An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager

[LuisDantas]

At the end of the day, Pascal's Wager is about attempting to fool oneself and a presumably omniscient god while also being purposefully ignorant about the basics of religion and hoping that somehow that will turn out ok.

Why would anyone bother with that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At the end of the day, Pascal's Wager is about attempting to fool oneself and a presumably omniscient god while also being purposefully ignorant about the basics of religion and hoping that somehow that will turn out ok.

Why would anyone bother with that?

But it wasn't like that in Pascal's context.

The effect of the sacraments - e.g. saving you from Hell and sending you to Heaven - is supposed to be mostly about two things:

- is the person performing the sacrament a valid priest (i.e. did they receive the sacrament of holy orders from a bishop in the line of apostolic succession)? and

- was the form of the sacrament valid (i.e. did the priest hit what the Church considers the minimum key points)?

In that context, choosing to participate is enough.

 

[RestlessSoul]

True. Dictionaries are a source for standard usage of words. Many words have technical definitions that are not in dictionaries. But for ordinary words used in everyday language, dictionaries provide the standard use.

Language is organic. It is constantly evolving, lending itself easily to nuance, ambiguity, and subjective interpretation. Words are defined by their context, their place in a sentence, their relation to the words around them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those are very poor definitions.

Because they disagree with the one you came up with?

And dictionaries are not a source of logic, reason, nor truth.

Of course. The source of logic, reason and truth is you. Just you.

For this dictionary to neglect the famous biblical definition shows that itis a very poor source of information.

If you're talking about Hebrews 11:1, then it's captured in that dictionary definition.

 

[Ignatius A]

Of course, 'proper' understanding is *your* interpretation. But that is *your* view and should be given its due.

No it's not my view it's what scripture says. It's quite clear expect to heretics and crazy people.

 

[Kathryn]

Pascal was a rascal. I just had to say that, so I did.

 

[PureX]

Because they disagree with the one you came up with?

Because they don't apply to the subject of this conversation.

According to the dictionary "gay" means homosexual. But if we're not talking about homosexuality, then that definition is useless. In the case of faith in this discussion, we're not talking about any of the definitions you posted. We're talking about faith in religious/biblical terms.

And I explained clearly and logically what faith in this context means. "For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." And "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." Yes, it's poetic language but it's not that hard to understand. In this context faith is living as if what we hope to be so, will become so, if we trust in it in our minds and act on it in the world.

 

[Polymath257]

No it's not my view it's what scripture says. It's quite clear expect to heretics and crazy people.

It is your interpretation. Others interpret it differently. Of course, those people disagree with you, so they must be heretics, rights?

 

[Ignatius A]

It is your interpretation. Others interpret it differently. Of course, those people disagree with you, so they must be heretics, rights?

No they are heretics because they ignore Scripture. They pervert scripture to their world view. The problem is youve bought into the lie that all views have equal weight. That's utter rubbish. In that light there is not truth just individual truth but that's not how truth works no matter how much you want it not work that way.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Whether by God, the Logos, or the laws of physics, the universe has been very precisely arranged - fine tuned, as the cosmologists say - to make it possible for life to exist. If the universe were hostile, we would not exist, on this glorious jewel of a planet.

As for the choice between faith and futility, hope and despair, those were my choices, as I saw them at the time. I’m not making any calls or judgements on your or anyone else’s behalf.

Not sure as to this, so can't really deny this.

Seems reasonable.

I'm more as to a mixture for humans - neither good nor bad essentially - but I prefer to believe (and seemingly supported by evidence) that humans are more likely to be good than bad. But I don't see the universe as being benign at all, and hence why we should try to eliminate our divisions if we want to survive as a species - even if this matters - but it obviously matters to the human species. The Earth might be a lovely planet but hardly benign, especially as to our earliest existence, and only so now because we have fashioned it so - with still much natural trauma to remind us as to such.

I don't know why some seem to think that without God or a creator, nihilism and/or despair has to rule our lives. It seems to me more about the opportunities and freedoms open to humans more than much else (the future) - even if one might still be open to some creator or creative force. And I too have hardly wavered as to not believing in any God - and have had nothing to suggest otherwise in my life.

 

[Alien826]

I think a good analogy would be this: let's say I move from a neighborhood that has no history of burglaries or any type of crime to a neighborhood where, say, 1 out of 50 people's homes are burglarized per year. Even though I don't actually believe that a burglary is going to happen this year (since there is only a 2% chance historically), I still would take specific actions to prepare for it in case it occurred, like possibly installing a security system or purchasing heavier doors or stronger locks. It's possible to take actions to prepare for something that you don't believe will occur if the consequences of that thing occurring are large enough.

More accurately, after you move to a neighborhood where you have no idea of the crime statistics a salesman knocks on your door selling home insurance. He tells you that burglaries happen all the time in that area and you have no chance of avoiding one. He says he has this insurance that will cost 10% of your income for life, with some clauses that tell you exactly how to live your life. You ask for some proof that the number of burglaries is so high and he is oddly evasive. You just have to believe him, he says. You look up local news reports and find no reference to burglaries. What do you do?

 

[Heyo]

Would say that the payoff of no religion is infinite,

Then you contradict most religions', Pascal's and Dr. Jackson's unspoken premise.
The infinite payoff is what makes the wager work even when the probability is infinitesimal.
It is also entirely irrational to assume something infinite in a finite universe, and leads to all the mathematical paradoxa with multiple infinities.
And most people are unable to calculate with infinities - which in the case of Dr. Jackson lead to the belief that she might have salvaged Pascal's Wager.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Right. I think it's important to remember that Pascal was addressing the religion he saw around him: Catholicism as practiced in 17th Century France. It wasn't entirely about orthopraxy (as opposed to orthodoxy), but it was pretty close. He was addressing the idea that sacraments are generally effective even if the person receiving them doesn't believe in God.

The important thing in, say, confession is having a contrite heart. I'm sure the priest would say that belief in God was important, but I don't think he would say that a lack of belief would invalidate the sacrament.

Things get really distorted when we try to plunk Pascal's Wager into "sola fide" Protestantism.



That's the thing, though: Pascal's Wager isn't about a negligible cost like $1 a day. It also doesn't suggest that the negative consequence is a certainty.

How large would the prize need to be if:

- playing costs so much that your family has to skip some meals,

- you've heard a rumour that there are police who will put you in prison for not playing, but you can't confirm that this has actually happened to anyone, and

- you aren't sure whether the lottery is real or a scam.


That's a closer analogy to Pascal's Wager.

The core of Pascal's Wager is that as long as your participation cost is finite and the purported rewards/punishments are infinite, it doesn’t matter how likely the outcomes are or how large the cost is.

Yes you are right. I was in a hurry when I came up with that analogy and skipped the improbability of the punishment. Your analogy is better and contains more scenarios, but for simplicity, what I meant to say was, would you play the lottery if there was a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of winning if you play, a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of going to prison for life if you dont play, and a $1 per week cost of playing? I think I would still play in that scenario; the cost is very minimal and wouldn't affect me, the chance of a reward for playing is there (though extremely small) and the chance for a punishment for not playing (though extremely small) is avoided. In your example, the cost is much higher, but is the cost of religious participation really that high? Historically yeah, but being a modern protestant Christian is incredibly easy and functionally almost no different than being non religious in terms of what you can and can't do. Again, this presumes that belief has nothing to do with it--i don't think it's likely that I could be persuaded that the Christian god (or any god) exists, but if I were by some chance to convert on my deathbed and pray to Jesus (or whatever deity I thought were most likely) to save me, it'd be based on this type of participation-based cost-benefit reasoning.

 

[Alien826]

Not quite the same, though.

In the case of Pascal's Wager, if there's no God but you were religious, there's a cost. Pascal argues that the cost is worth it based on the potential outcomes, but even he acknowledges that there would be a cost.

OTOH, if we take climate change seriously, there are all sorts of benefits. Even without considering the potential for future climate change and all of its effects, we can acknowledge that:

- reducing air pollution is a net positive. There are lots of non-climate-change reasons to do this.

- reducing the urban heat island effect in cities is a net positive. We already have people dying in heat waves.

- reducing our vulnerability to flooding is also a net positive. It's not like severe floods don't already happen.

- etc., etc.

If we did the things that we need to do to properly respond to climate change, we would win even if climate change weren't real. The only question is how much we win by. And by the same token, if we don't do those things, we lose no matter what. The only question is how bad a loss we'd suffer.

... so with climate change, one course of action dominates without Pascal-style pondering of just how good or bad each of the outcomes might be.

Interesting, and true. I have to say though that if there was as much evidence for the truth of a particular religion as there is for climate change, I'd be beating down the door of their church.

 

[Polymath257]

We should also acknowledge that the whole concept of 'expected value', while commonly used, is perhaps not the best measure in situations such as these. Even in very simple situations, it gives results that are, well, not very reasonable.

For example, suppose I have you flip a coin. If you get heads, I give you $1. If you get tails, you get to flip again. On the second flip, if you get a heads, you get $2. If you get tails on the second flip, then you can go again. if you get heads on the the third flip, you get $4. Otherwise, you can flip again.

The payoff doubles each time you get a tail until you get a head, when you get your payment.

So, the question is how much you should expect to pay for such a game? The paradox is that the expected value of the game is infinite. So you should literally be willing to pay any amount to pay this game.

All this shows is that the mathematical notion of expected value isn't very useful in situations like this. And there is no good reason to think it is reasonable in the situation of Pascal's Wager.

Then you contradict most religions', Pascal's and Dr. Jackson's unspoken premise.
The infinite payoff is what makes the wager work even when the probability is infinitesimal.
It is also entirely irrational to assume something infinite in a finite universe, and leads to all the mathematical paradoxa with multiple infinities.
And most people are unable to calculate with infinities - which in the case of Dr. Jackson lead to the belief that she might have salvaged Pascal's Wager.

What the statement of the case misses is depreciation because of time. Even if you live forever, the present value of that future life is finite. And that makes the payoff finite even in the case of immortality.

 

[Polymath257]

Whether by God, the Logos, or the laws of physics, the universe has been very precisely arranged - fine tuned, as the cosmologists say - to make it possible for life to exist. If the universe were hostile, we would not exist, on this glorious jewel of a planet.

And yet the vast majority of the universe is quite hostile to life as we know it. That 'fine tuning' doesn't seem to extend to life actually being possible in most places of the universe. That sort of nullifies any 'fine tuning' argument.

And, of course, we can turn your argument around and note that any universe NOT suited to life simply won't have beings asking about the universe. The fact that we are here means that the universe we are in must at least allow the existence of life.

As for the choice between faith and futility, hope and despair, those were my choices, as I saw them at the time. I’m not making any calls or judgements on your or anyone else’s behalf.

But again, that has NOTHING to do with the truth of those beliefs: only to the utility of them in your own life. And, given the theistic inclination to confirmation bias, it seems problematic, at least, to say your choices lead to true beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

No they are heretics because they ignore Scripture. They pervert scripture to their world view. The problem is youve bought into the lie that all views have equal weight. That's utter rubbish. In that light there is not truth just individual truth but that's not how truth works no matter how much you want it not work that way.

But they do NOT ignore scripture. They simply interpret what they read in a different way than you. They find different texts to be important and value them in different ways. They see many of the texts as metaphorical and not historic. They still value the Bible as a guide, but don't think it is flawless.

And that does NOT mean they are non-Christian: they still believe in Jesus as God, salvation because of his actions, etc.

And, again, they would say that you are the one perverting scripture by ignoring the metaphorical nature of it.

And no, I do NOT hold that all views have equal weight. That is exactly why I ask for evidence and testability. And that is why I reject most religions.

 

[Ignatius A]

But they do NOT ignore scripture. They simply interpret what they read in a different way than you. They find different texts to be important and value them in different ways. They see many of the texts as metaphorical and not historic. They still value the Bible as a guide, but don't think it is flawless.

And that does NOT mean they are non-Christian: they still believe in Jesus as God, salvation because of his actions, etc.

And, again, they would say that you are the one perverting scripture by ignoring the metaphorical nature of it.

And no, I do NOT hold that all views have equal weight. That is exactly why I ask for evidence and testability. And that is why I reject most religions.

Of course they ignore Scripture. Want an example?

 

[Alien826]

Then you contradict most religions', Pascal's and Dr. Jackson's unspoken premise.
The infinite payoff is what makes the wager work even when the probability is infinitesimal.
It is also entirely irrational to assume something infinite in a finite universe, and leads to all the mathematical paradoxa with multiple infinities.
And most people are unable to calculate with infinities - which in the case of Dr. Jackson lead to the belief that she might have salvaged Pascal's Wager.

How about if we change "infinite" to "really really really big"? Does that salvage her argument?

 

[RestlessSoul]

And yet the vast majority of the universe is quite hostile to life as we know it. That 'fine tuning' doesn't seem to extend to life actually being possible in most places of the universe. That sort of nullifies any 'fine tuning' argument.

And, of course, we can turn your argument around and note that any universe NOT suited to life simply won't have beings asking about the universe. The fact that we are here means that the universe we are in must at least allow the existence of life.


But again, that has NOTHING to do with the truth of those beliefs: only to the utility of them in your own life. And, given the theistic inclination to confirmation bias, it seems problematic, at least, to say your choices lead to true beliefs.

But before we even consider the existence of life anywhere in the universe, it takes a precise balance of converging forces and phenomena to allow galaxies to form in the first place; and again to allow fusion to occur in stars, thus assembling the building blocks of life. And so on. The odds against us being here appear quite literally astronomical.

And I’m not sure the anthropic principle resolves anything. It reminds me of a British army drinking song, popular during postings to obscure places; “we’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here…” Incontrovertibly true, but what does it tell us? Nothing we didn’t already know.

Various multiverse theories do resolve the statistical improbability of our bring here, since in the context of a near infinite number of universes, the improbable becomes inevitable. But since all such theories are non-empirical and unfalsifiable, we’re in the realms of philosophy when we embark on such speculation; not a problem for me, I suspect it may be to you though.