An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[LuisDantas]

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).

But there would be no point to it, you know.

 

[Augustus]

Try googling Guttenberg Pensees.

Might want to turn off autocorrect before doing that in a public place...

 

[Augustus]

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

The wager is a philosophical point regarding probabilistic decision making under uncertainty. This is a different concept to gambling which generally involves risk (rough probabilities are known) rather than uncertainty (probabilities can't be known but a decision still needs to be made).

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?

Not necessarily. It could be argued that betting on one of many possible alternatives still carries a higher expected payoff than refusing to choose. With unbounded upsides/downsides even a tiny probability of being correct can offer a superior expected payout.

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.

This is a danger of taking ideas out of a historical context and treating them anachronistically in isolation.

Pascal made important contributions to the experimental scientific method, geometry, literature etc. yet some scholars consider his probabilistic views on god to be among the most influential of his contributions to the modern world. They marked a change in perspective from thinking God was something that could be proved, to something which could only be accepted without a high degree of certainty.

Other than being an innovative way to think about God in the Western tradition, it formed part of a broader philosophical view regarding how we make judgements about truth in situations where we lack the information to make accurate decisions.

People today tend to look at Pascal's wager far too much from the perspective of the contemporary religious environment, rather than as a 17th C application of the philosophical application of probability theory onto an issue that people could relate to.

From a purely probabilistic perspective you can still find contemporary scholarship that argues he has a point, even though there are obvious issues with his reasoning that are more apparent to a modern audience.

Even if we assume he is completely wrong, to dismiss it as idiotic is facile, as things which are 'wrong' can still express aspects of truth and have positive impacts as the history of ideas so clearly demonstrates.

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.

I've heard similar points raised.

It's also debatable how compatible PW was with his Jansenist theology which had a greater focus on predestination and the idea that one could only be saved through the grace of God.

It was rather selfish of him to die before he finished his tome, wasn't it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Even if we assume he is completely wrong, to dismiss it as idiotic is facile, as things which are 'wrong' can still express aspects of truth and have positive impacts as the history of ideas so clearly demonstrates.

It may provide an insight into a mentality to watch out for, I suppose.

A warning call, if you will. Not for the "dangers of disbelief", but for the dangers of irrational dogmatism.

 

[Augustus]

It may provide an insight into a mentality to watch out for, I suppose.

A warning call, if you will. Not for the "dangers of disbelief", but for the dangers of irrational dogmatism.

I really don't think you make much of an attempt to understand the idea in its historical context.

Why do you consider a point regarding the philosophy of decision making under uncertainly as 'irrational dogmatism'? It's pretty much the opposite seeing as it presupposes you may be completely wrong in your beliefs due to imperfect knowledge. It actually reflects a far more modern approach to theistic beliefs than the traditional western approaches that focused on certainty.

Can you explain your logic in this regard?

 

[LuisDantas]

I really don't think you make much of an attempt to understand the idea in its historical context.

One must ask how much effort such a silly argument - if it ever was an argument in the first place - deserves, don't you think?

I mean, come on. Pascal's Wager is way over-analyzed already.

Why do you consider a point regarding the philosophy of decision making under uncertainly as 'irrational dogmatism'?

In this case, because it is literally built from dogma, of course.

It's pretty much the opposite seeing as it presupposes you may be completely wrong in your beliefs due to imperfect knowledge. It actually reflects a far more modern approach to theistic beliefs than the traditional western approaches that focused on certainty.

Can you explain your logic in this regard?

Do you think that the theism of a short few centuries ago was quite that confused with itself?

I tend to believe that this confusion is a very recent phenomenom, myself.

 

[Paradox22]

I think one of the biggest problems with the Wager is that it uses infinity to describe the rewards of winning the bet. The use of infinity leads to issues because .5 times infinity is no better than .00001*infinity. As such, He has trouble showing why it would be more rational for an agnostic to choose to try to believe in a Christian God rather than in Zeus. Moreover, Pascal cannot say why it would be more rational to attend Church rather than to attend a conference of atheists because there is a non-zero probability that at such a conference, the agnostic or atheist would unexpectedly hear something that would persuade her. Just as there is a non-zero probability that she would hear something at church that would persuade her. When calculating expected value in a cost/benefit equation with infinity as the reward, ,.0000000000000000000001 X infinity is the same as 0.5 X infinity. The mathematics is problematic, even if the main point of the theory is not.

 

[Augustus]

One must ask how much effort such a silly argument - if it ever was an argument in the first place - deserves, don't you think?

I mean, come on. Pascal's Wager is way over-analyzed already.

Or under analysed by those who dismiss it as simply a "silly argument" or "One of the most utterly flawed and unconvincing examples of argument known to humanity".

It's value is not really from theology, but from philosophy and Pascal was very important in the history of maths, decision making and science.

Personally, I don't believe that the philosophy of decision making under uncertainty is an idiotic field of enquiry, and so the 'wager' has value even if it is massively flawed (which is actually far less cut and dried than you assume).

In this case, because it is literally built from dogma, of course.

It's the philosophical question of when we should act on something we can't know the truth value of. Viwing it as simply 'dogma' misses this point.

Do you think that the theism of a short few centuries ago was quite that confused with itself?

I tend to believe that this confusion is a very recent phenomenom, myself.

As I noted in a previous post, it doesn't seem to chime well with Pascal's own Jansenist theology (although I might be mistaken here) which raises questions about how one is to interpret his intentions regarding PW.

In general though, I see it as part of the ongoing evolution of the history of ideas and something which was a product of the intellectual environment of its time.

"Modernity" was a long process of evolution rather than something which appeared fully formed out of a bottle.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I noted in a previous post, it doesn't seem to chime well with Pascal's own Jansenist theology (although I might be mistaken here) which raises questions about how one is to interpret his intentions regarding PW.

Jansenism or no Jansenism, I don't think that it is reasonable to simply assume that Pascal was both ignorant of the existence of other theological stances beyond Abrahamic Monotheism and non-theism and unable to conceive of them on his own. It sounds more than a bit insulting towards him, frankly.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or under analysed by those who dismiss it as simply a "silly argument" or "One of the most utterly flawed and unconvincing examples of argument known to humanity".

It's value is not really from theology, but from philosophy and Pascal was very important in the history of maths, decision making and science.

Personally, I don't believe that the philosophy of decision making under uncertainty is an idiotic field of enquiry, and so the 'wager' has value even if it is massively flawed (which is actually far less cut and dried than you assume).

It is not idiotic in the general case.

It is blatantly idiotic when it takes as a premise that there is an all-wise, omniscient Creator God that one should nonetheless attempt to cheat on out of personal interest.

The point is not that it discusses decision under uncertainty. It is that it is fatally flawed before it is even fully stated.

 

[Paradox22]

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.

I suspect it was more targeted towards agnostics, but I couldn't say for sure because I haven't read the whole thing. I have read at least one other version that seems to target people that are "on the fence."

Personally, I have never been agnostic. I was brought up in the Christian church but I don't know if I ever really believed in a Christian god. For most of my life I have been a "firm Atheist." I agreed with most atheistic philosophers I had read. I have always considered Atheism as the rational position. However since then, I have wondered if I was being as close-minded as the theists. I am currently thinking that there is merit to what Pascal is saying. Not that there IS a God, but that it would be rational, based on a cost/benefit analysis, to try to be a theist. Even so, I cannot help thinking that in order to do so I would have to "dumb down" and ignore very strong beliefs I have. I am curious if this is even possible. Frankly, I doubt that I could ever come to believe in any sort of God, but I am intrigued by the idea of putting that to the test.

 

[Augustus]

Jansenism or no Jansenism, I don't think that it is reasonable to simply assume that Pascal was both ignorant of the existence of other theological stances beyond Abrahamic Monotheism and non-theism and unable to conceive of them on his own. It sounds more than a bit insulting towards him, frankly.

As I've been saying, it's not about the theology, it's about the philosophy of decision making under uncertainty.

It is blatantly idiotic when it takes as a premise that there is an all-wise, omniscient Creator God that one should nonetheless attempt to cheat on out of personal interest.

Just as well it doesn't do that then.

There is nothing in PW about "faking it".

The point is not that it discusses decision under uncertainty. It is that it is fatally flawed before it is even fully stated.

A flaw that you have written into it that assumes one of history's greatest thinkers was a rank moron who couldn't grasp the meaning of the word omniscient.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I've been saying, it's not about the theology, it's about the philosophy of decision making under uncertainty.



Just as well it doesn't do that then.

There is nothing in PW about "faking it".



A flaw that you have written into it that assumes one of history's greatest thinkers was a rank moron who couldn't grasp the meaning of the word omniscient.

Which text are you using for Pascal's Wager?

 

[Paradox22]

It is blatantly idiotic when it takes as a premise that there is an all-wise, omniscient Creator God that one should nonetheless attempt to cheat on out of personal interest.

I like the argument that perhaps there is a true god, but (s)he despises those who try to believe in him/her/it for self-serving reasons. Fair enough. But isn't that just another version of the Many God Objection?

But more importantly, Pascal's Wager does not suggest that anyone believe in any specific version of Christianity. He is not arguing that God is an "all wise, omniscient Creator." Pascal, unlike other philosophers, is not trying to prove or even argue that a god exists.

 

[LuisDantas]

I like the argument that perhaps there is a true god, but (s)he despises those who try to believe in him/her/it for self-serving reasons. Fair enough. But isn't that just another version of the Many God Objection?

It may well be a particular case of the MGO, but I think that it goes beyond that.

Even if we somehow knew for a fact that there is exactly one God, the Wager would still be unworkable and, in fact, unworthy of even cursory consideration, because it presumes an incoherent, unworthy, and for all practical purposes false God.

 

[Augustus]

Which text are you using for Pascal's Wager?

The one in the OP will do.

Are you aware of any in which Pascal argues you can fool an omniscient God?

 

[LuisDantas]

The one in the OP will do.

Are you aware of any in which Pascal argues you can fool an omniscient God?

This one?

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…


The lack of seriousness, let alone of respect towards theism even in the abstract, if very blatant in that formulation.

It is simply not fit for serious consideration by anyone.

 

[Augustus]

This one?

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…


The lack of seriosness, let alone of respect towards theism even in the abstract, if very blatant in that formulation.

It is simply not fit for serious consideration by anyone.

Again, you are assuming things which are not written. There is nothing there that argues for a purely cynical attempt to fool God.

This was from the 17th C, not the 21st so the argument was not aimed at converting a mass market of atheists.

It could be seen as a counter to rationalistic arguments against abandoning faith because 'you can't prove God exists'. It could be seen as an incentive towards a sincere attempt to worship God and 'correct' one's doubts. As has been noted, he died before finishing his work and it consequently relying on editors to compile fragments of his thought into a purportedly cohesive text, who precisely PW was aimed at is highly debatable.

In light of this, why do you choose to assume that one of history's great thinkers and a pioneer of the scientific method and probability theory was a rank moron incapable of grasping primary school level reasoning regarding a God who he took a great theological interest in? Don't you think the probability is higher that you misunderstand him?

 

[LuisDantas]

Again, you are assuming things which are not written. There is nothing there that argues for a purely cynical attempt to fool God.

Do you honestly see a third possible reading for it, beyond cynicism and idiocy?

I sure do not.

This was from the 17th C, not the 21st so the argument was not aimed at converting a mass market of atheists.

It could be seen as a counter to rationalistic arguments against abandoning faith because 'you can't prove God exists'. It could be seen as an incentive towards a sincere attempt to worship God and 'correct' one's doubts. As has been noted, he died before finishing his work and it consequently relying on editors to compile fragments of his thought into a purportedly cohesive text, who precisely PW was aimed at is highly debatable.

You can interpret it in many ways, I suppose. But very few make any logical sense.

In light of this, why do you choose to assume that one of history's great thinkers and a pioneer of the scientific method and probability theory was a rank moron incapable of grasping primary school level reasoning regarding a God who he took a great theological interest in? Don't you think the probability is higher that you misunderstand him?

It is precisely because I know him for a rational person that I assume he meant it in jest or as irony.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Well, since neither "The God Delusion" or "God is Not Great" advocate for the existence of a god, and "Mere Christianity" argues for the existence of a god, you are probably correct. Is the point of your reading to prop up what you wish to believe, or do you actually want to take a rational look at theism?