An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[Trailblazer]

Pascal states this but why?

You have to read the whole article.
Lemmie know if you have any questions and I will get back to you tomorrow...
I am already way past my bedtime and I have work tomorrow.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why travel when one's heaven already meets all desires and then some?

Don't you think you would get bored with beer parties and strip clubs for all of eternity?

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe in certain moral principles that are not based on any religion. However, in many ways they are consistent with many religions. For example, stealing is morally wrong. I believe that. That is consistent with several other religions. No problem there. However, I have beliefs on issues such as abortion and civil rights that differ from the teachings of some religions. These differences may be deal-breakers, or I might tell myself that I believe in the fundamental parts of religion (A) but I believe the teachings are wrong about certain issues. I will not do something that I believe is immoral just because a religion that I am not so certain about, says differently. I hope that makes sense, and answers your question

Yes thanks, I understand now. I would not do that either, but of course I am certain of my religion... But if there was something in it that conflicted with my moral values I would probably not have picked my religion in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't you think you would get bored with beer parties and strip clubs for all of eternity?

I don't know. I guess there is only one way to find out.

can you loan me a few million bucks?

 

[Paradox22]

Could someone explain Pascal's contention that one has to make a decision concerning this.

The idea is that at any point where you choose to take one course of action or not to do that, you are ultimately making a choice. We are presented with the choice of whether to attempt to do what Pascal considers to be the rational or prudent course of action. It really is no different from saying we have to choose whether to go to work today or not. He is just stressing the incredible importance of this decision. He thinks it may well be a matter of eternal reward or damnation. That's pretty high stakes. And if what I call the "pascalian project" is worth doing, there is no point putting it off. We don't know how long we have until it i too late.

 

[Paradox22]

All this time I have discussed the "Pascalian project" as taking steps with the goal of coming to believe. That isn't quite right in my opinion. The real objective is not necessarily aimed at achieving belief. It is more generally doing whatever it is such that whoever is in charge would approve. It may be that belief is essential or that belief is irrelevant as long as you behave properly. I have always thought that makes the most sense. Pascal is going under the assumption that the deity in charge is a "jealous God" which really cares that you believe in Him. That is by no means certain. Leading atheists point this out in an effort to object to Pascal's Wager. I don't think it is a problem with the Wager. It just means that you have to expand the possibilities from the notion that God demands that you believe, to the possibility that maybe god only cares about your behavior.

In my case, perhaps I broke with religion when I came to believe in a sort of determinism. I know that I was repulsed that a god would punish someone for doing what (s)he was determined to do by the laws of physics (or the heavy influence of environment). I cannot remember ever really believing in Hell. Heaven? Maybe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You have to read the whole article.
Lemmie know if you have any questions and I will get back to you tomorrow...
I am already way past my bedtime and I have work tomorrow.

Nothing in the article explains why one has to make a decision - just his contention. There are lots of things in life one has to leave in abeyance because of lack of knowledge so why does this particular issue require a decision?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The idea is that at any point where you choose to take one course of action or not to do that, you are ultimately making a choice. We are presented with the choice of whether to attempt to do what Pascal considers to be the rational or prudent course of action. It really is no different from saying we have to choose whether to go to work today or not. He is just stressing the incredible importance of this decision. He thinks it may well be a matter of eternal reward or damnation. That's pretty high stakes. And if what I call the "pascalian project" is worth doing, there is no point putting it off. We don't know how long we have until it i too late.

But one can make any number of decisions without reference to this issue. So why the insistence on having to make a decision concerning the existence of a God? As I've mentioned, we have to leave many things in abeyance due to lack of evidence (some are not comfortable with this - me too, but I manage), so why is this question any different? Anything I do in life is done without considering whether there is or isn't a God - they all just depend upon whether I see them as beneficial to myself and/or others - regardless of whether a God exists or not. My morality is self-determined - but obviously influenced by others and the past. In my world, God is just left as a question mark. The issue just doesn't bother me - other than the consequences of doing so - as in all the religions affecting my life.

 

[Augustus]

But one can make any number of decisions without reference to this issue. So why the insistence on having to make a decision concerning the existence of a God?

Because if you are aware of one or more concepts of god you have made at least one decision regarding them, that was implicit in your comprehension.

It's really the choice to practice a religion or not practice a religion though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Because if you are aware of one or more concepts of god you have made at least one decision regarding them, that was implicit in your comprehension.

It's really the choice to practice a religion or not practice a religion though.

No no no no - what others propose, I can accept, not accept or ignore. I prefer to do the latter with regards religious matters. Why should the existence of something thus impose itself on my life so as to force me to make a decision? Especially if it is just an invention in the minds of others - which for me encapsulates religion in general. I could no doubt nominate a host of other imaginary ideas or inventions. Am I supposed to have a position with regards all, or as I believe, just ignore them with no decisions made?

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know. I guess there is only one way to find out.

I would not want to find out the hard way.

can you loan me a few million bucks?

I only have about a couple million but I am saving it for emergencies.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nothing in the article explains why one has to make a decision - just his contention. There are lots of things in life one has to leave in abeyance because of lack of knowledge so why does this particular issue require a decision?

In short, one has to make a decision before they die because we do not have free will in the afterlife.

Why do you think there is so much in scriptures about believing in God?
That's okay though, just don't fall and get hurt again... you have some time to decide...
You should leave belief in abeyance until you have something you can really believe in... you should not just believe out of fear, but rather out of knowledge.

You are you doing? Did you ever get home?

 

[Augustus]

No no no no - what others propose, I can accept, not accept or ignore. I prefer to do the latter with regards religious matters.

You might prefer to do this, but unfortunately that isn't actually an option open to you

Why should the existence of something thus impose itself on my life so as to force me to make a decision?

Because you were born a human and your human cognition forces this upon you. By comprehending something you necessitate a decision of acceptance or some degree of rejection. Every piece of information we comprehend on any topic imposes itself on your life whether you like it or not.

Some scientific explanations:

Why You Can't Help Believing Everything You Read - PsyBlog

You can't not believe everything you read

How mental systems believe

Am I supposed to have a position with regards all, or as I believe, just ignore them with no decisions made?

'Supposed to' doesn't come into it, it's just a statement of fact that you can't ignore it, you can only decide that it is unimportant/inane/false/etc.

Ignoring the question of mere belief, following a religion is analogous to being given a cup of tea, you can drink it or not drink it. Ignoring the tea is simply not drinking it, it is not a 3rd position.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In short, one has to make a decision before they die because we do not have free will in the afterlife.

Why do you think there is so much in scriptures about believing in God?
That's okay though, just don't fall and get hurt again... you have some time to decide...
You should leave belief in abeyance until you have something you can really believe in... you should not just believe out of fear, but rather out of knowledge.

You are you doing? Did you ever get home?

Yeah, I'm home now. Just about coping - what with internet shopping and the assistance of some carers, but it's not easy. Apparently another four weeks before the casts come off. I guess most American homes are a bit more spacious than British ones so that a wheelchair is quite a tight squeeze in many places.

I'm sorry, but whatever proposals are made about any God and/or an afterlife are no concerns for me. As for the quote Man proposes but God disposes, well I dispose of any propositions I can't answer. Hence my leaving the matter alone, and I see no reason to be forced to make a choice. My universe might vary from others. I'm still a believer in free will but I see no relevance to the wager, since no matter how one tries to disprove it, we have to live with what we believe.

What others believe is no concern for me. We all no doubt can look at the evidence and make up our minds but what others decide, even if it is a majority view, again doesn't bother me. I just don't think Pascal has a right to say we must choose.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You might prefer to do this, but unfortunately that isn't actually an option open to you



Because you were born a human and your human cognition forces this upon you. By comprehending something you necessitate a decision of acceptance or some degree of rejection. Every piece of information we comprehend on any topic imposes itself on your life whether you like it or not.

Some scientific explanations:

Why You Can't Help Believing Everything You Read - PsyBlog

You can't not believe everything you read

How mental systems believe



'Supposed to' doesn't come into it, it's just a statement of fact that you can't ignore it, you can only decide that it is unimportant/inane/false/etc.

Ignoring the question of mere belief, following a religion is analogous to being given a cup of tea, you can drink it or not drink it. Ignoring the tea is simply not drinking it, it is not a 3rd position.

Sorry - before the first person (proto-human) proposed there was a God, or spirits, there was a position where no such 'knowledge' impinged on their lives. Subsequently, any coming into contact with this idea could accept or reject it or just leave it in the air, neither accepting nor disbelieving. What has changed since then? Just a lot of hot air and proposals, that's all.

PS If you can up with any advice as to which entity I should or should not believe in, that would be useful - but probably ignored.

What exactly is agnosticism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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...

Con artists take advantage of this system of thinking in what's often called the "British Lottery" scam:

Congratulations! You've won the British Lottery!

You've won an obscenely large amount of money... more than you could ever hope to spend in your life. To get it, all you have to do is pay an administration fee. The fee is negligible, especially compared to the amount you've won.

It's true that there's no reason at all to assume that this email couldn't be coming from a scammer who will take that fee and run without giving you your "winnings," but since the promised amount is so large and the fee is so small, don't you have to overlook any misgivings and just trust that it's real?

 

[Augustus]

Sorry - before the first person (proto-human) proposed there was a God, or spirits, there was a position where no such 'knowledge' impinged on their lives.

And if you invented a time machine and wiped your memory then this could apply to you, unfortunately until that point arrives this is not really relevant.

Subsequently, any coming into contact with this idea could accept or reject it or just leave it in the air, neither accepting nor disbelieving.

Disbelieving or 'leaving up in the air' are decisions you make as is explained in the scientific literature I linked to previously.

"Believing is not a two-stage process involving first understanding then believing. Instead understanding is believing, a fraction of a second after reading it, you believe it until some other critical faculty kicks in to change your mind."

Also, in some situations (like this one) there is no practical difference between the 2 positions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Disbelieving or 'leaving up in the air' are decisions you make as is explained in the scientific literature I linked to previously.

Here's a jar of gumballs:

Do you believe that there is an even number of gumballs?

If not, you must believe that there is an odd number of gumballs, right?

After all, if we can't merely disbelieve a claim, then having heard the claim that the number is even, you must have either accepted it as true or rejected it as false (i.e. accepted the claim that the number is odd as true). You couldn't just reserve judgement and hold neither position, right?

So which one did you end up believing? I won't ask you for a justification; I'd just like to know which MECE option you have accepted.

 

[Augustus]

You couldn't just reserve judgement and hold neither position, right?

Not according to the science (you can later adopt such a position, but it is a decision not an abstention from making a decision). It's quite funny how 'Rationalists' frequently dismiss out of hand any scholarship that goes against their prior assumptions though.

I'd be happy to read any scientific scholarship you have on the subject which shows otherwise, until then I'll go with the likes of Dan Gilbert and Daniel Kahneman over random chap off of the internet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would not want to find out the hard way.

I only have about a couple million but I am saving it for emergencies.

Would you believe me if I said it was an emergency?

I am getting old and I need to be able to make an informed decision.