An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[LuisDantas]

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.

And also very disrespectful to the very idea of religious belief.

How come people who consider themselves religious keep presenting it I never quite figured.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

By some perspectives we just might, in fact, know the mind of the sacred or.of it's personification.

Of course, such a perspective has no time for any attempts at.deciding whether to make silly, pretentious bets.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Pascal's Wager has always appeared erroneous and questionable to me from start to finish. He sets you up for this by saying you have to play? Uh, no you don't.

In premise three it's arguable that he might have been trying to discount theories that might pop up about other gods, but he can't show the possibility isn't there.

There's only one pre-modern philosopher I admire less than Pascal, and that's Descartes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And also very disrespectful to the very idea of religious belief.

How come people who consider themselves religious keep presenting it I never quite figured.

Quite. This was the first thing that I just thought odd about the whole issue. It seemed such an immoral thing to do.

 

[Sunstone]

...I doubt that it was ever meant for argument...

You might be right about that, bro. My professor taught that it was uncertain whether Pascal wanted his wager to be taken too seriously. You see, Pascal had some friends who were gamblers. According to my professor, it is arguable on the basis of some things Pascal said about his wager that he wasn't so much trying to come up with a completely serious proposal, but was rather trying to couch the issue of Christian salvation in such terms that his friends -- the gamblers -- would become interested in discussing the subject, and might even at some point wish to be saved.

My professor, by the way, was a French man who'd been named after Pascal, and who'd somewhat thoroughly studied Pascal's life, works, and writings.

 

[Sunstone]

There's only one pre-modern philosopher I admire less than Pascal, and that's Descartes.

In seriousness, see post #25 for what might be the real motive for Pascal's Wager. Also, please don't sell yourself short with Pascal. The man was generally brilliant, but human -- What brilliant human doesn't goof up sometimes, just as you are brilliantly goofing up by refusing to appreciate Pascal?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In seriousness, see post #25 for what might be the real motive for Pascal's Wager. Also, please don't sell yourself short with Pascal. The man was generally brilliant, but human -- What brilliant human doesn't goof up sometimes, just as you are brilliantly goofing up by refusing to appreciate Pascal?

Oh I'm not selling myself short, or- I think I am not

I simply don't appreciate his reasoning too much. I'm not denying he may have been brilliant, or perhaps we think he was.

Please don't take my statement of disdain as too antagonistic. I see Pascal as leaps and bounds above Descartes. Whenever I said I disdain Descartes more- there's a heck of a lot of things to speak of. A world of difference between he and Pascal, to be sure.

Pascal also had a most brilliant dismissal of Descartes if one doesn't wish to get argumentative. I've employed it once or twice myself. Pascal noted: how can we take Descartes seriously, when his religion is nothing more than useful to him? Descartes needs God to confirm his mind, but rejects the more serious theological implications of that God. That is a shortened paraphrasing of Pascal of course.

I do think the wager was a bad argument, however.

 

[crossfire]

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.

You may not be able to know the mind of god, but you can know your own mind--and gain peace of mind in the here & now. See verse 17 of the Kalama Sutta.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You may not be able to know the mind of god, but you can know your own mind--and gain peace of mind in the here & now. See verse 17 of the Kalama Sutta.

Well that is much like Pascal's Wager. I would propose to act as best I could whether there was a god or not, so the whole question doesn't arise. I am slightly agnostic as to any creator, but that doesn't affect my behaviour in any way, since I hope I can be the best that I can be regardless of any such beliefs. I do own any responsibility for my behaviour, and hardly will claim it wasn't me, because of course it was. No excuses. I'm just not bothered with such speculations - and never have been from an early age.

 

[Paradox22]

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. .

I think Blaise's Wager has a lot going for it. I would be interested in any thoughts about the article: "A Better Version of Pascal's Wager" by Michael Rota.


Tim

 

[Paradox22]

he 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.

Considering how many philosophers have discussed this over the years, I suggest that you may be missing something.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

You don't have to go that far, even. You first have to demonstrate that the particular god (in this case, Pascal's version of a Christian god) actually exists, and you cannot. Even if you presuppose a god exists, you now have to decide which one of the thousands to pick.

 

[Paradox22]

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.

I used to agree, but now I don't think it is so easy to dismiss Pascal on these grounds. While we cannot just decide whether or not we want to believe in God, we certainly can decide whether we want to take steps that would make it more likely that we will come to believe in God. For example, after I finish this post, I could pick up my copy of the "God Delusion," or I could order, from Amazon, a copy of "Mere Christianity." If I am persuaded by Pascal's reasoning, I should probably do the later rather than the former. I cannot force myself to believe in God, but I can decide to go to Church on Sunday instead of meet with the local Atheist discussion group. (actually they meet on Saturday).

 

[Milton Platt]

I used to agree, but now I don't think it is so easy to dismiss Pascal on these grounds. While we cannot just decide whether or not we want to believe in God, we certainly can decide whether we want to take steps that would make it more likely that we will come to believe in God. For example, after I finish this post, I could pick up my copy of the "God Delusion," or I could order, from Amazon, a copy of "Mere Christianity." If I am persuaded by Pascal's reasoning, I should probably do the later rather than the former. I cannot force myself to believe in God, but I can decide to go to Church on Sunday instead of meet with the local Atheist discussion group. (actually they meet on Saturday).

I don't know...does "Mere Christianity" contain arguments for the existence of a god that have not been refuted?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I used to agree, but now I don't think it is so easy to dismiss Pascal on these grounds. While we cannot just decide whether or not we want to believe in God, we certainly can decide whether we want to take steps that would make it more likely that we will come to believe in God. For example, after I finish this post, I could pick up my copy of the "God Delusion," or I could order, from Amazon, a copy of "Mere Christianity." If I am persuaded by Pascal's reasoning, I should probably do the later rather than the former. I cannot force myself to believe in God, but I can decide to go to Church on Sunday instead of meet with the local Atheist discussion group. (actually they meet on Saturday).

A lot of us atheists come from religious backgrounds and are religious studies. Learning and understanding varying positions is, I agree, a noble ideal. But I'm not going to go constantly sit in on services or deny association with my atheists friends because I'm trying desperately to be something I am not. That would be part of the 'trying to fake it until you make it' thing. Unhealthy and self-deceiving, imo.

 

[Paradox22]

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?

I wouldn't call it a false dichotomy. I agree that Pascal didn't do himself any favors by limiting the argument to the two options: Christianity or non-belief. This, of course, leads to the "Many Gods" objection. I think these objections can be easily answered.
Since it is true that we don't know which religion is right, it is logically plausible that for any god of Religion (A) there could be a different religion, (B), that actually IS true, and the god of Religion (B) will damn any who who believe in Religion (A). However, it is also true that there are only a limited number of religions such that there is any reasonable likelihood that we could expect to come to believe in them.

For example, it may be that Christianity is true and Islam is false. Or it could be that Islam is true and Christianity is false. If my objective is to come to believe in a religion, I suggest that the rational course of action would be to try to become a believer in whichever religion I am most likely to be able to come to believe in. Maybe Islam is true, but I do not have any Mosques nearby. I don't know any Muslims that I can discuss religion with. On the other hand, there are Catholic Churches nearby, and there are several people in my family that believe in some form of Christianity. Under these circumstances, it might be more rational to take efforts that would maximize the likelihood that I will come to believe in some form of Christianity.

 

[Paradox22]

I don't know...does "Mere Christianity" contain arguments for the existence of a god that have not been refuted?

I don't know how persuasive Lewis' book would be.I am just assuming that I would be more likely to come to believe in God if I read "Mere Christianity" than if I reread "The God Delusion" or "God is Not Great". Could be wrong, but that's why they call it a wager.

 

[Riders]

I feel like its like lieing to God. Well Hey Christian God I dont really believe oin Jesus Christ or you the Christian God but just in case theres a 5050 chance it might be true Ill go through the ritual of responding to the alter call and saying the sinners prayer even though I don't really mean it.

 

[Paradox22]

I feel like its like lieing to God. Well Hey Christian God I dont really believe oin Jesus Christ or you the Christian God but just in case theres a 5050 chance it might be true Ill go through the ritual of responding to the alter call and saying the sinners prayer even though I don't really mean it.

Perfectly understandable. When I imagine embarking on the project that might lead me to believe in a God (ideally the correct one), I have trouble seeing how I could get past the hypocrisy of trying to believe in something I have ruled-out as "certainly not true." However, it could be that the God of the religion that happens to be true, gives people credit for trying. In Christianity, for example, people that don't believe, but want to believe, are called "seekers." Some write that there is a place in Heaven for such people. The important thing, they say, is that you don't "turn your back" on God. I'm not saying this is true. What I am saying is there is some non-zero probability that this is true. For that reason, wouldn't this be a reason to target Christianity over some religion that says "either you believe in our God at the time of your death, or you are damned?"

It should be noted that I am not arguing in favor of Christianity or any other religion. I only use that as an example.

 

[LuisDantas]

Considering how many philosophers have discussed this over the years, I suggest that you may be missing something.

I doubt it. The wager is... pitifully poor, really.