Pascal's Wager

[CalifBoomer]

Wendolynne:

You Christians who cannot even imagine the contrapositive are in grave danger of
being a sheep in your next incarnation. Seriously. Or maybe an ox. You were given a
magnificent brain in this incarnation, but you failed to use it to its greatest potential,
and are likely to slide back on the evolutionary scale next time around. And it doesn’t
matter if you believe it or not. Whether you choose to believe has no bearing on the
outcome.

What evidence have you to present for this theory?

[SingleDad]

Calif: I don’t assume they are mutually exclusive. I interpret the Wager to include one and not the other. If you wish to change the terms, you are free to propose a wager of your own.

[CalifBoomer]

Single Dad:

You missed the point of my question. The punishment may be equal to lack of the reward. They may be one and the same thing. Unless, of course there is a hell.

[Czarcasm]

Since the reward is unknowable, equating the punishment with the reward really throws a monkey wrench into the equation, doesn’t it? Let’s see now-If I believe in whatever god you want me to believe in, something might happen, and I might like it.
If I don’t believe in the proper god(ghod knows there are enough to choose from!), something bad might happen to me.
If only I had blind faith to fall back on!

[SingleDad]

If I offer odds of a dollar against nothing (infinite odds), and you lose, you don’t lose a dollar you fail to gain a dollar.

Thus cost{losing} = 0; reward {winning} = 1.

If I offer even odds, $1 vs $1, and you actually lose, then yes, indeed, you lose a dollar and then the cost{losing} = 1, reward{winning} = 1.

The idea is that you’re accounting for each dollar exactly once in the equation.

Now if Pascal had stressed that if you don’t believe in God, he will send you to Hell for eternal damnation, then you could assign infinity to cost{disbelief}.

Even so, since you’re still multiplying an infinity by an infitesimal, it doesn’t really change the terms of the wager, it just complicates it. You end up with:

2Q > 0 (assuming no cost of belief)
2Q > x (assuming a measurable cost of belief)

Since Q has no definite numerical value, neither does 2Q.

[Czarcasm]

And as it’s been pointed out before, with Pascal’s Wager not only don’t we get to see the dollar, we aren’t even told if it’s a dollar, dime, or drachma we get as the reward.

[StrTrkr777]

Jab, Yes indeed I am a Star Trek fan. So? I do not care that Rodenberry was an atheist. I do not go around trying to find out who (whether in Hollywood or not) is an atheist.

How is wrong for me to like the works of an atheist? I have in the past disagreed with some of the things in TNG about their bias against religion (unless it is a Native american belief or the like, it seems it was mostly against Christainity), but that does not mean that the whole show was a bad show.

Glitch and Gaudere are atheists, I like them. They are good people, am I going to hell for associating with them? I agree with David B. on matters of psychic phenomena, does that mean that God hates me? No, I try never to condemn anyone for their beliefs or lack thereof. All I seek to do is answer questions that people ask.

If Glitch or Singledad or anyone wants to post a question to be answered by a Christian, I will do my best to answer it. If they agree with me fine, if they do not fine. I still respect Glitch and Singledad and most of the others.

Pursuit of truth is never a bad thing. Trolling or seeking to inflame or show up is a bad thing.

I have no problem with David B. questioning my beliefs as long as he is being honest (he does say he could believe if there were a miracle that he could prove were real, his example is if those he knows are dead started walking around he could believe (not Elvis)) But if someone is just looking to start trouble or show how stupid the Christians are, then I will not bother with them.

In short, I see no problem with enjoying a work from an atheist.

Jeffery

[CalifBoomer]

Single Dad:

If I offer odds of a dollar against nothing

The possibility of eternal punishment is hardly ‘nothing’. This was exactly Pascal’s point…

[Spiritus_Mundi]

CaliBoomer,
Changing the cost of disbeief does not significantly change the analysis of the wager. That was singledad’s point.

Here are some others:
Unless I already posess infinite benefit, it is not possible for me to “lose” infinite benefit.

Pascal’s Wager does not mention infinite punishment. If you want to include it, then form your own wager.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[JoeyBlades]

SingleDad,

You wrote:

Pascal’s Wager does not posit punishment for disbelief, just lack of access to the reward.

Perhaps this depends on your definition of Pascal’s Wager. I tend to view the entire Pensees as relevant to the wager.

If you limit your definition to the section of the Pensees that Arnold Winkelried quoted in the third post of this thread, then I tend to agree with you, though even this passage makes the point “your nature has two things to shun, error and misery”. The misery here, can only be misery in the afterlife. If God doesn’t exist, then there is most likely no afterlife and no misery.

In the very next paragraph, Pascal writes:

There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss.

This seems to be differentiating between the lack of gain and an actual loss.

One clue as to why Pascal may have left off the damnation part in his earlier paragraphs is in a reply to an objection, later in the Pensees:

Who has most reason to fear hell: he who is in ignorance whether there is a hell, and who is certain of damnation if there is; or
he who certainly believes there is a hell and hopes to be saved if there is?

In other words, the threat of Hell is no threat at all to a non believer. Therefore, perhaps Pascal was trying to make an argument that even a non believer could accept… Nevertheless, I think it is an implicit part of the wager.

For anyone interested in reading the Pensees, there’s an on-line version available at:
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/p/pascal/pensees/pensees01.htm

[JoeyBlades]

Spiritus,

You wrote:

Changing the cost of disbeief does not significantly change the analysis of the wager. That was singledad’s point.

I disagree. To clarify my point, I take us back to the lottery argument. If tickets were free, only a fool would refuse to play. In most lotteries, tickets cost a buck. For some people, the prize is too attractive not to play - for others (like me) the odds are too small to waste my money. But what if we change the stakes. Now tickets cost $1000. The odds of winning have not changed, but I feel pretty certain that a lot fewer people will choose to play. Flip it the other way around, now tickets cost a penny. For a penny even I would play the lottery, knowing full well that the odds have not changed and that there’s virtually no chance that I will win.

So, the stakes do not change the odds, but they can significantly affect which way one is likely to bet.

[JoeyBlades]

Wendolynne,

Just wanted to point out a slight flaw in your logic…

You wrote:

You Christians who cannot even imagine the contrapositive are in grave danger of being a sheep in your next incarnation. Seriously. Or maybe an ox. You were given a magnificent brain in this incarnation, but you failed to use it to its greatest potential, and are likely to slide back on the evolutionary scale next time around.

Indicating that the punishment is a function of our belief structure.
Then you write:

And it doesn’t matter if you believe it or not. Whether you choose to believe has no bearing on the outcome.

Indicating that the die is cast and is independent of our belief structure…

Which is it?

Also, what if the lower life form that I come back as is someone who has the same belief structure as you? Perhaps I’ll get stuck in some sort of reincarnation infinite loop…

Just curious, from your perspective, what is the contrapositive that we fail to imagine? I think I know, but I’d rather you spell it out.

[Liberal]

For reference, here are exerpts from the Pensees as given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Pensee I

“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.

Pensee II

Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.

Pensee III

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all…

I already gave the most popular objections on the prior page, and noted that these objections do not constitute a de jure refutation. What follows are various objections to the objections.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Joeyblades, I recommend that you review singledads mathematical modelling of the wager in question.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[Czarcasm]

Libertarian, the main problem is Pensee I. “God is, or He is not.” is precisely the false choice some of us are talking about. It would be like going to a video store and thinking that your choice is either to rent Gone With The Wind or nothing, ignoring everything else on the shelves as if they don’t exist. It pre-supposes that all those who don’t believe in your god are atheists.

[David_B]

CalifBoomer said to Slythe:

WOW! Your mind is already made up, isn’t it?

Look in the mirror, man.

[Little_Nemo]

Let’s reconsider the lottery analogy. I have tickets for a lottery and I tell everyone that the prize may be a billion dollars or it may be nothing. Now, if I’m offering the tickets for free it makes sense to take one; you risk nothing for a potentially huge reward. But if I’m selling the tickets for a quarter, you’d probably be a fool to buy one; at the very least you should ask yourself how likely it is that I’m giving away a billion dollars before you spend your quarter. A quarter may not be a lot, but it’s still worth more than a billion dollars that may not exist.

[Czarcasm]

Little Nemo, my mindset, my philosophy, my “soul” if you will, is worth a bit more than a quarter. What I believe or don’t believe has been cultivated over more than 40 years of experience, and will not be thrown away over a cheap mathematical stunt. Also, unless you could provide proof of the billion-dollar prize, only one type of person would buy your ticket.
An absolute fool.

[SingleDad]

Slythe, be kind. Little Nemo is on our side. I read his comment as saying in essence, “I wouldn’t even buy this cheap mathematical stunt for a quarter,” much less a lifetime of living in accordance with ones will.

[Czarcasm]

I was trying to support Nemo’s post but I guess it came out wrong. Little Nemo is on the right track.