An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[Sunstone]

The alarming thought crossed my mind this morning that you, dear reader, woke up today lusting to hear all about Pascal's Wager. No sooner had I thought that than I also thought, "By Golly! I should do something about that!" Hence, I have generously created this thread to satiate your strange and unholy desires. .

As you know, Pascal's Wager is famous -- whole libraries have been written about it. Compared to those libraries, this is a pretty brief OP -- but it might not look like that because it's a bit longer than the average OP on RF. But given how often Pascal's Wager comes up on RF, I thought at least a few people might be interested in studying it in a little more depth

Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist who lived from 1623 to 1662. Pascal had several friends who enjoyed gambling, and some scholars have argued that his invention of the famous Wager was in part inspired by his desire to appeal to his friends. The Wager actually comes in three separate and distinct formulations so it is in fact not one wager, but three.

Having said all that, let's get to the meat of the matter!

Pascal begins by observing that, since God is infinite, we humans are incapable of knowing whether or not He exists...

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.

Pascal then goes on to first insist that it is thus necessary for us to wager whether or not God exists, and then he offers three distinct formulations of his wager...

"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. What will you wager?

>>snip<<

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,[Pg 67] your reason and your will, your 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.

>>snip<<

But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

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.

The Third and final formulation of his wager is the most important for this is the formulation that is most often referred to as "Pascal's Wager"...

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…

Just for kicks, we now turn to Kaufmann's critique of Pascal's Wager...

What Pascal overlooked was the hair-raising possibility that God might out-Luther Luther. A special area in hell might be reserved for those who go to mass. Or God might punish those whose faith is prompted by prudence. Perhaps God prefers the abstinent to those who whore around with some denomination he despises. Perhaps he reserves special rewards for those who deny themselves the comfort of belief. Perhaps the intellectual ascetic will win all while those who compromised their intellectual integrity lose everything.

There are many other possibilities. There might be many gods, including one who favors people like Pascal; but the other gods might overpower or outvote him, à la Homer. Nietzsche might well have applied to Pascal his cutting remark about Kant: when he wagered on God, the great mathematician 'became an idiot.'

 

[Sunstone]

Last, here are some sources for more information about the famous Wager -- including two relatively in-depth encyclopedia articles that much more fully explain the wager, and mention several more or less standard critiques Kaufmann doesn't mention.

Pensées (See section III, subsection #233 for the wagers).

Pascal's Wager about God (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Pascal's Wager (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/


Comments? Observations? Objections? Muddled Rants? Primeval Screams?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To me the biggest and simplest problem with the wager is that you can't force yourself to believe something. Faking it is really similar if not the same thing as what the bible calls lip service, and I can't see any potential personal deities being much keen on people faking it to get afterlife rewards.

In the unlikely event that I become Christian or even a theist in the future, it won't be because I've chose it, it'll be because of something I've discovered that convinced me, an organic process that doesn't involve me 'betting' anything.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Surely this all falls apart at the first hurdle - we can't know the mind of God, and hence can't know whether it would be wise to choose any particular solution - not knowing how God might respond. We might guess, but that is hardly realistic is it. And gambling is often frowned upon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me the biggest and simplest problem with the wager is that you can't force yourself to believe something. Faking it is really similar if not the same thing as what the bible calls lip service, and I can't see any potential personal deities being much keen on people faking it to get afterlife rewards.

In the unlikely event that I become Christian or even a theist in the future, it won't be because I've chose it, it'll be because of something I've discovered that convinced me, an organic process that doesn't involve me 'betting' anything.

Yet I hear Christians, not all of course, claim that because of arguments like Pascal's Wager that they "choose to be Christian". To me this makes no sense since I agree with your statement. It only demonstrates to me that those people are not thinking rationally. It is on the same order as some of the anti-homosexual bigots that claim due to the Bible they "chose to be straight". I don't think that one's sexuality is a choice. Perhaps their choice is where there hate comes from which brings us back to theists. I have noticed an inordinate amount of hatred of theists towards atheists. Perhaps they know deep down inside that they are merely faking it and they are afraid that they are not "saved" after all.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yet I hear Christians, not all of course, claim that because of arguments like Pascal's Wager that they "choose to be Christian".

I think because being convinced of something is not an action you can consciously be aware of, there is some misconception in hindsight about where that convincing occurs. Memories are notoriously poor and unreliable thing, especially since the emotions that we attached to them are also abstract. They may truly believe that they chose to be convinced. And maybe they were. But that has not been my experience.

I don't think that one's sexuality is a choice.

Me neither, though I certainly think that there are components to LGBT culture that are choice-based. The old nature versus nurture question is not nuanced enough to encompass reality from my experience. What it is to be a LGBT is a mixture of both nature and nurture.

Perhaps their choice is where there hate comes from which brings us back to theists. I have noticed an inordinate amount of hatred of theists towards atheists. Perhaps they know deep down inside that they are merely faking it and they are afraid that they are not "saved" after all.

To me this kind of reasoning is as unproductive as its inverse, that the hatred of theists by atheists come from the private awareness that they are wrong. There's a lot of reason that hatred blossoms. I'd be very much surprised if tribalism wasn't a much bigger player.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think because being convinced of something is not an action you can consciously be aware of, there is some misconception in hindsight about where that convincing occurs. Memories are notoriously poor and unreliable thing, especially since the emotions that we attached to them are also abstract. They may truly believe that they chose to be convinced. And maybe they were. But that has not been my experience.


Me neither, though I certainly think that there are components to LGBT culture that are choice-based. The old nature versus nurture question is not nuanced enough to encompass reality from my experience. What it is to be a LGBT is a mixture of both nature and nurture.


To me this kind of reasoning is as unproductive as its inverse, that the hatred of theists by atheists come from the private awareness that they are wrong. There's a lot of reason that hatred blossoms. I'd be very much surprised if tribalism wasn't a much bigger player.

You might have a point about tribalism. Though as a larger society it is a negative trait it was positive in the past. It is in our bones so to speak.

 

[Sunstone]

Surely this all falls apart at the first hurdle - we can't know the mind of God...

That's pretty much how Pascal begins his argument. That is, by pointing out that we cannot know if God exists or much of anything about Him. But -- unlike you -- Pascal finds a reason to argue that that is precisely why we must wager, why we have no choice but to wager! Check out the first link in the OP, Section III, subsection 233, if you're interested in the details.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's pretty much how Pascal begins his argument. That is, by pointing out that we cannot know if God exists or much of anything about Him. But -- unlike you -- Pascal finds a reason to argue that that is precisely why we must wager, why we have no choice but to wager! Check out the first link in the OP, Section III, subsection 233, if you're interested in the details.

Yes, but he's still wrong - if we can't know anything about what is at stake or what kind of odds are involved - unlike real gambling.

It seems that gambling is often used to compare strategies, but this is a case where gambling is impossible, because as stated, we don't know anything about what is at stake, the outcome, or any odds involved - and the same goes for any decision trees.

PS The first link won't open. (resolved)

Edit: I think the forced nature of having to make a decision is also false - as it's just not true.

 

[Sunstone]

PS The first link won't open.

I can't fix it for you because the link works for me. My apologies. Try googling Guttenberg Pensees.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I can't fix it for you because the link works for me. My apologies. Try googling Guttenberg Pensees.

My browser - managed with another.

 

[viole]

The alarming thought crossed my mind this morning that you, dear reader, woke up today lusting to hear all about Pascal's Wager. No sooner had I thought that than I also thought, "By Golly! I should do something about that!" Hence, I have generously created this thread to satiate your strange and unholy desires. .

As you know, Pascal's Wager is famous -- whole libraries have been written about it. Compared to those libraries, this is a pretty brief OP -- but it might not look like that because it's a bit longer than the average OP on RF. But given how often Pascal's Wager comes up on RF, I thought at least a few people might be interested in studying it in a little more depth

Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist who lived from 1623 to 1662. Pascal had several friends who enjoyed gambling, and some scholars have argued that his invention of the famous Wager was in part inspired by his desire to appeal to his friends. The Wager actually comes in three separate and distinct formulations so it is in fact not one wager, but three.

Having said all that, let's get to the meat of the matter!

Pascal begins by observing that, since God is infinite, we humans are incapable of knowing whether or not He exists...



Pascal then goes on to first insist that it is thus necessary for us to wager whether or not God exists, and then he offers three distinct formulations of his wager...





The Third and final formulation of his wager is the most important for this is the formulation that is most often referred to as "Pascal's Wager"...



Just for kicks, we now turn to Kaufmann's critique of Pascal's Wager...

I believe that is, by far, the most overrated argument in the history of philosophy.

Since it is equally plausible, with the available (lack of) evidence, that God exists but likes to reward atheists and punish believers, then the argument is absurd, since its solutions are mutually contradicting.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mock Turtle]

Further to this - I think the best analogy for this is - jumping off a high cliff and asking half-way down, 'what exactly should I do now?'

 

[Srivijaya]

you can't force yourself to believe something.

This is the one thing that many Christians just don't understand. "simply believe and you will be saved" they say but it doesn't work like that. You can't believe because you want to believe. This approach is a kind of denial.

 

[sun rise]

My issue with Pascal's wager is that it's about mere belief and not about putting that belief into practice. Maybe that's discussed somewhere but I've not seen it. It is touched on tangentially in this case:

The Professor's God rewards those who humbly remain skeptical in the absence of evidence, and punishes those who adopt theism on the basis of self-interest

At least from a Christian Bible NT perspective, people are supposed to put their belief into action and are warned of the consequences in not doing so. (Your exegesis may vary).

Suppose therefore there is an atheist or skeptic who feeds the poor, succors the weak, welcomes the stranger and, in fact, does all the things Christians are supposed to do. And there is a self-professed Christian who is arrogant, who ignores the poor, who preaches morality but ignores the immorality of the powerful and so forth.

Is it possible that God would look with favor on a skeptic who kept the commandments and not on a self-proclaimed believer who ignored them?

Or as an "executive summary": "actions speak louder than words".

 

[Revoltingest]

Suppose therefore there is an atheist or skeptic who feeds the poor, succors the weak, welcomes the stranger and, in fact, does all the things Christians are supposed to do.

Hey @Wirey....
As my favorite double coiling fundie says....
"He'll get it in the neck"
It's not about good works, but rather belief
(which is supposed to lead to good works).

Can't force myself to believe.
Can't decide which of the vast myriad of
conflicting religions would be the true one.
Pascal was a bonehead.

 

[dianaiad]

Figured out awhile ago that Pascal's wager was an...at the very least...false dichotomy. It would only work if one knew that only two possibilities existed; a very specific god, or none at all. Looking around me I see far too many versions of God...pretty much contradictory. Which one should one 'bet' upon?

These observations have been mentioned here, in far more erudite and graceful turns of phrase.

I gave up on the whole thing. I believe what I believe, and if I'm right, great. If I'm wrong (and I could be) well then, we'll see what we see.

The only way in which "Pascal's wager" could even possibly be applicable is in this: either there is an 'afterlife' of some sort, or there isn't. That's it. Either we 'go on,' or we stop; a very real dichotomy, and the notion doesn't depend upon what SORT of afterlife might be available, or Who...or What...might be in charge of it.

Even then there is the problem of...how does one place the bet? I mean...what currency do you hand down, what do you DO about the choice you make?

For me, it's just a little guilty advantage over atheists who keep telling me that Im an idiot for believing that there is one; no matter which one of us is right, I'm the only one who will 'win.' I mean, if there isn't one, neither one of us will know the atheist 'won,' will we?

I should be more graceful about that myself, but hey. I'm human. I'll get my wee pleasures where I can.

 

[Riders]

My problem with Padcald wager is that it seems like Pasters hold over the heads of members in fear.

There are too many people accepting Jesus going back 4 weeks later to respond to the alter call because they sinned and just want to make sure they're not going to hell.

They cling to alter calls and sinners prayer and the ritual of it more then they cling to God.

If I says something about wanting to visit the church or nice about Christianity they want to make me Christian and want to say Jesus is God and I accept hi. Yada yada.

They don't know it but by putting Pascars wager in their head trying to goad me through a dead ritual it's blaspheming their God.

Uh I've accepted Christ through the unwilling of the holy ghost 500 times and through the Baptist alter calls and 7th Day Adventist service 5 million times.Ive gotten saved a billion times.


If I get saved again it's like I'm saying the Christian God never sa bed me and isn't strong enough to reduce me.


No way am I going through any Pascals Wager alter call response again.If the Christian God is so very very weak he's incapable of saving me the first 10 billion times I don't want to be Christian.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe that is, by far, the most overrated argument in the history of philosophy.

Wow!

 

[LuisDantas]

The Wager is a supremely ironic work

One of the most utterly flawed and unconvincing examples of argument known to humanity - to the point that I doubt that it was ever meant for argument - yet it just keeps being presented in apparent seriousness anyway.

It does not even support its own weight by any measure, not even theologically. But people just ignore that and march on presenting it again.

It is impressive in a very dismaying way.