An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[Augustus]

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

I sure do not.

That's because you seem to assume assume it is aimed at convincing (modern) generic atheists to become fake Christians.

I explained 2 alternatives in the previous post.

Can also add:

It's an example to demonstrate an abstract point about probability in a very easy to understand manner.
It is meant for a very limited audience to provoke thought.
etc.

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

They do, you just don't seem to make much effort to look for them. People still publish peer-reviewed texts on the probabilistic philosophy involved.

Philosophical Studies

February 2003, Volume 112, Issue 3, pp 279–290| Cite as

Do Vague Probabilities Really Scotch Pascal’s Wager?

Do Vague Probabilities Really Scotch Pascal’s Wager?

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

What would be the 'joke' or 'irony' though?

Anyway, he was a man of his time, not some modern prankster, and if we start from the fact that he was a 17th C philosopher but also devout believer imo we get a better understanding of context than treating him like a 21st C Rationalist.

 

[Paradox22]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "prop up what I wish to believe to be". I read God Delusion because I expected to find it enjoyable. I did not say I would read "Mere Christianity." I don't think I would enjoy it very much but I might learn from it. If I were going to undergo the project to try to believe in Christianity, I might read it. Or not.

What do you mean by taking a rational look at theism? I spent a lot of time thinking about atheism. I figure it might be time to go back and do a little more listening to counter-arguments. Is that what you mean by taking a rational look at theism? I'm trying to become more open-minded in how I think, and in how I interact with people I disagree with. It's not easy, though.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "prop up what I wish to believe to be". I read God Delusion because I expected to find it enjoyable. I did not say I would read "Mere Christianity." I don't think I would enjoy it very much but I might learn from it. If I were going to undergo the project to try to believe in Christianity, I might read it.

What do you mean be taking a rational look at theism? I spent a lot of time thinking about atheism. I figure it might be time to go back and do a little more listening to counter-arguments. Is that what you mean by taking a rational look at theism? I'm trying to become more open-minded in how I think, and in how I interact with people I disagree with. It's not easy, though.

Fair 'nuff..maybe I misread or misunderstood you. Nothing wrong with looking at both sides. In fact, I think it is imperative.

 

[Paradox22]

A Pascalian Wager For Atheists.

As an atheist, I believe that Pascal’s Wager is compatible with atheism because it need not presuppose the truth of any religion.

I want to first point out that Pascal isn’t suggesting that an atheist can just decide to believe in a religion. My interpretation is that he suggests that the prudent thing to do is to embark on a sort of project which has as it’s goal, the eventual belief in a God that will in fact reward you for becoming a believer and follower of that faith. I’ll call this the Pascalian Project. The "Many Gods Objection" (MGO) points out that the unbeliever has no knowledge of which religion is true. Therefore, (s)he must choose a target for his or her Pascalian Project. But how could an atheist like myself choose a target religion? Other philosophers have tried to discuss ways to determine which religion is more probable, but I realize there is no reason for an atheist to believe that any religion is more probably true than any other. Therefore, such strategies seem unlikely to impress an atheist. I propose the following alternative strategy, and welcome your feedback.

(1). The religion should be one such that there is the highest likelihood that I would succeed, without being in conflict with point (2), below.

(2) I must not choose, as a target for my Pascalian Project, any religion such that the moral principles demanded by that religion are inconsistent with my own moral beliefs.

(3). Acknowledging the fact that, as an atheist, I am unlikely to successfully come to believe in the god(s) of any religion, I should give special consideration to any religion that suggests I might get credit for trying, even if I ultimately fail to believe.

(4) The Win-Win scenario where I successfully target the religion that happens to be true, has far greater rewards if I am right than if I am wrong.


Please provide feedback because I haven't seen this strategy of answering the Many Gods Objection in any publication.
Thanks,
Tim

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Pascalian Wager For Atheists.

As an atheist, I believe that Pascal’s Wager is compatible with atheism because it need not presuppose the truth of any religion.

I want to first point out that Pascal isn’t suggesting that an atheist can just decide to believe in a religion. My interpretation is that he suggests that the prudent thing to do is to embark on a sort of project which has as it’s goal, the belief in a God that will in fact reward you for becoming a believer and follower of that faith. I’ll call this the Pascalian Project. The "Many Gods Objection" (MGO) points out that the unbeliever has no knowledge of which religion is true. Therefore, (s)he must choose a target for his or her Pascalian Project. But how could an atheist like myself choose a target religion? Other philosophers have tried to discuss ways to determine which religion is more probable, but I realize there is no reason for an atheist to believe that any religion is more probably true than any other. Therefore, such strategies seem unlikely to impress an atheist. I propose the following alternative strategy, and welcome your feedback.

(1). The religion should be one such that there is the highest likelihood that I would succeed, without being in conflict with point (2), below.

(2) I must not choose, as a target for my Pascalian Project, any religion such that the moral principles demanded by that religion are inconsistent with my own moral beliefs.

(3). Acknowledging the fact that, as an atheist, I am unlikely to successfully come to believe in the god(s) of any religion. Therefore, I should give special consideration to any religion that suggests I might get credit for trying, even if I ultimately fail to believe.

Please provide feedback because I haven't seen this strategy suggested or criticized in any publication.
Thanks,
Tim

it sounds very reasonable. Perhaps you might want to add a line about choosing a religion with an attractive heaven. Who wants to spend eternity praising a god. Sounds deadly boring to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

it sounds very reasonable. Perhaps you might want to add a line about choosing a religion with an attractive heaven. Who wants to spend eternity praising a god. Sounds deadly boring to me.

And rather submissive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And rather submissive.

How submissive is your personality? How long would you survive on a diet of The Old Rugged Cross and Amazing Grace?

 

[Revoltingest]

How submissive is your personality? How long would you survive on a diet of The Old Rugged Cross and Amazing Grace?

Not my favorite genre.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not my favorite genre.

Obviously not mine either.

 

[Trailblazer]

I propose the following alternative strategy, and welcome your feedback.

Gladly... I love talking to atheists. They tend to be pretty intelligent...

(1). The religion should be one such that there is the highest likelihood that I would succeed, without being in conflict with point (2), below.

You would succeed with my religion, the Baha’i Faith, but I cannot say if it would conflict with your own moral beliefs.

(2) I must not choose, as a target for my Pascalian Project, any religion such that the moral principles demanded by that religion are inconsistent with my own moral beliefs.

Do you mean that the religion would not have beliefs you consider immoral, or do you mean that it would not have any stipulations regarding what you can and cannot do, like Laws you have to follow?

(3). Acknowledging the fact that, as an atheist, I am unlikely to successfully come to believe in the god(s) of any religion, I should give special consideration to any religion that suggests I might get credit for trying, even if I ultimately fail to believe.

Yes, you would get credit for trying with my religion, even if you do not succeed, because sincerity and effort are really important to God.

(4) The Win-Win scenario where I successfully target the religion that happens to be true, has far greater rewards if I am right than if I am wrong.

Yes, you will definitely get a bigger reward if you believe in my religion. It has its rewards in this life but it also has an afterlife that is much better any of the other religions.
Of course, if you are wrong about any religion, you won't get any rewards, but you won't get any punishment either.

 

[Trailblazer]

it sounds very reasonable. Perhaps you might want to add a line about choosing a religion with an attractive heaven.

My religion has the best heaven ever.
We are told not to do what we do to get to heaven, but it is a side benefit.

Who wants to spend eternity praising a god. Sounds deadly boring to me.

No, the afterlife is nothing like that in my religion...
I'd tell you more details but it's late and I have to eat and go to bed so I can get up early tomorrow to go to work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My religion has the best heaven ever.
We are told not to do what we do to get to heaven, but it is a side benefit.

No, the afterlife is nothing like that in my religion...
I'd tell you more details but it's late and I have to eat and go to bed so I can get up early tomorrow to go to work.

Sorry, it may have been the best heaven ever. It is now in second place:

About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, it may have been the best heaven ever. It is now in second place:

About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

How do you know my heaven is not better?

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know my heaven is not better?

Did you check out the link? Do you have beer volcanoes? How about stripper factories?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You have to make your decision before you die.
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you check out the link? Do you have beer volcanoes? How about stripper factories?

My heaven is much better than that... It has other worlds you get to travel to... You will never get bored.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

 

[Mock Turtle]

You have to make your decision before you die.
Pascal's Wager - Wikipedia

Pascal states this but why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My heaven is much better than that... It has other worlds you get to travel to... You will never get bored.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

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

 

[Paradox22]

Do you mean that the religion would not have beliefs you consider immoral, or do you mean that it would not have any stipulations regarding what you can and cannot do, like Laws you have to follow?

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