Said another way, he deliberately chose an outrageous (for his time) topic for his thought experiment.
The point was that every contemporary thoughtful person had already struggled with his/her ideas about faith and “how can I be sure?” and what are the implications.
So Pascal chose to recast this familiar and well-worn dilemma in his shiny new mathematical decision terms.
How many times here on the 'Dope have we debated the ideas of life and death, and the meaning of personal identity through the lens of the Star Trek Transporter?
Pascal wasn’t stupid or tone-deaf. But he was a good (self-) promoter.
Sure, but that leads to the image of God as a game show host. “Oh, I’m sorry, but Zeus was the answer we were looking for. The answer was Zeus. We have some lovely parting gifts for you on your way to Tartarus.”
Obviously, Pascal’s Wager applies to Hinduism far more than it applies to any monotheistic religion, because if you reject it and you’re wrong you’re making multiple enemies. :eek:
I know this is aimed at atheists and agnostics, but I think the view of theists is just as valuable. Really, I think the best response is along the lines of what Marcus Aurelius said:
This both explains why I believe that the nature of God is what I believe it is, and even beyond this, why the idea of morality as being motivated by a desire to reach heaven and/or avoid hell is a lower form of morality than trying to live by virtues or simply do what we believe is right. It creates a false dichotomy that God is acts arbiter of whims based upon ill-explained rules rather than as a means of gaining greater insight into purpose, will, morality, or whatever purpose God serves for the theist individual or whatever other methods serve those for the atheist or agnostic individual. It seems to me that the quality of people in my life is largely indifferent to whether or not they believe in God’s existence (as it seems to fit pretty closely to that distribution in general society) but rather just the quality of their character, values, integrity, etc.
So, I guess, in short, if someone offers Pascal’s Wager honestly seeing it as a compelling reason to believe in God, frankly, it’s probably a sign that that person isn’t morally developed enough to be worth meaningfully engaging with. And there are similar arguments from the same sort of moral perspective from other stances on the existence of God, atheists, agnostics, and various religions.
I can easily imagine both of them as Dopers. Though they might end up arguing with one another, or just staying out of one another’s threads; and Pascal’s the more likely of the two to end up getting banned by the mods somehow.
From what I’ve read by and about Pascal, there’s a lot about him I find appealing and sympathetic, but also plenty of things about him that annoy me or frustrate me or make me pity him.
Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life is a good book on the kinds of things Pascal was trying to say in the Pensees. I’ll have to find my copy and see if it sheds any light on the Wager beyond what has already been said in this thread.
Dude, that’s pretty fucking brilliant. I mean that. Thudlow, your post just above says you may check a book you have - can we know if Pascal was the showman applying his new probabilistic science to a Big Question for fun and to get attention to his approach and how important he thought it was?
LSLGuy - do you have any cites for that? I would love to understand if I am just a superficial reader and there are layers there.
Too late to add: by the way, this doesn’t change the response to the OP. Taken literally, it is still a silly way to approach the question of Belief. Taken as a way to illustrate a new approach to decision-making, it is interesting.
Reminds me of Schrodinger’s Cat: used as a way to explain quantum physics it is kinda unclear. Used as Schrodinger intended, as a way to show how quantum physics is completely different from our scale of Reality, its absurdity serves a clearer purpose. Dr. S was saying “QP is so incomprehensible that if I share this example it will make no sense to you, yet that is how QP is.” He was not saying “understand this example and you understand QP.”
My preferred response is to point out that this issue has already been solved by one of the great philosopher’s of our age, Homer J. Simpson. Then in my best Homer voice, I say
If a person is serious about the logic that such a question follows – if they think a person should structure their beliefs based on getting the best long-term potential reward – then they should choose the religion that offers them the most in the hereafter.
By this logic, only an idiot would choose Christianity, with its measly offer of eternal life. You should choose the religion that offers you the most and best additional perqs.
A possible example: the strains of Islam that promise 72 virgins after death, (although I think that might not be as sweet a deal as its proponents do, and I’m a heterosexual male).
If you question whether those perqs will really be there – if you suspect that such a fantastic promise is being made to coerce your allegiance* to their religion – well, then you’re starting to understand how I see things.
*Which is really what they’re talking about, vice belief.
As long as you get to pick which one(s) to keep I think it’s probably a better deal than most of us get down here. Out of 72 there’s just about got to be (at least) one to your liking.
Just want to give props to the people who’ve replied, particularly on the idea that it’s an invention that comes completely from our fellow hairless psychotic apes and not beamed into existence from some objective outside force, questioning the premise that the question is based on. that is what justification is there that a God will reward/punish behaviour x. y or z?
My response to Pascal’s Wager is to point out that the exact same logic can also be used to convince you to buy a bottle of magic water which is allegedly from The Fountain of Youth.
A man comes to your door, promises you a ticket to Heaven. The man explains what you have to give up in order to earn your ticket (details vary depending on which church he’s from). You are tempted to send him away but then you think What if I’m wrong? He’s offering a prize which has infinite value. Even if it’s 99.999999999%+ sure that he’s not telling the truth, it’s still a good strategy to take him up on the offer anyway, just in case, right?
A woman comes to your door, tries to sell you a bottle of water which will grant you immortality. The woman explains what you have to give up in order to purchase the water (exact price unimportant to the story). You are tempted to send her away but then you think What if I’m wrong? She’s offering a prize which has infinite value. Even if it’s 99.999999999%+ sure that she’s not telling the truth, it’s still a good strategy to take her up on the offer anyway, just in case, right?
I don’t know if any theists would be impressed by this, but that’s my answer.
That is an excellent point. Pascal’s Wager starts with the assumption that belief in God is what gets you into heaven, but if this assumption could be false. Keight (pronounced like the number 8 with a K in front of it) pointed out that it’s equally possible that a creator might consider rationality and skepticism to be desirable qualities and choose to grant tickets for Heaven to rational skeptics. Keight’s Wager
