An Unholy Guide to Pascal's Wager

[Mock Turtle]

I am glad you are home but sorry to hear it is not easy. Will you be able to walk around when the casts come off? It is amazing how many things we take for granted in life until something like an accident or illness occurs. But at least in your case it is only a temporary inconvenience. I saw a man in the store in front of me in line yesterday and he was in a wheelchair and he had no legs. People just have to adjust to these things and some people do better than others. This life is not that great for everyone and what people think is so great in the material world is just an illusion anyway. It is all so transitory, so fleeting.

I presume I will be back to normal when the casts come off. Nothing said so far to indicate otherwise, but I might have to take more care with my feet - perhaps wearing more supportive boots. That's not a problem, given all the climbing and walking boots I still have.

I have been very fortunate so far with my physical health but as you know I have not been as fortunate with emotional health. It is a lot better now than ever, but I have a genetic predisposition to depression and anxiety so I will never bean upbeat person. However, I have an inner peace nobody can touch. Also, if I had not suffered so much in life, I would not be who I am today; I would be shallow.

We do often take things for granted, but I do believe (from my own experiences) that many things can be put right that often appear insoluble. I'm a bit snappy with my current inabilities (as expected perhaps) but I'll cope as I usually do.

Yes, American homes are generally more spacious. We have a very big house, but you’d never wheel your way around my house because it is so cluttered... That tends to happen when one has 11 cats and all the stuff needed to care for them.

Clutter is my problem too.

I do not like Pascal’s Wager as proposed because it would be dishonest to pretend to believe when you really don’t believe just for a reward. In the Baha’i Faith, we are not supposed to do what we do for a reward in the afterlife, although we know there will be one because it would not be just for God to expect us to believe and follow the teachings and laws of His religion if there was no reward in an afterlife.

Yep, that is one valid criticism which I would also claim.

By not making a choice you are making a choice because you are choosing not to believe in God or a religion.

Not really - not anymore than not making a decision regarding UFOs or aliens for example (which again I leave in abeyance) - which is the equivalent in the more likely realm of actuality. I have made a choice with regards religions - I see them all as fabrications of humans, hence the results of such are invalid for me - including suppositions as the soul, afterlife or heaven and hell. And of course, having such a view, Pascal's wager means little for me since I have no knowledge of what might result from either believing (in any particular God) or not believing. I can't accept propositions from others I'm afraid as to what might occur - since I see them as being in error.

I do not think that Pascal is saying we must choose but rather I think he is saying it is wise to choose, given the stakes are very high.

He definitely says we must choose, because, by being born, we have embarked on a course, and hence have to make a decision at some point. I disagree.

One can choose to believe the stakes are not high if they want to, but that will not change reality. If there is a God who revealed a religion He wants everyone to believe in, then the stakes are very high. What the punishment will be if we choose not to believe in it I cannot say... I can only say what the rewards will be for believing, and only generally, not specifically.

Of course I cannot know for certain, but I do not think that God punishes anyone, although He might judge us. I think we inflict punishment upon ourselves.

For me, whatever we ascribe to God is mere supposition, and I can't accept anything coming via humans in any manner (with regards religious beliefs), hence I have exactly zero knowledge with regards the issue. Given this, I would be extremely foolish to make any sort of decision - in my view. Pascal seems to make the assumption of outcomes when he hasn't really got such knowledge - only what others have proposed and he has accepted.

You are on the right track because it should never be your concern what others believe. Baha’u’llah wrote that.

Which is why I leave religions to others, and I'm not bothered what others believe as long as it doesn't impinge on my life too much.

That passage kind of indicates there might be a Judgment, but I cannot say that for certain. God likes to leave us in the lurch about some things. I think He does that to keep us on our toes, even though I do not think it is necessarily fair.

As I've mentioned, I try to behave as I see fit without any regard as to the consequences when I die. I reckon I have seen heaven and hell already, so I doubt I will be disappointed if it turns out bad.

 

[Augustus]

If you’ve come up with a way for the quantity of a whole number of countable objects to be something other than even or odd, I’d love to hear it.

We still seem to be talking about different things.


If you had said:

There are an even number of gum balls in this tub.

That information must necessarily affect me. If I were concerned I might choose to decide that I can't tell how many there are. In this case though, as I have no evidence to see one way or the other, if I were later forced to choose odd or even your initial statement has primed my mind to guess even. This doesn't mean that I will guess even, just that there is now a greater than 50% chance.

My point was about how we cannot remain uninfluenced by any information we comprehend, and how we must make decisions to not perceive things as true.

You seem to be making an unrelated point, I guess trying to be analogous to belief in god. On this issue regarding PW it's not the same thing as you either choose to follow religion X, or you choose not to follow religion X there is no in-between position. Refusal to believe is functionally the same as choosing to disbelieve.

 

[Augustus]

I have no belief in the soul, an afterlife, heaven or hell etc. (lack of evidence), so why should I be bothered with such questions? I am agnostic with regards the origins of the universe and any creator, and all the suppositions from religion (via humans) mean nothing to me - from the evidence available to my consciousness - such that any results of making a decision mean even little. Pascal can go himself.

All of which are decisions you have made. You have decided religion is unimportant to you, you have not remained unaffected by religion. You made a choice.

Religions might affect others - not me - they are just an annoying intrusion into my life.

If you had really been unaffected then you wouldn't find it annoying.

The fact that you talk about them and have adopted multiple positions on religions means they have certainly affected you.

As many do, you choose to live your life without conscious reference to religion but this is not the same as being 'unaffected' by religion or remaining neutral on it.

 

[Augustus]

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?

This is decision making under risk. Pascal's wager relates to decision making under conditions of uncertainty which requires a different philosophical outlook.

 

[Mock Turtle]

All of which are decisions you have made. You have decided religion is unimportant to you, you have not remained unaffected by religion. You made a choice.



If you had really been unaffected then you wouldn't find it annoying.

The fact that you talk about them and have adopted multiple positions on religions means they have certainly affected you.

As many do, you choose to live your life without conscious reference to religion but this is not the same as being 'unaffected' by religion or remaining neutral on it.

Of course I'm affected - everyone is - how the can anyone avoid religions, especially when about 85% apparently believe in one?

What I am saying is that I do not accept what any of the religions propose - soul, afterlife, etc. - so any framing of a God question merely amounts to whether such exists or not. The consequences of my making a decision will be unknown to me - even if others seem to think they know otherwise about their position (or mine).

Hence Pascal's wager is irrelevant to me. I just do not accept any propositions outside of what I know (in this regard) - I was born, I live, I will die, and the universe exists - by what means I do not know and I accept this. Religions are just far too arrogant in my view in trying to push things they have no definite evidence over, having just beliefs. As for the morality aspect - how we should behave - I believe morality evolved from the past, as seen in other species too, so I am guided by that rather than picking anything up from religions. Although I will admit to being influenced by some of the more sane ones, like Buddhism. The basics of morality are just common sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is decision making under risk. Pascal's wager relates to decision making under conditions of uncertainty which requires a different philosophical outlook.

Pascal’s Wager is framed as decision making under risk. It purports to give an exhaustive list of possible outcomes.

This is wrong, of course, but it’s only one of the many way that the rationale of Pascal’s Wager fails.

 

[Paradox22]

So you do not believe in free will? Free will is an important concept because we cannot be held responsible for our beliefs or actions unless we have free will.

It would seem strange to be so interested Ethics and Morality if I did not believe in some sort of free will. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. I just have trouble understanding how free will is feasible, so my moral principles tend towards empathy for others under the assumption that, to some extent, what they do is not their fault. I'm not saying I'm good at being non-judgmental. I'm saying that I can't help but have a gut feeling that to some extent, people deserve every benefit of the doubt because their behavior, and ours, MAY be determined.

I believe that humans have the will/ability to make choices based upon their desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. How free they are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints. However, we have the ability to make moral choices. For example, I can choose to murder my husband or not. Regarding choices that relate to physical needs, we are compelled to eat and sleep, but we can chose what we eat and when and how long we sleep.

I cannot argue with that.

I definitely believe that God takes into account our childhood upbringing, heredity, adult experiences and present life circumstances. Much is this lies outside of our control, so we cannot be held accountable for it.

I like your conception God. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I might, in a Pascalian manner, choose your religion to believe in because I think the single most important thing for an unbeliever to consider when choosing a target religion for the Pascalian Project is that it is consistent with his or her own moral beliefs. It is only a secondary consideration that judgement is contingent on believing. I wouldn't know. But it does make sense that at the very least, judgement as based on moral behavior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would seem strange to be so interested Ethics and Morality if I did not believe in some sort of free will.

Maybe you just couldn’t help it?

 

[Paradox22]

Pascal’s Wager is framed as decision making under risk. It purports to give an exhaustive list of possible outcomes.

This is wrong, of course, but it’s only one of the many way that the rationale of Pascal’s Wager fails.

I'm not so certain the Wager can be dismissed this way. Pascal thinks he has provided logical arguments in favor of Christianity. In the Wager, he seems to be saying that "now that I have given you good reason to believe in Christianity, it would be practical for you to do whatever you have to do so that you end up believing." He recommends learning from others who have managed to go from seeing the reasons for Christianity but not really believing, to seeing the reasons and believing. He talks about not letting your "passions" get in the way of coming to believe in what Pascal thinks he has given you sufficient reason to believe. If going to church makes it more likely that you will be inspired, then he suggests it would be prudent to do so. There is a logic to that.
Read this way, the issue lies in the weakness of the reasons he suggests, not in his claim that it is prudent to act as if the religion was true

 

[Paradox22]

Pascal’s Wager is framed as decision making under risk. It purports to give an exhaustive list of possible outcomes.

This is wrong, of course, but it’s only one of the many way that the rationale of Pascal’s Wager fails.

I'd be interested in what objections you have other than the Many-God objection. An article I just read suggests that a lot of the common objections can be answered when we interpret Pascal as I explained above.

Personally, I think Pascal over-looks the most fundamental point for a skeptic: Given that there is uncertainty about which religion is true, it is imperative that you target a religion that is consistent with your own moral principles. This way, you are not sacrificing your principles in attempt to get into the good graces of a deity that you don't really believe in. Above all else, we should live moral lives. Beyond that, we should realize there is a non-zero probability that whatever religion is true, it may be one where the one who judges your fate cares whether you believe in it. That is where the Wager comes into play. As a secondary consideration, in my opinion

 

[Trailblazer]

We do often take things for granted, but I do believe (from my own experiences) that many things can be put right that often appear insoluble. I'm a bit snappy with my current inabilities (as expected perhaps) but I'll cope as I usually do.

Now you sound like me. I consider myself a person who copes, adjusts, because I have had to cope and adjust to all manner of adversities. I was only laid up once when I got hit by a car while riding my bike, I was in the hospital for three days, and after that they said I should not go back to work for at least two weeks but I went back after one.

I consider my life just coping, and because I have so many responsibilities that come with a job, 11 cats and three houses, so I do not expect any more than just getting by day by day. I do not know if that will ever change and I don't care because I do not aspire to personal happiness.

By not making a choice you are making a choice because you are choosing not to believe in God or a religion.

Not really - not anymore than not making a decision regarding UFOs or aliens for example (which again I leave in abeyance) - which is the equivalent in the more likely realm of actuality. I have made a choice with regards religions - I see them all as fabrications of humans, hence the results of such are invalid for me - including suppositions as the soul, afterlife or heaven and hell. And of course, having such a view, Pascal's wager means little for me since I have no knowledge of what might result from either believing (in any particular God) or not believing. I can't accept propositions from others I'm afraid as to what might occur - since I see them as being in error.

Okay, but that is your choice since that is what you have decided based upon the way you evaluate the information that is available to you.

That is kind of like me with my roofing project. By not choosing a roofer I have chosen not to hire a roofer, yet. However, I now have nine bids so I am getting closer to a decision... I tend to be thorough. EYE ROLL

The thing is, some things we have to decide about so we do... I have to get a roof because it is leaking and I have a tenant living in that house and he has been very patient, but you do not have to get a religion or a God.

I do not think that Pascal is saying we must choose but rather I think he is saying it is wise to choose, given the stakes are very high.

He definitely says we must choose, because, by being born, we have embarked on a course, and hence have to make a decision at some point. I disagree.

You have decided not to decide and that is okay... I guess that can be called agnosticism. That is better than making a wrong decision.

For me, whatever we ascribe to God is mere supposition, and I can't accept anything coming via humans in any manner (with regards religious beliefs), hence I have exactly zero knowledge with regards the issue. Given this, I would be extremely foolish to make any sort of decision - in my view. Pascal seems to make the assumption of outcomes when he hasn't really got such knowledge - only what others have proposed and he has accepted.

If you think that Messengers of God are ordinary humans I can understand why you would think this way. I would not accept anything from a human and base my life upon what he said either. There would be no reason to believe in a human because humans are fallible, but since I believe that Baha'u'llah was more than human and infallible I have a reason to believe everything He wrote.

You are on the right track because it should never be your concern what others believe. Baha’u’llah wrote that.

Which is why I leave religions to others, and I'm not bothered what others believe as long as it doesn't impinge on my life too much.

That’s your choice, and at least you do not attack religion and God like some nonbelievers. You are an island onto yourself. I can relate to that because I really don’t get involved with others of my religion, I just believe in the teachings and try to follow them.

As I've mentioned, I try to behave as I see fit without any regard as to the consequences when I die. I reckon I have seen heaven and hell already, so I doubt I will be disappointed if it turns out bad.

You are a man right after my own heart.
My husband quoted his mother saying: “I don’t know if there is a heaven and I don’t know if there is a God, but I know there is a hell, because I have been in it my whole life.” I can certainly relate to that. I don’t think about the afterlife unless it comes up in a forum discussion like this one. I just try to behave as I see fit without any regard as to the consequences when I die, because that is what my religion teaches we should do.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would seem strange to be so interested Ethics and Morality if I did not believe in some sort of free will. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite. I just have trouble understanding how free will is feasible, so my moral principles tend towards empathy for others under the assumption that, to some extent, what they do is not their fault. I'm not saying I'm good at being non-judgmental. I'm saying that I can't help but have a gut feeling that to some extent, people deserve every benefit of the doubt because their behavior, and ours, MAY be determined.

I agree that people deserve the benefit of the doubt because we are not free to do anything we might want to do or free to do the same things others do. I only believe we are free to choose between right and wrong and thus responsible for our moral choices. Even so, there are always exceptions because there are criminals who were terribly abused as children and that plays into their decisions. I can also be judgmental, but since I have the Writings of my religion I know better and I strive to overcome this bad quality.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh

I like your conception God. I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I might, in a Pascalian manner, choose your religion to believe in because I think the single most important thing for an unbeliever to consider when choosing a target religion for the Pascalian Project is that it is consistent with his or her own moral beliefs. It is only a secondary consideration that judgement is contingent on believing. I wouldn't know. But it does make sense that at the very least, judgement as based on moral behavior.

I am a little bit confused about the goal of the Pascalian Project. Is the goal to find a religion you can believe in so you can satisfy the requirement of believing in God thus giving you a better chance in the afterlife?

Regarding getting to heaven, as I said before in my religion we have what are called the Twin Duties. The first duty if recognition of the Messenger of God form this age, which is Baha’u’llah. The second duty is adherence to His Laws. Moral behavior falls under the second duty.

I agree about the importance of moral behavior. I was not raised in any religion since both my parents dropped out of Christianity before I was born. I think I got morals from my parents nevertheless. I stumbled upon the Baha’i Faith during my first year of college. I was not looking for a religion or for God. I did not even believe in God before I became a Baha’i and the main reason I joined was because the teachings resonated with my values.

Never having been exposed to the Bible or the teachings of Jesus religion was all new to me. I never much went in for participation in the Baha’i activities in my community but I always believed in the Baha’i teachings. I never thought much about a relationship with God. Only during the last five years have I thought much about the implications of God’s existence, maybe because I am getting older now.

No offense intended to the Christians but I think it is immoral to get a free ride, not have to do anything and to be free of sin just because Jesus died on the cross. I believe good deeds and moral behavior are very important and necessary for individual spiritual growth and for humanity to progress as a whole. I believe Jesus taught that but it was lost in the doctrines of the Church which were all about individuals being saved and forgiven. I find this reprehensible and I see Christians as victims of the Church. They just believed what they were told, usually when they were children and thus very impressionable.

Mind you, safeguarding the interests and promoting the unity of the human race was not a big deal back in 1970 when I became a Baha’i, but it is now becoming clearly apparent how necessary that is, as the world situation spirals out of control. That is one reason why I believe that the Baha’i Faith is the religion mankind needs in this new age.

“The Great Being saith: O ye children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity. This is the straight Path, the fixed and immovable foundation. Whatsoever is raised on this foundation, the changes and chances of the world can never impair its strength, nor will the revolution of countless centuries undermine its structure.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 215

 

[Mock Turtle]

Now you sound like me. I consider myself a person who copes, adjusts, because I have had to cope and adjust to all manner of adversities. I was only laid up once when I got hit by a car while riding my bike, I was in the hospital for three days, and after that they said I should not go back to work for at least two weeks but I went back after one.

I consider my life just coping, and because I have so many responsibilities that come with a job, 11 cats and three houses, so I do not expect any more than just getting by day by day. I do not know if that will ever change and I don't care because I do not aspire to personal happiness.

Okay, but that is your choice since that is what you have decided based upon the way you evaluate the information that is available to you.

That is kind of like me with my roofing project. By not choosing a roofer I have chosen not to hire a roofer, yet. However, I now have nine bids so I am getting closer to a decision... I tend to be thorough. EYE ROLL

The thing is, some things we have to decide about so we do... I have to get a roof because it is leaking and I have a tenant living in that house and he has been very patient, but you do not have to get a religion or a God.
You have decided not to decide and that is okay... I guess that can be called agnosticism. That is better than making a wrong decision.

If you think that Messengers of God are ordinary humans I can understand why you would think this way. I would not accept anything from a human and base my life upon what he said either. There would be no reason to believe in a human because humans are fallible, but since I believe that Baha'u'llah was more than human and infallible I have a reason to believe everything He wrote.

That’s your choice, and at least you do not attack religion and God like some nonbelievers. You are an island onto yourself. I can relate to that because I really don’t get involved with others of my religion, I just believe in the teachings and try to follow them.

You are a man right after my own heart.
My husband quoted his mother saying: “I don’t know if there is a heaven and I don’t know if there is a God, but I know there is a hell, because I have been in it my whole life.” I can certainly relate to that. I don’t think about the afterlife unless it comes up in a forum discussion like this one. I just try to behave as I see fit without any regard as to the consequences when I die, because that is what my religion teaches we should do.

It's just a shame that for much of my life it has been mainly hell rather than heaven though. But I can't complain - no one to complain to. And get those decisions made - allow for some sloppiness - I do it all the time.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's just a shame that for much of my life it has been mainly hell rather than heaven though. But I can't complain - no one to complain to. And get those decisions made - allow for some sloppiness - I do it all the time.

Ditto on the hell...
But I cannot complain, even though I do, as I just did on the other thread.
#12 Trailblazer, A moment ago
You can always complain to me.
I can't make decisions anymore, or make them ever so slowly, that is a big part of the problem.
The roof, the yard, the rent... the list goes on.
You and I, part of it is that we have no children, that makes it hard when we get older.
I have my husband but he is a lot older than me, so....
The best solution is to try not to think.