Pascal's wager

I cannot see how you consider the infinite and finite rewards to be the same. Maybe you have a different formulation of the infinite and finite problems in your head. Can you formulate these in an abstract setting with the decision matrix and probabilities so I can understand?


I've already responded on the just/unjust god. Its not in pascals original wager, its just something I added to the discussion because it address the "inverted" god argument daniel put forward. Note any "just god" model need to define what is just and hence adds more assumptions. If you define just god as you go to heaven with/without belief then you presupposed the answer. Define what make a "just god" then use that in the analysis, not the other way around.

 

In my view the wager is not about WHICH god/infinite afterlife model is correct, but about the choice between infinite gain and finite. The particular document with the wager did not really provide an argument for which god, just if there is infinite gain, and you are unsure then you should take the bet.


Choosing which god to follow is a more difficult choice. While Pascal did struggle with the origins of the church, and trying to decide which was the right religion and doctrine, that is outside of the wager.

I presented my generalized form which encompasses all infinite-reward religions as the "believe" side of the bet. I cannot disprove prove your belief in Odin any more I can disprove any other god of your choice. Which to believe/follow is your choice, that is where "faith" come into it. If you find the most compelling religion to be believing on Odin, I would still consider that consistent with taking the wager.

 

Well stated, Daniel.

Tom

 

One aspect of Pascal's Wager that has NOT been touched on in this thread is the very core of religious belief itself: belief. Belief is not something we consciously control. We can influence it, but altering it is a change of mind much deeper than conscious decision.

None of us believes what we think absurd. None of us believes that 2 + 2 = 5; we all recognize the equation is absurd. The premises that underpin HOW we recognize its absurdity could be quite different; for many of us the basic premise is a belief that what we've been told about arithmetic principles is true; others who have deeper mathematical education recognize its absurdity based on the mathematical axioms that define addition. If any of us set out to BELIEVE 2 + 2 = 5 virtually none of us would succeed; the constructs of subconscious (and conscious) reasoning would prohibit it.

Likewise, many of us have through experience, curiosity and intellectual exploration have arrived at a belief that most if not all of religious belief is just as absurd as 2 + 2 = 5. We CAN'T just switch that belief even if we wanted to; it cuts across too much of the grain of reason in our subconscous (and conscious) minds.

We could publicly declare we believe, in the interests of getting along or other social objectives, but not ACTUALLY believe. So where Pascal's Wager argues that the safer bet is to BELIEVE one way or the other, its achievement is out of reach regardless of the soundness of the argument.

 

I actually believe there is a lot of truth here. I don't believe it is directly related to intellect.

 

I took the day to answer.. what better day to discuss the foundations of beliefs..

I have read pascal and I'll agree with your final assertion, the wager does not provide a foundation for a proof of the christian god. As the wager says little about which god it to be considered and makes no effort to argue one god over another. It clearly states its NOT a proof for god, its a argument about belief.

It was published after his death and by people with a strong agenda,

The reason i abstracted it is because people think its mostly about religion and which religion, but any discussion of religion gets people on edge and brings in preconceived biases.. trying to get people to see what that wager is about, without all the religious connotations.


At the heart of why I keep arguing is because of comments like this

This is a far more general question with implications in many directions and if people cannot see this, then maybe an abstraction could help. Reasoning about possible (instead of known) probabilities is the core of decision theory and is exactly what I put forward. Understanding that is important before getting deeper into pascal's wager's other issues.

If you want more on it, fine. If people don't ask and don't make illogical comments I'll consider it done.

 

It does not presume a christian god, it presumes a god rewarding with an infinite afterlife. It does not address which god to consider.

Its not circular, its a decision analysis. What it does is show that if you have doubts, i.e. you already assign a non-zero propability to god existing, you are better off learning/striving to go all in and believe/commit.

I agree with airportkids comment about belief. And that issue was, in my view, a large part of what the wager is about. If you have a weak belief (hence assign probability >0), then its about showing the win/los and hence urging you to learning to believe. There are many learned people that have doubts, but have a small belief in god, but also have doubts. The wager speaks to them as they can then reason that if they have a small belief they should learn to go all the way. Toward the end of the wager he includes the following

He suggests that you can at least begin to try to believe and learn from those who do. It takes time and effort to change beliefs.. but if you try you might, if you don't try its unlikely you will.

 

Maybe we're born that way. This cries out for a tshirt that says "god made me an atheist"

 

But it does presume a god that rewards believers. Any other god produces no gain, or worse, a loss.

Tom

 

And it assumes only one god. What happened to all the others?

 

ound:

Copyright that.

 

Box A might contain $1 with probability p > 0.

Box B might contain $1 Million with probability q = 2p.

Which box do you want?

 

But Odin doesn't require BELIEF. He requires that you DIE IN BATTLE.

Pascal's wager applied to BOTH would require you to BOTH believe in the Christian God AND Die in battle. If you don't do BOTH you don't really accept Pascal's Wager. If you are cherry picking, you are using Pascal's wager to justify what you already want to believe, NOT where the logic leads you.

 

The basic wager does not address which god, or how to choose. It is about religion choice for finite gain vs infinite gain. That is all the logic addresses.

If you want to extend it to multiple religions or choose between religions. You have to reformulate it and even then it will not really solve that problem.

So it does not solve the problem you want (which religion), but that does not make it wrong.. just limited.

 

The more I think about this, the more I like it. We're all born the way we are, and are very unlikely to change. I was put here to test the faith of believers, and my actions will only strengthen their faith and increase their chances of going to heaven. And, because I'm doing what I was told and fulfilling god's purpose for me, I get to go too. The logic is impeccably unassailable.

 

Which is the basis of the original complaint in this thread. Pascal's wager is limited to only those that believe in a Christian God. If you believe in a Christian God, Pascal's wager makes complete sense. But if you are a believer, you don't need Pascal's wager in the first place.

This makes Pascal's wager a pointless exercise. It amounts to one of my favorite statements:

"There are two types of people in the world: those that lump people into two groups, and those that don't."

Tom