Talk:Pascal's Wager

From RationalWiki

I'm laying 5:2 odds that any wager you place with Pascal will go to his next drinking/drugging spree. ~~ CЯacke® 17:26, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Recently, the Catholic church chose to abolish Limbo. Limbo was the supposed place where the souls of unbaptised babies and good people who never heard of God went to. In the new cosmology, such being will go directly to heaven and, presumably, collect $200 if they pass Go. My question is this, "Did the Pope just argue, quite eloquently, for the utter abolition of the Christian church?" Think about it, if everyone who has never heard of God or Jesus gets into heaven on a pass, shouldn't the church be more concerned with the salvation of the greatest number of souls rather than its own monopoly on faith? Wouldn't they serve God better by removing all knowledge of the church and its teachings from human memory?

Good question, except it did not abolish Limbo. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

"And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!" - Homer Simpson, Homer the Heretic Garble 21:21, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Contents 1 Pascal's Wager 2 Odd sentence 3 Criticism section 4 "Belief" vs. "System of belief" 5 Further (Hidden) Mathematical Assumptions 6 something to say

[edit] Pascal's Wager

Isnt the argument against it slightly contradictory? If you "choose one out of infinite possible varieties," and the "chance of worshiping him and not a nonexistent entity instead is one out of infinity," the chance cannot also be zero. Rangeley 10:36, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Maths isn't my strong point so I'm not sure. No doubt the more numerate amongst us will comment. But I've got a different objection to this one. Are there really an infinite number of gods to chose from? I'd be hard pressed to name 50. Even if we include the entire history of mankind and supposed that every single individual created a new concept of god there still wouldn't be an infinite number of them.--Bob_M (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

The infinite possibilities would also include those not yet thought of. Rangeley 11:14, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, if we include imaginary entities that have not yet been imagined then I suppose you are right - though I can't help feeling there may be just a touch of special pleading in there somewhere. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I guess its best not to belive in god because i dont like a god that will condemn me to hell if i don't believe in him. That sounds more like Satan. Elassint Throw things at me 15:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

The one out of infinity thing resolves to zero under some mathematical conventions that are used so certain problems can be solved. While it is a useful convention, it can also be proven untrue in some constructs. Knowing what construct one is operating under is important to whether or not one uses the convention. (Example of "proving" it - the limit as x approaches inifinity of 1/x is zero, but that's only one way to analyze or solve for 1/infinity). In this construct, I don't think it is valid to use the convention, so "one out of infinity" just resolves to "really bad odds", not "zero". human 14:32, 12 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Odd sentence

This sentence seems to keep coming back: (please accept this example for argument sake since the Christian God is the same as the Islamic God)? It doesn't seem to add a lot to the article. Could the bunches of numbers who want it please turn up here to talk about it? Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 16:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Sounds like Dr. Doolittle, to be honest. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Could be, but as the same person also carried out some spelling corrections on a post of Elassint's I think there is another possibility.--Bob^{bing up} 16:59, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I think User:71.62.227.44 is Dr. D, but i am not. --75.89.115.231 17:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Criticism section

Having also read the Talk above, I'd say that the Criticism section should be modified. First of all, even if there were an infinite number of Gods, not every one has the same probability. I'd say that the most popular Gods would have a finite, albeit small, probability of existing. Let's say the Catholic God wins all with 0.2 % probability of existing. Under Pascal's Wager, I'd be compelled to believe in that God. Second, the infinite number of possible Gods should be grouped into taxonomic groups, representing more or less the same God. If the real God were Allah instead of the Catholic God mentioned above, there's a good chance I will see neither Christian angels nor Muslim virgins, but I'd be quite confident on a Protestant God understanding my heresy.

Instead, the points in the Assumptions section are valid, and I wouldn't suggest to anybody to embrace a religion based on Pascal's Wager. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 09:19, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that not every god has the same possibility of existing. Could you elaborate? User:PalMD

It's implicit in the wager, that it's up to you to suppose absolute or relative probabilities. Strictly, we can say nothing about these probabilities. But as well as it's possible that there are infinite equiprobable gods, it's also possible that one god is much more probable than another. Given that both cases are possible, the best solution is to apply the wager. For that, use history of religions, science, experience, feelings, to bet on a good horse God. For example, it could be argued that the probability of a god of being narcisistic with vanity is more than 50 %. In that case, it's a good guess that god gives some hints of its existence, and as such should be chosen from the revealed ones. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 10:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

The problem is that in this world, none of the gods actually shows up to show up to tell us anything. We have no objective data to work on.75.62.26.190 10:25, 12 February 2008 (EST)

That's why it's called a wager. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

If any god did show up the whole thing would become academic or do I mean trivial? Oh no, It's that already. Susan^Miouw 10:36, 12 February 2008 (EST)

It absolutely would, Susan! I mean, where is the challenge in believing in something that is obvious to everyone? Nowhere at all, of course; that would be entirely trivial. But to face and defeat a multitude of soul-wracking doubts on a daily basis in order to be able to believe in something for which there is no objective proof whatsoever - to so to speak float freely above the Kierkegaardian 70,000 fathoms of water with no reassurances whatsoever, and yet dare to have faith and be happy about it - now there's a challenge worthy of a human being. You should try it sometime. ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:59, 12 February 2008 (EST)

undent Now there's a thing worthy of Alice: can one try to believe? Or try to have faith?Susan^Miouw 11:13, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Depends, but I don't see why not. It's certainly something that requires some kind of an active action or decision on the part of the would-be believer. Whether that's enough is another question, of course, but I guess one will never know unless one tries. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Dis iz teh funny section E @ CP! "Let's say the Catholic God wins all with 0.2 % probability of existing" - leaving 99.8% odds that one is still wrong! Anyway, after reading your first comment above, I became convinced that one should firmly believe in an unknown and perhaps infinite number of gods. I think then as long as one puts YHWH first, one should fair pretty well at the denouement. Of course, one is also screwed if there are gods one has not imagined yet that require specific spells naming them for salvation. Delicious! human 14:28, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Well people play lotto et co. every week, knowing that they are at a disadvantage, with much less probability of winning prize N.1, which is, arguably?, worth less than a fully paid, all included, unlimited stay in Heaven. I admit though, that it is much more difficult to choose the right god than bying a lotto ticket. It's an art to choose a god, that is probable, offers a good Heaven (endlessly playing the same tune with a harp is not so tempting, is it?), and is similar enough to other gods, in case of picking the wrong one. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 14:49, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Addendum: you may be right, an undefined god may be the best solution, depending on the actual god. Generic prayers now and then, some good actions, some less good actions, being careful not to offend any god - better omophobia than a crusade - and a place in heaven is guaranteed. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 14:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I suspect it is "probable" that if any super-powerful entity exists that preserves our consciousness after death, they also don't really care about the details of our miserable lives here on earth, and thus we all go to "heaven". Which could be hell for some people ;) human 15:42, 12 February 2008 (EST)

AKj and Susan - give Hell Is the Absence of God by Ted Chiang a read (won the Hugo and Nebula awards for Best Novelette in 2002). At one point, this story was published to the web for free on a micropayment site (now costs $1.25) though you can still find copies of it floating around to read. Its an odd story, and by no means do I suggest that this is proof of any deities existence, but rather read it as a story about the challenge in believing in something that is obvious to everyone. --Shagie 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Couldn't it be that the multiple gods are different perceptions of the same God? Just a thought ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs}

Given that they are all equally improbable - why not? In fact, I've always maintained that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was simply an incarnation of the Invisible Purple Unicorn. However I've received threatening letters from both religions for suggesting this so I always post under a pseudonym. --Bob^{bing up} 15:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

[edit] "Belief" vs. "System of belief"

All right. So the contentious phrase is: "[That belief is costless] is untrue, as any person who subscribes to a particular religion must attend its ceremonies and follow its rules, no matter how archaic or silly." Human further says: "It's not about "belief in God" as an abstract, it is about ascribing to a system of belief (which is what the Wager is about)"

I disagree on a number of levels. There is nothing in the Wager itself which leads to anything other than "living as if God exists" or however it is that Pascal puts it - or indeed, pretty much faith "as an abstract". Pascal himself certainly believed that such belief would necessarily lead to Catholic Christianity, because that was what he saw as the correct religion, but you can't deduce that from the wager itself. Here as always, it's important to distinguish between faith in itself and the institutional structures that surround it, such as ceremonies, dogma, canon law and so forth.

Indeed - and this may come as a surprise to some - even religious believers are occasionally able to make up their own minds about "archaic or silly" rules without necessarily being less religious for that. I find the level of generalization quite surprising (or perhaps not).

Finally, another point - I understand that the Wager apparently "relies on several logical fallacies". Keeping in mind that the Wager is not meant as a proof for the existence of God at all, but rather as a suggestion to what one should do in the absence of reliable evidence, perhaps the article at least should mention what these particular fallacies are? They have names, you know. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I think a bigger point is being missed; the argument doesn't work on the premise that belief (or system of belief) is costless, but that it is finite. NightFlare 13:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Good point. Hadn't thought of that, actually. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I would like to second a couple AKjeldsen's points. Pascal is not seeking to prove the existence of any god, what he is saying, is that as "a betting man" the odds are on the side of belief. Pascal was a Catholic in a Catholic country. Unlike "born-again" type religions, in Catholicism a mere belief that God exists does not get you into heaven. Belief is proved by acts. Therefore believing in God (for Pascal) means living as if God exists, and living as if God exists is more than just performing archaic rituals.

Now I don't want to get into an acts versus faith debate here. I have an opinion on whether acts alone, done in the absence of the knowledge of God, and therefore without rejecting God, is fine. I don't think that one can truly believe in God if one's actions don't reflect that belief. Further, I don't think that hypocritical performance without belief is going to get you anywhere. The crux of the problem was really corruption and its justification by the Church. If anything, belief to Pascal was more about how one lives, rather than belief in itself, than it is today in Catholicism.

Thus, to Pascal, belief in God is coterminous with actions done in furtherance of that belief. I too doubt that Pascal was accepting the performance of all the rites and rituals of the Catholic Church as necessary (the wager wasn't whether to act as if Catholicism was right), but even if he was, the most important part of belief for Catholicism/Christianity (and therefore the most important guide to one's actions) is to love God, and love your fellow humans. Most of the major religions provide the same moral guide to behavior. Further the view of many religions is that you are going to have to account for your actions at some point: during your lifetime, at your death, or in your next life, and that if you haven't behaved according to that moral guide, there will be negative consequences.

This could be risky if you pick the wrong religion, but only if living that belief would cause you to violate the major tenets of that religion or offend its god(s). But, lo and behold, except for certain rituals, most of the world's religions advocate the same types of actions; "be good" or "don't sin" may be too simplistic a formulation, but there is a lot of overlap: don't kill (unnecessarily), don't steal, perform your family and civic duties, have some regard for others, do charity, etc. -- basically, don't act as if the only thing that counts is looking out for number one in a material sense.

Was Hinduism known to Pascal? Certainly he was aware of some pantheistic religions which required specific actions directed to different gods, different sacrifices, etc. Thus Pascal was taking a risk that in the end he would not have performed actions required by these religions. For whatever reason he didn't think that changed the odds significantly or that the costs weren't high.

In religions that believe in reincarnation, the cost for bad behavior is having to make up for these in the next life and losing some ground in your quest to end the cycle of rebirth.

Also, remember that if you pick the wrong religion, in the worst case scenario, you're presumably no worse off than if you had chosen not to believe at all.

So, what have you lost if you were wrong and there was no god at all? You've lost the opportunity to "eat, drink and be merry" 24/7. You've lost a couple of hours every sabbath or every day when you've engaged in worship. You've performed some needless rituals. We can come up with a lot of opportunity costs but as Nightflare points out above, whatever the costs, they were finite. Death is forever. Ileanadu 12:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)

This argument from Ileanadu, in its various forms, has always interested me:

This could be risky if you pick the wrong religion, but only if living that belief would cause you to violate the major tenets of that religion or offend its god(s). But, lo and behold, except for certain rituals, most of the world's religions advocate the same types of actions; "be good" or "don't sin" may be too simplistic a formulation, but there is a lot of overlap: don't kill (unnecessarily), don't steal, perform your family and civic duties, have some regard for others, do charity, etc. -- basically, don't act as if the only thing that counts is looking out for number one in a material sense.

Isn't it just better to "be good" and do the various things listed without any thought towards religion? This is something that has always somewhat angered me about religious people. My thought is - would these people be horribly monstrous otherwise were it not for a religion that they subscribe to? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:08, 28 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Further (Hidden) Mathematical Assumptions

I'd like to point to http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Pascal's_Wager , which I partly wrote and from which I'm putting forward the following:

1) As mentioned above, the probabilties for believing in various Gods are critical here. As it stands, the formulation of the argument is insufficient as it doesn't mention these. This could be left as-is, and another "Assumption" added that says the argument assumes a finite probability for the Christian God's existence, and an infinitely small one for others.

2) Another assumption made is that a rational agent should maximize the average utility. I argue in the above that he should really follow the typical utility, which is not really affected by low-probability events.

3) The 'guillability problem' should be emphasized, too - the same argument could be used to sell snake oil, or any other 'conclusion', clearly indicating that it is not an argument that should convince a rational agent. ^{— Unsigned, by: YR / talk / contribs}

[edit] something to say

I just want to say that you will eventually find out that God exists or not when you die or maybe you'll never figure it out. Is it possible that there will be future proof of the existence of God besides holy religious books?

Just curious, anybody here a believer that doesn't know if God exist for sure or not? Cause I'm one and I'm really not sure if Go exists for or not.

Everyone has their own opinions....^{— Unsigned, by: Fairoozhaider / talk / contribs}

I'm not a believer myself (agnostic, actually, but leaning towards atheism) so I'm technically undecided. I would argue that it is almost impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God. It is, however, very easy to disprove the God described in the "holy books" of almost any religion. You may be interested in this.

Anyway, this probably isn't the best place for this discussion. You might want to try the Saloon.

Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Τe†rоиіαn ^{hey! that's my raccoon!} 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) A future proof of God is theoretically possible (though I can't envision what kind of proof would be conclusive on this), but the point of this wager is about choosing the best course of action when we don't know for certain one way or the other. If you believe in God without certainty, then what are your reasons for doing so? Something like the ones here, or more complicated? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)