnation, Limbo, and the laughable notion that God is "on our side".

Salvador Dali:"Heaven is located precisely in the center of the chest of the one who has faith."

Listen to surrealists. Ignore clerics.

[Gaspode]

Yeah, it's been done before, but I'd just like to acknowledge clairobscur's sterling effort in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56149&pagenumber=2).
To summarise:

First, believing in God isn't free. You invest time in Church, prayers etc.

You have no clue about the odds. If I say: "flip a coin, if you loose, you'll give me 100 dollars, if you win, *perhaps* I'll give you 1 billion dollars", would you agree?

The wager makes only if there are only two possibilities: god exists and will reward you if you believe *or* he doesn't exists and nothing will happen. But unfortunately, there are thousands of religious beliefs.

Your religion don't give you any guarantee that you'll be rewarded. Perhaps your poor soul will be forever hunted by wolves because you didn't make the proper sacrifices to the ancestors?

Without any evidence that a God could exists, and no evidence about the kind of God it could be and no way to know what he expects us to do the only rational possible choice isn't to bet that a particular god your parents/neighbors/whatever believe in is for real and will reward you. It's to ignore the issue altogether, and live according to what makes sense from a rational point of view.

I really liked this post and honestly couldn't say it any better. I urge you to read it, and the follow up.

[Dijon Warlock]

[Armchair quasi-philosopher wannabe]

I'm currently banking on the concept of God as being the Set That Contains All Sets. Anything less than that is starting to seem unjustified. That would not only explain our concept of the opposite of God (how we perceive the Empty Set), and it gives us ourselves (and everything else) as proof of God's existence, which would be necessitated by the existence of anything at all. It's our limitations that account for the diversity of our perspectives on the subject, and our collective inabilities to come to any agreement. Anybody see any holes in that one?

[/Armchair quasi-philosopher wannabe]

[Sam Stone]

Another problem with Pascal's wager is that I think that if there was a God, he'd know if you TRULY worshipped him, or if you were just going through the motions in order to have a good time later.

As a former believer who became an agnostic when I was about 14, I can tell you that I didn't have a choice in the matter. When I believed, I just DID. It was just obvious to me. I couldn't have chosen to NOT believe if I wanted. But one day I just realized that I couldn't believe any more. It just turned from being 'real' into being a story.

I couldn't become a believer tomorrow if I tried. Sure, I could go through the motions, but is that enough for God? If it is, then how about if I just live my life by Christian values (which I try to do), and not bother with the trappings of religion? Maybe God would see that as being more honest, and therefore be more likely to grant me the keys to the kingdom than the guy down the street who's been faking it.

Since we can't know the motivations of God, there's no real way to meaningfully define the wager. So it's useless.

[Liberal]

Another problem with Pascal's wager is that I think that if there was a God, he'd know if you TRULY worshipped him, or if you were just going through the motions in order to have a good time later.

That is the definitive problem with it as far as I'm concerned. Pascal, intentionally or not, left us with an image of God as a hapless riverboat gambler who emotes with surprise when you show him your splendid hand.

Good grief.

[MeCorva]

Originally posted by Dijon Warlock
[Armchair quasi-philosopher wannabe]

I'm currently banking on the concept of God as being the Set That Contains All Sets. Anything less than that is starting to seem unjustified. That would not only explain our concept of the opposite of God (how we perceive the Empty Set), and it gives us ourselves (and everything else) as proof of God's existence, which would be necessitated by the existence of anything at all. It's our limitations that account for the diversity of our perspectives on the subject, and our collective inabilities to come to any agreement. Anybody see any holes in that one?

[/Armchair quasi-philosopher wannabe]

Well, your God wouldn't be personal -- just be the set of all personal gods. How would God affect the world -- by Infinite Consensus? Would your God become no more than a figurehead? But, if you do finish your definition, start a thread -- it would be a more interesting thread .


Me'Corva

[Shade]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Another problem with Pascal's wager is that I think that if there was a God, he'd know if you TRULY worshipped him, or if you were just going through the motions in order to have a good time later.


When I thought of this, I proposed a modified Pascal's wager: Assume you believe that worshipping God is your best bet, and the only problem is not being able to do so at will. Then you could try and persuade other people, and give them the best chance to have a good afterlife, by persuading them with the most superficially convincing arguments you can find.

You might not come off so well yourself, but it can hardly be worse than none of you worshipping God. Of course this unfortunately doesn't suggest which religion to espouse.

[Dangerosa]

And Shade, takes significant effort. A key part of the wager is that believing costs nothing. It doesn't - even if you don't have to convert people. Even if you don't have to go to church, or tithe, or do any "religion" things instead of "faith" things. Faith still has a cost - particuallarly if it isn't your natural state.

[Spritle]

::dipping toe into the GD pool::

I make it a rule NEVER to discuss religion or politics, but here I go. While reading this thread I was reminded of a quote.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindoded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This seems to address the issue of believing for the sake of "hedging your bets". Believe because you have "reasoned it out" or do not believe for the same reason. If you choose not to believe and you are wrong, TJ imagines that God will look kindly on you. Now, what would TJ's vision of God say to the person who answers God with, "Gosh, I just always believed; I never really thought about it"?

Sorry I added so little.

[Earthworm Jim]

No thanks, I've got Hank (http://www.nowscape.com/atheism/hanks_ass.htm).

[Liberal]

Spritle,

It was a good contribution. Welcome to Great Debates.

[tracer]

Wait a minute ... Thomas Jefferson said "blindoded"?!

[TheeGrumpy]

I've been meaning to tell you all about Maximum Bliss. It's an astral plane, a bit like Heaven, but infinitely better. All you have to do to attain Maximum Bliss is walk around completely naked. The governing forces frown on any stitch of clothing. In fact, they are so put off by the sinful invention of clothing that they will punish anyone who refuses their invitation to Maximum Bliss. Forsaking this path will result in an endless torture in the Pits of Doom, which makes Hell look like a tea-party in comparison.

Now, I can't offer any proof for Maximum Bliss, the Pits of Doom, or the governing forces. But don't you agree that it makes sense to behave as though they were real? What do you have to lose? Besides your underpants, that is.

[erislover]

Originally posted by Dijon Warlock
I'm currently banking on the concept of God as being the Set That Contains All Sets.
Douglas Adam's "God" had to meet the babel fish and disappear.

God, meet Kurt Godel. oops... where did god go? :p :D

[Dangerosa]

So, TheeGrumpy.....what are you wearing ;)

(Must not flirt in GD....)

[tracer]

TheeGrumpy wrote:

All you have to do to attain Maximum Bliss is walk around completely naked. The governing forces frown on any stitch of clothing. In fact, they are so put off by the sinful invention of clothing that they will punish anyone who refuses their invitation to Maximum Bliss.
No no no, you've got it all wrong!

The Governing Forces don't punish anybody. They love Their creation so much, they want all people to attain Maximum Bliss. Unfortunately, some people choose not to accept the gift of eternal Maximum Bliss, by choosing not to walk around naked. It's not the Governing Forces' fault that these people will be sent to the Pits of Doom! It was their own decision!

[TheeGrumpy]

Bear in mind (or bare in mind) that walking around in the buff is not enough to qualify one for Maximum Bliss. You must do so for the right reason. To wit, you must accept the Governing Forces' offer of forgiveness for your past sin of covering your nudity. Being merciful, they will forgive anyone who accepts this bargain. Being wrathful, they will allow those who refuse (including naked unbelievers) to fall into the Pits of Doom.

Given that the payoff is so much greater than anything you can imagine, and the price high for not believing, the safe bet would be to swallow my story.

[JepSnertRF]

Originally posted by Spritle
::dipping toe into the GD pool::

I make it a rule NEVER to discuss religion or politics, but here I go. While reading this thread I was reminded of a quote.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindoded fear." - Thomas Jefferson


This seems to address the issue of believing for the sake of "hedging your bets". Believe because you have "reasoned it out" or do not believe for the same reason. If you choose not to believe and you are wrong, TJ imagines that God will look kindly on you. Now, what would TJ's vision of God say to the person who answers God with, "Gosh, I just always believed; I never really thought about it"?

Sorry I added so little.

[JepSnertRF]

oops, I see that my message was not in the last posting.

What I was going to say was that Jefferson was encouraging a more intelligent faith, not one based merely on whims. Though government was not to enforce religion, it was still an important detail of American life. Jefferson was big on education and worked on the design of what is now the University of Virginia. In that design, he placed the library at the center of the campus, emphasising the importance of knowledge. Faith can run independant of reason - it is a belief in the unseen - but TJ would probably want us to know as much as we can and to think logically before placing faith in something.

TJ does not encourage dropping our faith just because we cannot prove it, he is just suggesting that we take a more serious, informed look at it.

[Polycarp]

I'll bet you one pascal that you're wrong. :)

[andros]

TJ does not encourage dropping our faith just because we cannot prove it

Nope, but he sure did encourage the excision of almost all of the New Testament that didn't deal directly with the Christ.

[Dijon Warlock]

Originally posted by erislover
Originally posted by Dijon Warlock
I'm currently banking on the concept of God as being the Set That Contains All Sets.God, meet Kurt Godel. oops... where did god go? :p :D Actually, this would explain a lot.

(Hint: He's in the box with the cat.) :cool:

[Olentzero]

I can't believe we've gotten this far in the debate (at least this round; I haven't checked the other linked threads) without actually discussing the odds behind Pascal's Wager. We have to look at the combinations of conditions and the outcomes related, like so:

Belief + Existence : Heaven after Death
Belief + Nonexistence : Nothing after Death
Nonbelief + Nonexistence : Nothing after Death
Nonbelief + Existence : You go to Hell! You go to Hell and you die!

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

In short, there is only a 1 in 4 chance of your actually getting in to heaven under the conditions of Pascal's Wager. There is a 1 in 2 chance of absolutely nothing happening to you after you die except the physical aspects. So that leaves us with only one choice: whether or not to base our actions in life on a belief in god or not. And since the outcome is essentially the same, you then have to look at the practical effects of a belief in god on your actions towards other human beings. Me, I chose atheism for a number of reasons.

[Spritle]

Oley, If only it were as simple as drawing out a punnet square. Let's go back to the TJ quote. If god exists (condition 1) he holds reason above fear in decision making matters.

let's draw another punnet square with two variables.

Given : god exists
var 1 belief: belief/non-belief
var2 method: reason/blind fear

Belief
Belief | Non-belief
__________________________|__________________|
Method | |
| |
Reason | |
______________________|__________________|
| |
| |
Blind Fear | |
__________________________|__________________|
the columns are of interest here

first column
Belief - due to reason
Belief - due to blind fear

As TJ states, God would "respect" the 'belief due to reason' person over the 'belief due to blind fear' individual.

Therefore, it stands to reason that god would also "favor" the 'non-belief due to reason' over the 'non-belief due to fear' (or the other cell).

Now the other column.
So, one can consider that if you have looked at all the "facts" and decide not to believe, you would be viewed more kindly if you are wrong. Adds a bit more conditionality to you groupings.

[Edited by Gaudere on 10-17-2001 at 10:32 AM]

[Spritle]

darn. forgot to close {/code} after my punnet square.

Little help from a mod por favor?

[JepSnertRF]

Originally posted by Olentzero
Belief + Existence : Heaven after Death
Belief + Nonexistence : Nothing after Death
Nonbelief + Nonexistence : Nothing after Death
Nonbelief + Existence : You go to Hell! You go to Hell and you die!

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

Me, I chose atheism for a number of reasons.

Basically, according to the clarified odds, as an atheist, you have a 0% chance of going to Heaven, and it's 50/50 of either nothingness or Hell. With belief in God, there is 0% chance of hell, and 50/50 of nothingness or Heaven.

These figures are all presuming that each outcome has an equal chance of occurance. Even so, it seems to me that you have better results in the end by believing in God, proving Pascal's point.

I think I'll keep my bets on God, the odds are in my favor.

[super_head]

And don't forget... which god are you talking about? Until you know which god you're following, you can't very well live up to its dictates.

[JepSnertRF]

Pascal was talking about Christianity.

[Shadowfyre]

Sam Shade, if you were a woman, I'd kiss you. (maybe you are...I don't know people here that well yet)

Anyway, I've looked at this wager before and it does not help. On its face, it seems to make sense to believe. However, I cannot make myself believe. I could do everything that is expected of a Christian, and no one would question me. But what would that make me? At best, I'd be a shallow man doing it only for acceptance and a possible ticket to heaven that I don't really believe in. At worst, I'd be a hypocrite and sent to Hell anyway.

I find it best to be true to my feelings and beliefs. I try to live what Christians would call a "good Christian lifestyle" but I believe in fairness. Life maybe unfair, but that doesn't mean I have to be. In fact, I live my life by something Jesus once said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

My biggest problem is what to do with my kids? I would like to bring them up as Christians so they get the initial beliefs. But if they start asking me questions, what do I say? Do I betray myself and tell them what the Bible says or do I tell them my own true beliefs? Anyway, I have a couple of years before I have to worry about that.

[super_head]

Originally posted by JepSnertRF
Pascal was talking about Christianity.

No kidding, which is one of the flaws in the argument. You might have noticed that Christianity isn't the only religion to posit the existence of a god. To ignore the many other religions with no basis for doing so other than "because I think they are false" isn't really making the argument any stronger.

[Dangerosa]

Possibly the definitive thread on Pascal's Wager - particullarly regarding odds.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=22693

[Dinsdale]

Hey three grumpy!
What about primitive aboriginal peoples in tropical climates who have never had a need for clothes? Are they damned to the PoD(TM)?
I submit we need to send missionaries to such peoples armed with "Cubs Playoffs - 2001" t-shirts that were printied up over the summer but now will go unused. This will allow such peoples to clothe themselves, and then disrobe, thereby attaining maximum bliss.

[TheeGrumpy]

Dinsdale, I'll let St. Paul do my talking for me. You see, he already addressed this quandry in his role as Prophet for the Governing Forces. (Don't let all his talk about Christ confuse you into thinking he was a Christian spokesman.)

Romans 2:13-14 "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.)

In other words, your Yanomami mama is fine.