# Pascal's Wager **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323 "2010-11-29T20:50:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/61 "2010-12-01T21:48:34Z")
NM ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/62 "2010-12-01T21:52:36Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > I will focus on a few of the points mentioned, though not all for the sake of brevity. > > 1. Critical1 suggested that there is no evidence for any religion. If, indeed, there is ZERO evidence for all the religions, then (in my opinion) the Wager should not apply. HOWEVER, I can’t imagine how anyone can claim that there is “zero” evidence for specific religions. For example, I am Jewish, but I still admit that there is some evidence for the truth of mormonism. It is a weak form, a repeatedly-fallible form, of evidence for the truth of mormonism: one man’s word, Joseph Smith. Do I think he’s lying? Yes, I’m 99.9999 percent sure that he is lying. But I can’t claim that there is zero evidence. On the other hand, there is litteraly zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. > > 2. My reference to Maimonides wasn’t meant to imply that his opinion is binding. I was merely suggesting that those who presume that if God exists he would rather you worship nothing rather than some false god is one which Maimonides would disagree with. If you present evidence for your case, that paganism is “worse” than atheism, I would take it seriously, notwithstanding Maimonides’ opinion. > > 3. Diogenes: Of course you can’t choose to believe in god or not. But you can choose to follow the other mandates of God, such as observing the Sabbath or performing the Islamic prayers. > > 4. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). Regarding your first point, I strongly disagree that there is zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. The Old Testament equates worshiping false gods to murder and theft, and it is the very most important law handed down to Moses. It’s right there, the very first commandment. I would think that, as a Jew, you might understand that. Regarding your third point, far more people believe that faith is more important than works than the reverse. The “going through the motions” part of your religion was pretty much tossed aside by Christ. (Yes, I know, if you have faith, it will show up in your works, not all Christians agree, yadda yadda) Here’s me stating that God would rather have you worship no Gods than false Gods. There. Now, I’m tied with Joseph Smith and the Mormons as far as evidence goes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/63 "2010-12-01T21:54:55Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > I will focus on a few of the points mentioned, though not all for the sake of brevity. > > 1. Critical1 suggested that there is no evidence for any religion. If, indeed, there is ZERO evidence for all the religions, then (in my opinion) the Wager should not apply. HOWEVER, I can’t imagine how anyone can claim that there is “zero” evidence for specific religions. For example, I am Jewish, but I still admit that there is some evidence for the truth of mormonism. It is a weak form, a repeatedly-fallible form, of evidence for the truth of mormonism: one man’s word, Joseph Smith. Do I think he’s lying? Yes, I’m 99.9999 percent sure that he is lying. But I can’t claim that there is zero evidence. On the other hand, there is litteraly zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. > > 2. My reference to Maimonides wasn’t meant to imply that his opinion is binding. I was merely suggesting that those who presume that if God exists he would rather you worship nothing rather than some false god is one which Maimonides would disagree with. If you present evidence for your case, that paganism is “worse” than atheism, I would take it seriously, notwithstanding Maimonides’ opinion. > > 3. Diogenes: Of course you can’t choose to believe in god or not. But you can choose to follow the other mandates of God, such as observing the Sabbath or performing the Islamic prayers. > > 4. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). Are you 100% _sure_ that your next-door neighbor doesn’t intend on murdering you in your sleep? How much time do you intend on spending worrying about the matter? ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/64 "2010-12-01T22:15:38Z")
> [@smileybastard](#): > > Boiling down to two choices simplifies it too far. The world is full of religions and each is different. It there was but two it might make some sense, but it does not. Yea, I agree…which is why I changed the wager so that everyone can partake. See what a nice guy I am? > [@](#): > > And no simply because the majority believed in a deity does not make it any more likely that any deity exists. AT one point most thought the world was flat. Yes…which is exactly what skald tried to point out, and _would_ make sense, if I was arguing in favor of argumentum ad populum. Though, again, thats really not what I was saying..maybe read my OP again eh? > [@](#): > > I believe you missed the point of the wager completely. The point is if you don’t believe you might as well try to bluff the Christian god. What is there to lose? > The two problems are there are many religions and any entity powerful enough to be able to create a hell and condemn you to it based on your behavior surely could tell the difference ad your bluff would fail. Ha no I got it, but thanks anyway. I tried to make the fact that I know the wager is moot apparent, but I guess it somehow wasn’t so crystal clear. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/65 "2010-12-01T22:53:56Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I would estimate that well over 70% of all persons who have ever lived believed that the speed an object falls at is dependent on its weight. Well, that’s mainly because people fail to take air resistance into account. ([Example](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maI53H4Zbrs&t=042)) ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/66 "2010-12-01T23:00:16Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Yea, I agree…which is why I changed the wager so that everyone can partake. See what a nice guy I am? I don’t see how it helps let everyone participate, but I do see it waters it changes it drastically to the point where it is no longer in the real world. > [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Yes…which is exactly what skald tried to point out, and _would_ make sense, if I was arguing in favor of argumentum ad populum. Though, again, thats really not what I was saying..maybe read my OP again eh? I don’t see how anything in the OP relates to this. You did say: > [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > you have either two choices, that no God or gods exist, and that no religion on earth was ever right, or that some God or gods do exist, and at least one religion on the earth was right. With, in my estimate, at least 70% of people who have ever existed(and thats a conservative measure) having claimed to have religion, and having claimed a personal experience with some higher form of spiritual being, then the odds of there being no spiritual power existing becomes pretty slim–that would mean over 70% of the worlds polpuation that has ever existed are all liars and/or schizophrenics. Which very clearly states the odds of no spiritual power not existing being very slim based on the numbers of believers. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/67 "2010-12-01T23:05:07Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). Logically speaking, if this passage is to be taken literally, I as an athiest am a wicked man. Indeed, all atheists are wicked men (and women). Is this so? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/68 "2010-12-01T23:06:26Z")
Even assuming that theologically Pascals wager is sound, it’s not even right mathematically. Pascal assumes that the proper decision is the one that produces the maximum expected value. But there is no reason why maximizing expected value is necessarily the right course of action. For multiple repeats of the same game maximizing expected value leads to maximal gain in the long run, but for the short term this is not necessarily the case. If someone offered me the choice of $1,000 or a 1 in 10^100 chance at an infinite reward, I’ll take the $1000 and run. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/69 "2010-12-01T23:08:57Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > I still admit that there is some evidence for the truth of mormonism. It is a weak form, a repeatedly-fallible form, of evidence for the truth of mormonism: one man’s word, Joseph Smith. Do I think he’s lying? Yes, I’m 99.9999 percent sure that he is lying. But I can’t claim that there is zero evidence. [Make that 100%](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Mormon). (Not to mention the whole “golden plates” nonsense…) There’s not even any circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith wasn’t lying…unless one claims that God “could have made it so, if he wanted to.” (The default logic nearly all religions rely on when faced with incontrovertible evidence against them.) > [@abele\_derer](#): > > On the other hand, there is litteraly zero evidence that God would rather you worship no gods than worship false gods. What about [Exodus 20:2-3?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_commandment) ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/70 "2010-12-01T23:10:22Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > If someone offered me the choice of $1,000 or a 1 in 10^100 chance at an infinite reward, I’ll take the $1000 and run. Except the argument isn’t about an infinite reward; it’s about infinite _punishment._ That changes the game quite a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/71 "2010-12-01T23:12:54Z")
The only thing which needs to be said about Pascal’s wager: Who’s to say one of the possibilities in the game isn’t the existence of a force that infinitely punishes theists and infinitely rewards atheists? I mean, so long as we’re just looking at the unconstrained space of mere conceptual possibilities. Once you consider that, the game no longer clearly compels any particular strategy. (I suppose that’s what people are getting at when they say “Which god?”, in which case, the point has already been raised…) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/72 "2010-12-01T23:14:29Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. Thudlow: The Bible does speak about atheism (Psalms 14:11: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no God”). > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Logically speaking, if this passage is to be taken literally, I as an athiest am a wicked man. Indeed, all atheists are wicked men (and women). Is this so? Logically speaking, isn’t that the fallacy of the converse? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/73 "2010-12-01T23:15:07Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > I do not accept the validity of Pascals Wager because it makes the unproven assumption that there is only one god, and presents a false dilemma. It claims the choice is between ‘god’ or ‘no god’ when the choice is actually between Jehovah, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Shiva, Ra, etc, or ‘no god’. Choosing the wrong one out of thousands usually has bad consequences, so your odds of picking the correct one whether you are faking it or not is not in your favor. The argument is valid, but not sound. The counter argument to that is that all “gods” are just minor variations in worship of the same deity, so you can pick the one you like. The counter to that is if any one of those is jealous of the other interpretations, we’re back to Square One, and we’re just making Him mad. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/74 "2010-12-01T23:17:58Z")
> [@smileybastard](#): > > I don’t see how it helps let everyone participate, but I do see it waters it changes it drastically to the point where it is no longer in the real world. > > I don’t see how anything in the OP relates to this. > > You did say: > > Which very clearly states the odds of no spiritual power not existing being very slim based on the numbers of believers. Dude…c’mon. The core of what I was saying doesn’t apply to what your arguing against because of the fact that I stated that this 70% of people **would have claimed** (maybe I should have emphasized this beforehand) to have had some spiritual interaction with another spiritual, and non-human personage. That was what I had stated earlier, and is why the wager changed quite palpably. I specifically expressed that the wager Pascal presented is rubbish, for the very reasons your presenting, which is, again, the reason why I changed it. To boil it down \*even further \*–either a spiritual world exists out there that interacts with humans or there doesn’t. With 70% of humans, and probably much more, claiming to have had an interaction and awarness of this world, the \*\*odds \*\* that it exists shoot way up, as does the worth of considering the modified version of the wager which I presented. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/75 "2010-12-01T23:21:09Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Except the argument isn’t about an infinite reward; it’s about infinite _punishment._ That changes the game quite a bit. Which argument? Pascal himself mentioned infinite reward, not infinite punishment. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/76 "2010-12-01T23:30:53Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Dude…c’mon. > > The core of what I was saying doesn’t apply to what your arguing against because of the fact that I stated that this 70% of people **would have claimed** (maybe I should have emphasized this beforehand) to have had some spiritual interaction with another spiritual, and non-human personage. That was what I had stated earlier, and is why the wager changed quite palpably. I specifically expressed that the wager Pascal presented is rubbish, for the very reasons your presenting, which is, again, the reason why I changed it. To boil it down \*even further \*–either a spiritual world exists out there that interacts with humans or there doesn’t. With 70% of humans, and probably much more, claiming to have had an interaction and awarness of this world, the \*\*odds \*\* that it exists shoot way up, as does the worth of considering the modified version of the wager which I presented. There is a massive difference between 70% of the people who have ever lived have claimed to have a religion and 70% claiming to have had interaction and awareness of this world. I suggest that a very small minority of people who are religious have had anything they would have defined as interaction or awareness of anything spiritual, they simply believe what people around them believe. And of that minority their interpretation could simply be wrong. I can see no way that a deity whom created everything and will send you to hell if you are not up to snuff is going to be fooled by this bluff. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/77 "2010-12-01T23:40:37Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > With, in my estimate, at least 70% of people who have ever existed(and thats a conservative measure) having claimed to have religion, and having claimed a personal experience with some higher form of spiritual being, then the odds of there being no spiritual power existing becomes pretty slim–that would mean over 70% of the worlds polpuation that has ever existed are all liars and/or schizophrenics. [Argumentum ad populum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) is a fallacy, in case you didn’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/78 "2010-12-01T23:44:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > [Argumentum ad populum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) is a fallacy, in case you didn’t know. Haha, yea thanks, some dopers have been trying to tell me that for the past hour or so. If you’d be so kind as to scroll up a bit and check out the extent of the current argument we’ve been having, It’ll save me and you from having to engage in one of our own. ---
**Author:** ![Hold\_Fast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58f4c7/32.png) [@Hold\_Fast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hold_Fast)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/79 "2010-12-01T23:54:38Z")
> [@smileybastard](#): > > I suggest that a very small minority of people who are religious have had anything they would have defined as interaction or awareness of anything spiritual, they simply believe what people around them believe. And of that minority their interpretation could simply be wrong. Well thats something you would learn talking to an athiest, or perhaps more likely a religious type-turned atheist. Try talking to some people who actually believe in this sort of thing…your not gonna find one who says they **actually** believe it, but just believes so because others do. Of course your next step is simply to say that they don’t all believe what they say do, in which case you’d be self-fulfilling your own prophecy. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/80 "2010-12-02T00:30:21Z")
> [@Hold\_Fast](#): > > Well thats something you would learn talking to an athiest, or perhaps more likely a religious type-turned atheist. Try talking to some people who actually believe in this sort of thing…your not gonna find one who says they **actually** believe it, but just believes so because others do. Of course your next step is simply to say that they don’t all believe what they say do, in which case you’d be self-fulfilling your own prophecy. Actually learned it talking to religious people mostly Christians with a few others (Hindu, Muslim…) the believe as that was the faith they were raised with. I was raised a Christian ad it was this very fact that shifted me towards atheism. As for a self-fulfilling prophecies, well that is what you would say. I am more than open to them being spiritual in nature if there was other evidence to back them up and if so many were not caused in ways that can be duplicated by mechanical or chemical means. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=5)