Another view of "Pascal's Wager"

[MPat]

Ok, it surely looked to me that believing is god was a motivation.

Um, what?

There is clearly a misunderstanding here… Grammatical mistakes seem to suggest that it might be that the problem is with your understanding of English, but I’m not sure…

Did you think I was saying that? Is that some unrelated belief you hold? Something else?

The odds that after 198,000 years of human existence, god decided to intervene, in an illiterate, peasant part of the world, to impregnate a woman who never slept with anyone with the son of god, which no one (even himself) claimed to be until at least 30-40 years after his death, in which he was crucified on a cross and risen from the dead, would have to be so indescribably low that it would be easier to hit the power ball. Excuse me from being skeptical. I would think that god would want me to use my brain.

If I attempt the futile exercise of trying to understand god myself, I think of a being looking down on humanity on a group of people claiming that a human rose from the dead because he was the son of god and I think either he is laughing hysterically, or greatly disturbed to the point that they would be they would probably be amongst the first to be voted off the island. Especially when those people are mistreating other human beings due to passages in an old book. Shameful. Obviously not as bad a Muslin extremists, but there was a time when they were.

Your position is inconsistent. Just look:

The odds that after 198,000 years of human existence, god decided to intervene, in an illiterate, peasant part of the world, to impregnate a woman who never slept with anyone with the son of god, which no one (even himself) claimed to be until at least 30-40 years after his death, in which he was crucified on a cross and risen from the dead, would have to be so indescribably low that it would be easier to hit the power ball. Excuse me from being skeptical. I would think that god would want me to use my brain.

So, you proclaim “I would think that god would want me to use my brain.” right after, in effect, proclaiming that you are not going to, um, “use your brain” here. That’s a bad idea if God exists and we are right about Him, that’s a bad idea if God exists and you are right about Him, that’s even a bad idea if God doesn’t exist (for you end up looking silly).

How about this variant of Pascal’s Wager?

I would think that god would want me to use my brain.

I don’t see why believing in a god is a motive anyway. Who says he/she/it cares what you believe?

So, you dismiss our views concerning God (based on what we consider to be revelation), claiming that we can’t know that, but then proclaim your own view, based on nothing whatsoever (unless you want to count wishful thinking as “something”)?

 

[laylow]

So, you dismiss our views concerning God (based on what we consider to be revelation), claiming that we can’t know that, but then proclaim your own view, based on nothing whatsoever (unless you want to count wishful thinking as “something”)?

Hence why I said “If I attempt the futile exercise of trying to understand god myself…”

 

[MPat]

Of course it is. Because that is exactly what many apologists assert, namely that belief is a volitional action, that one is able to choose what to believe, even if one finds it irrational. If you take time and review the thread, you will see that this is precisely what your brethren assert.

Maybe you should actually read the thread (or the rest of this post). Our position is a bit more nuanced.

One can want to believe for other than spiritual or philosophical reasons.

Are you, by any chance, stating your own belief here? For if you do, there isn’t much left to argue about.

For example, I’m poor and a pot of gold is worth $1.3 million USD. Just believe and go to the end of the rainbow. Far fetched, yea.

Yes, far fetched. That’s why the request to believe that leprechauns exist leads to nowhere.

More practically, when I was single I wanted to believe because lack of belief is a " deal breaker" to most women, especially one young lady I really had an interest in. But dispite my best efforts I could not nor could I commit to the faking it. I suspect most atheists/agnostics have wanted to believe at some point but just couldn’t.

Maybe social pressures, maybe more existential reasons, but in the end it seems tough to make yourself believe something.

You know, there is no contradiction between our position and things you wrote here.

You are saying that getting from wanting to believe to believing might be hard. I am saying that getting from willing to believe to believing is the easy part.

But what you mean by “wanting” does not seem to be the same thing as what I mean by “willing”.

“Wanting” seems to indicate a presence of some motive. In your example the motive was concerned with that young lady. But it looks like that was not the only motive in play.

On the other hand, “willing” indicates that the will has already judged the motives “for” to be more weighty than motives “against”.

So, yes, getting from “wanting” to “willing” is hard when motives “against” are strong. Getting from “willing to believe” to “believing” is easier.

 

[Gorgias]

Then, I guess, we have a problem.

We really don’t. Hopefully, I can convince you.

The definition of belief is simple: “acceptance the veracity of a proposition”.

Well, that’s one definition. For the sake of argument, let’s accept it for now.

And there is nothing about a volitional choice here.

Actually… there is! And, it comes from the verb itself: “acceptance”. Unless you’re suggesting that the normative way that humans ‘accept’ propositions is without forethought (or through coercion), then in a very real sense, the implicit meaning of your definition is that there is some volitional process in effect.

Just consider the process performed by toddlers. Their parents present a proposition, and the toddlers accept it as true, without examining it.

Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying: you’re trying to convince me that the case of toddlers and parents is the normative situation in this context? Umm… yeah. Right.

In any case, I would suggest that this scenario illustrates the situation in which a toddler does not have the mental faculties to reach a reasoned decision, and therefore, chooses to allow his parents to make propositional decisions on his behalf. So, yeah… my case still holds.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The point is that one can plausibly want to believe in God (yes, one can also plausibly want not to believe in God). But it doesn’t look plausible that one can want to believe in leprechauns. Why would one do that? What is the motive?

Who says one can’t want to believe in leprechauns?

 

[Sophia]

We really don’t. Hopefully, I can convince you.

I am always ready and willing to be convinced. After all learning new ideas is a wonderful thing.

Actually… there is! And, it comes from the verb itself: “acceptance”. Unless you’re suggesting that the normative way that humans ‘accept’ propositions is without forethought (or through coercion), then in a very real sense, the implicit meaning of your definition is that there is some volitional process in effect.

Of course there are many instances when we accept propositions without conscious deliberations (most of them, actually). The point is that our intellectual processes are divided between the grey matter and the white matter. We have control over the conscious part, which happens in the grey matter, and that is about 5% of all the intellectual activities. The rest is beyond the volitional control. For example we have no control over our “likes and dislikes”, we have no control over our “understanding”, or “preferences”. Can you volitionally choose to like a food that you find repulsive? (Of course you can choose to eat such a food, but you cannot choose to like it.) Or volitionally choose to understand a language you don’t know? Of course that is impossible.

I was wondering for a long time why some people keep on insisting that beliefs can be volitionally chosen (even apart from the wager). Eventually I understood that having volitional control also includes the possibility to blame someone for their beliefs (or lack of them). If you have no control over something, you cannot be blamed for it.

In any case, I would suggest that this scenario illustrates the situation in which a toddler does not have the mental faculties to reach a reasoned decision, and therefore, chooses to allow his parents to make propositional decisions on his behalf. So, yeah… my case still holds.

A toddler is not sufficiently developed to make a decision, or to delegate to decision making process to the parents. I have no idea what the word “chooses” mean in this context. A “choice” which is not voluntary? A “choice” which is not even understood? I am baffled.

There is definitely one new thing that I learned from this conversation: “I have no idea what meaning you assign to certain words”.

Let’s review very quickly the mental process. One hears (or reads) a new proposition. The white matter of the brain processes it (it is much faster). The result is either acceptance, or rejection or doubt. The grey matter is only involved if the “reported” outcome is doubt. About 95% of the mental activities happen in the white matter. The grey matter (the cortex) is where the conscious process takes place. This is pure biology / neuro-science, not subject to discussion.

Continued in the next post.

 

[Sophia]

However, the topic of the thread is not the details of the information processing in the brain, it is the proposition of Pascal about the “belief” or “lack of it”, as if it were an intellectual game. The first problem was that it treats the “belief” as if it were under volitional control.

But, just for the fun of it, let’s pretend that one can volitionally choose what to believe. Is the wager correct, mathematically speaking? There are four possibilities:

1. God exists and you believe that God exists.
2. God exists and you do not believe that God exists.
3. God does not exist but you believe that God exists.
4. God does not exist and you do not believe that God exists.

According to original wager, if #1 is correct, you will gain infinite positive reward. If #2 is correct, you will be punished eternally (infinite negative reward). If #3 or #4 is correct, you did not lose anything. But this analysis is incorrect. Even if God exists and you believe that God exists, from that it does NOT follow automatically that you will reap infinite rewards. According to Jesus, the road to salvation is narrow, and only a few will find it, while the road to damnation is wide and most people will find it.

So, even if God exists and you believe, the expected outcome is negative. Small percentage multiplied with infinite positive reward is contrasted with big percentage multiplied with infinite negative reward (damnation) results in infinite negative outcome. (Mind you, I am talking about the expected outcome, since we talk about a “wager” - which is a game of chance. This is like a game, where you toss a die, and if the result is 6, you gain a 100 dollars, but if it is something else, you lose 500 dollars.) Therefore both #1 and #2 lead to a negative (expected) outcome. If #3 is correct, you squandered a significant portion of your life on meaningless rituals and you deprive yourself of many positive actions you could have enjoyed. If #4 is correct, you only gained. So the final analysis is that believing in God leads to a negative expected value, and therefore it needs to be discarded. (If you are not familiar with the concept of the “expected value”, I suggest to look it up on Google.)

Pascal was the “father” of probability theory, and he was undoubtedly a genius. But the theory has developed since his time, and he was not aware of the intricacies of risk / reward analysis.

There is one more problem. The wager encourages you to be intellectually dishonest to yourself, to pretend that God exists and hope that this pretend will somehow change into reality. It also assumes that God can be bamboozled by a fake belief. So it is a pretty bad “bet” - mathematically speaking, of course. Most people don’t “play” this game. They assume that only other people will be damned, they see themselves as the winner of the “game”. I would never encourage anyone to treat life as a game… Let’s just use our best judgment based upon the available evidence and conduct our life accordingly.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you volitionally choose to like a food that you find repulsive?

Again, this is the erroneous assertion in the non-believer’s arsenal. No one is asserting that the legitimacy of belief hinges on the ability to choose against what one’s intellect is telling him! That’s simply ludicrous. However, what we are asserting is that conscious beliefs are chosen volitionally. Your argument here does not address that assertion.

A toddler is not sufficiently developed to make a decision, or to delegate to decision making process to the parents. I have no idea what the word “chooses” mean in this context. A “choice” which is not voluntary? A “choice” which is not even understood? I am baffled.

Spend more time around toddlers, then. Wait until they want something that they cannot have, or are being asked to take something that they do not want. You’ll see plenty of volitional behavior and choice-making going on.

Let’s review very quickly the mental process. One hears (or reads) a new proposition. The white matter of the brain processes it (it is much faster). The result is either acceptance, or rejection or doubt. The grey matter is only involved if the “reported” outcome is doubt. About 95% of the mental activities happen in the white matter. The grey matter (the cortex) is where the conscious process takes place. This is pure biology / neuro-science, not subject to discussion.

Isn’t this the very definition of a “volitional decision”, then? (name removed by moderator)ut… process… decision… action/belief. So… beliefs are under volitional control. Your own argument demonstrates the truth of the proposition.

 

[Gorgias]

just for the fun of it, let’s pretend that one can volitionally choose what to believe

The self-refutation in your posts is amazing:

• You have read a proposition (Pascal’s wager)
• You have processed it.
• You reject it.

In other words, you have volitionally chosen a new belief: Pascal is mistaken.

Your own example demonstrates that your argument fails. QED.

(BTW: your take on the wager demonstrates that you misunderstand it, as well – it’s meant to bootstrap the process, not to bring it to fruition. Therefore, your “narrow path” argument fails, here.)

There is one more problem. The wager encourages you to be intellectually dishonest to yourself, to pretend that God exists and hope that this pretend will somehow change into reality.

Yes… 'cause probability and statistics is a dishonest endeavor. Man, I wish I’d had you to argue that point while I was taking undergrad stats!

 

[MPat]

But, just for the fun of it, let’s pretend that one can volitionally choose what to believe. Is the wager correct, mathematically speaking? There are four possibilities:

God exists and you believe that God exists.
God exists and you do not believe that God exists.
God does not exist but you believe that God exists.
God does not exist and you do not believe that God exists.

According to original wager, if #1 is correct, you will gain infinite positive reward. If #2 is correct, you will be punished eternally (infinite negative reward). If #3 or #4 is correct, you did not lose anything. But this analysis is incorrect. Even if God exists and you believe that God exists, from that it does NOT follow automatically that you will reap infinite rewards. According to Jesus, the road to salvation is narrow, and only a few will find it, while the road to damnation is wide and most people will find it.

So, even if God exists and you believe, the expected outcome is negative. Small percentage multiplied with infinite positive reward is contrasted with big percentage multiplied with infinite negative reward (damnation) results in infinite negative outcome. (Mind you, I am talking about the expected outcome, since we talk about a “wager” - which is a game of chance. This is like a game, where you toss a die, and if the result is 6, you gain a 100 dollars, but if it is something else, you lose 500 dollars.) Therefore both #1 and #2 lead to a negative (expected) outcome. If #3 is correct, you squandered a significant portion of your life on meaningless rituals and you deprive yourself of many positive actions you could have enjoyed. If #4 is correct, you only gained. So the final analysis is that believing in God leads to a negative expected value, and therefore it needs to be discarded.

Nonsense.

You write as if you choose between set {1, 2} or {3, 4}. But that would mean that you choose if God exists. And no, that’s not something your will can affect.

Thus all those “Therefore both #1 and #2 lead to a negative (expected) outcome.” are irrelevant.

You can choose between {1, 3} and {2, 4} - you can choose if you believe in God. And 1 is much better than 3, while 4 is not much better than 2.

There is one more problem. The wager encourages you to be intellectually dishonest to yourself, to pretend that God exists and hope that this pretend will somehow change into reality. It also assumes that God can be bamboozled by a fake belief.

It looks like you misunderstand what counts as “intellectually dishonest”, just as you misunderstand what counts as “will” (or “volitional”).

I get an impression that you write as if it was intellectually dishonest to hold beliefs (or perform actions) inconsistent with one’s feelings, to base them on “cold” reason.

That would also explain why you find it hard to believe that beliefs are affected by will - for yes, will has little direct control over feelings.

And yes, we do say that (at least whenever possible) beliefs and actions are to be decided based on “cold” reason, and not based on feelings.

 

[Sophia]

However, what we are asserting is that conscious beliefs are chosen volitionally.

I have no idea what the word “chosen” means in YOUR vocabulary. Let’s try to clarify via a hypothetical conversation:

Mr. A: I chose to believe that two and two makes four.
Mr. B: Was that a volitional choice?
Mr. A: Of course. It is a conscious belief, chosen volitionally.
Mr. B: Could you have chosen to believe that two and two makes three? Or five?
Mr. A: What nonsense! How could I have chosen to believe something that is irrational?
Mr. B: Hmmm. So what does the word “choice” mean in this respect? If you could not have chose otherwise, on what grounds do you use the word “choice”?
Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

 

[MPat]

I have no idea what the word “chosen” means in YOUR vocabulary. Let’s try to clarify via a hypothetical conversation:

Mr. A: I chose to believe that two and two makes four.

Mr. B: Was that a volitional choice?

Mr. A: Of course. It is a conscious belief, chosen volitionally.

Mr. B: Could you have chosen to believe that two and two makes three? Or five?

Mr. A: What nonsense! How could I have chosen to believe something that is irrational?

Mr. B: Hmmm. So what does the word “choice” mean in this respect? If you could not have chose otherwise, on what grounds do you use the word “choice”?

Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

What exactly does “could not have chose otherwise” mean?

That looks like something that relies on the the definition of free will as “When things are random, but not really”… Of course, it leads to self-contradictions right away.

Yes, Mr. A had options to believe “2+2=4”, “2+2=3”, “2+2=5”, he weighted those options, found that “2+2=4” is the best one, and thus he chose “2+2=4”.

Could he have chosen otherwise? Well, if he would have weighed options differently (had some other motives), and he would have found some other option the best, he would have chosen that option.

Could the choice be made mostly unconsciously? Perhaps. We do not consciously think about moving legs while walking, but we do will those movements.

That’s how will works.

And that’s what Pascal’s Wager needs.

All that we have to deny is that beliefs are somehow automatically, effortlessly, chosen using only evidence and no other motives play any part.

But then, you do not seem to assert that.

 

[Gorgias]

I have no idea what the word “chosen” means in YOUR vocabulary.

You continue to choose examples that have nothing to do with choice. Is this just an unhappy coincidence, or are you deliberately attempting to be illogical?

The question of what the sum of two and two is, is not a matter of ‘belief’. It’s a matter of mathematical axiom. If you want to make the case that mathematical axioms are matters of belief, please be my guest. No reasonable person will disagree with you. However, if you continue to attempt to offer non sequitur after non sequitur, it will be clear that you’re not attempting to discuss the issue at hand.

Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

Mr Gorgias would tell Mr A, “why are you willing to let @Sophia conflate ‘mathematical systems’ with ‘arguments which lead to belief’?” One would hope Mr A would respond, “I don’t know; she seems to think it’s a reasonable response. I sure don’t…”

 

[BoyGenius]

I am used to hearing the traditional Pascal’s Wager and the arguments for it. However, it just refers to belief in God, not a specific religion.

When I think about it from that perspective, I think Christians are quite ballsy.

Using Pascal’s logic, wagering that Jesus, a human being, is God, would have some pretty dire circumstances if incorrect. I don’t think anything could be considered more blasphemous than that.

Most certainly it would be “safer” to be a theist?

When you say “…Christian’s are quite ballsy”, do mean you are not Christian? What is your belief or creed, or philosophy?

Pascal’s Wager is to open the person to consider they do not really have anything to lose just by believing God exists. It’s not a thorough examination of God’s presence. But, a beginning. To consider. Nothing articulate.

You can apply Pascal’s Wager in many ways. And in a very practical manner as well. It goes along something like “…it wouldn’t hurt…to believe.” Nothing lost, but all the promises of something gained. That in Christianity, the emphasis is Christ’s love and mercy. Freely given. He does not ask for us to give Him powers, thrones, or dominions. He doesn’t ask us to pay Him for His Sacrifice. He doesn’t ask us to earn His Salvation. But to receive it. And of course there are conditions. For no one go to a doctor if they were not sick, in general. Jesus offers His love and mercy. But you must receive it. For He cannot force you. Hence, freewill.

Pascal’s Wager is that you have the freewill to accept/believe or not. And so if you chose not to. God is not forcing you to, either way. But, His love and mercy is always insistent to believe in Him, in Christ His Son, and through His Resurrection. And Pascal’s Wager is you have nothing to lose for believing in that. You lose nothing, but the possibility of gain - Eternal Life in the Presence of God, Who brings you all fulfillment that you nor me, nor anyone can fathom. Because it is a priceless treasure He keeps for you, for me, and everyone else in His love. One day we will see God face to face. Nothing to lose, only to gain.

 

[ericc]

Christians are atheists of every god accept the Christian god. The odds are probably 1 in 1 trillion at best to be “right.”

Wrong. We choose the Abrahamic God over other gods. Are there a trillion gods? Is choosing a god to worship a probabilistic exercise? Only if you throw a dice to make that decision.

 

[Sophia]

The question of what the sum of two and two is, is not a matter of ‘belief’. It’s a matter of mathematical axiom.

You merely pushed the problem one step back. How are the mathematical axioms established? Does one need to volitionally accept the veracity of the axioms, or are they self-evidently true? If they are self-evidently true, then one cannot “believe” that they are false, and as such there is there is no volitional intellectual activity involved in accepting them. You believe that the axioms are self-evidently true - I hope.

Maybe you wanted to say that we deal with “knowledge”, not “belief”. Fine. But the definition of knowledge is: “justified, true belief”. So you cannot avoid the reference to “a conscious belief”, which is accepted volitionally - according to you. (And that is what I deny!)

But if you prefer, here is a non-axiomatic presentation.

Mr. A: I believe that applying an acidic solution to a litmus paper will turn its color red, while applying an alkaline solution turns it to the color blue.
Mr. B: Was this a volitional choice to believe it?
Mr. A: Of course. It is a conscious belief, chosen volitionally.
Mr. B: Could you have chosen to believe the opposite?
Mr. A: What nonsense! How could I choose something against my senses?
Mr. B: Hmmm. So what does the word “choice” mean in this respect? If you could not have chosen otherwise, on what grounds do you use the word “choice”?
Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

Hopefully he will have something rational to say. I am really interested in finding out what does “volitional choice” mean in your vocabulary. Also how does this volitional choice correspond to the grey-white matter of the brain, where the conscious-subconscious information processing takes place. Because any speculation that is not based upon the physical reality is merely empty speculation.

As for the wager, I presented a thorough analysis of it.

 

[MPat]

Mr. A: I believe that applying an acidic solution to a litmus paper will turn its color red, while applying an alkaline solution turns it to the color blue.

Mr. B: Was this a volitional choice to believe it?

Mr. A: Of course. It is a conscious belief, chosen volitionally.

Mr. B: Could you have chosen to believe the opposite?

Mr. A: What nonsense! How could I choose something against my senses?

Mr. B: Hmmm. So what does the word “choice” mean in this respect? If you could not have chosen otherwise, on what grounds do you use the word “choice”?

Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

OK, what were other options here?

In the case of “2+2=4” we could at least construct mostly fake alternatives “2+2=3” and “2+2=5”, even if (outside of jokes and Orwell’s “1984”) no one really considers them. Here I can’t think of any alternative options that one could consider.

And yes, when will only gets to choose from one option, it is really not much of a choice.

If you want a “mathematical” example with one option having been proved true, take “0.9999… = 1”. It has been proved, it has an obvious alternative option.

And yes, there are many people who reject this proposition. And yes, they reject it by an act of will. They choose not to trust the proof.

Also how does this volitional choice correspond to the grey-white matter of the brain, where the conscious-subconscious information processing takes place.

And here we have another choice. You do not have a proof that that’s what happens. You chose to believe that.

Because any speculation that is not based upon the physical reality is merely empty speculation.

Or, in other words, you choose to reject anything non-physical. Or, at least, to believe that you reject anything non-physical.

As for the wager, I presented a thorough analysis of it.

And we with Gorgias have shown why this “thorough analysis” is worthless.

Not to mention that it was a “speculation that is not based upon the physical reality”, and thus “merely empty speculation”, as you seem to call it…

 

[Gorgias]

You merely pushed the problem one step back. How are the mathematical axioms established?

Through mathematical reasoning. Are you really gonna assert that Pythagoras divined a2+b2=c2 through a mere personal (but non-volitional) belief that it was manifestly true? Or that, he came to accept it without exercise of thought when a triangle fell on his head, a la Newton? C’mon, now… not even you – who seems to have quite a stake in the argument at this point! – would make those kinds of claims… would you?

Does one need to volitionally accept the veracity of the axioms, or are they self-evidently true?

One either discovers them through hard work, or learns about them (verifying through proof or construction). It is this method that leads one to accept – through an act of the will, supported by rational thought – that they are true.

If they are self-evidently true, then one cannot “believe” that they are false, and as such there is there is no volitional intellectual activity involved in accepting them. You believe that the axioms are self-evidently true - I hope.

I do not – and I hope you don’t, either. You’re really trying to sell us on the idea that you saw the Pythagorean theorem written on a blackboard somewhere and said to yourself, “yes! this must be true!”

Maybe you wanted to say that we deal with “knowledge”, not “belief”. Fine. But the definition of knowledge is: “justified, true belief”.

That really isn’t a good definition. It’s a good start, in the realm of epistemology, but it’s not an end-point.

So you cannot avoid the reference to “a conscious belief”, which is accepted volitionally - according to you. (And that is what I deny!)

Even if knowledge were simply “justified, true belief”, you’d still have a problem: you’d have to account for how the content of the knowledge – that is, the content that is believed – has been acquired. Your claim is that knowledge is not volitional, if you claim that belief is non-volitional. That’s a difficult conclusion to support, don’t you think?

 

[Gorgias]

Mr. A: I believe that applying an acidic solution to a litmus paper will turn its color red, while applying an alkaline solution turns it to the color blue.

Mr. B: Was this a volitional choice to believe it?

Mr. A: Of course. It is a conscious belief, chosen volitionally.

Mr. B: Could you have chosen to believe the opposite?

Mr. A: What nonsense! How could I choose something against my senses?

Mr. B: Hmmm. So what does the word “choice” mean in this respect? If you could not have chosen otherwise, on what grounds do you use the word “choice”?

Mr. A … stays silent… Or does he? Let’s wait for Mr. Gorgias come to the help of Mr. A.

Mr A apparently needs lots of help.

Here’s the thing: if Mr A asserts his proposition based on the previous experience of his senses, then he doesn’t ‘believe’ in the way that we’re using the word in this context. (That is, in the sense of religious belief.) He applies the past experience to the current situation. (Philosophers in the anglo-american tradition have spilled much ink on what this ‘means’… or if ‘meaning’ is involved at all!)

Again, “choosing to believe the opposite” of what my rational mind tells me is not what’s in play here. It’s a red herring, meant to distract us from what’s really in play: our conclusions – the ones we do accept – are chosen volitionally. We do have the choice to reject them: Mr A could have reasoned that perhaps, he wasn’t holding litmus paper, or that it was past its shelf life, or that it had been tainted by something else in the environment.

Yes, @Sophia, there is volition involved. If Mr A could see that… why can’t you?

As for the wager, I presented a thorough analysis of it.

Thorough? Yes. Accurate? Not so much.

 

[Sophia]

if Mr A asserts his proposition based on the previous experience of his senses, then he doesn’t ‘believe’ in the way that we’re using the word in this context.

We??? There is no “we”. Don’t speak in my name. I am using the word in the one and only correct meaning and context: “to accept the veracity of a proposition as true”. Regardless of the topic (religious, scientific, physical, metaphysical or otherwise). You even agreed to this. So what IS the meaning of “belief” as YOU wish to use it? That is what I was hoping that you will explain!

(That is, in the sense of religious belief.)

Uh-oh. There is no difference. Whether one says: “I believe that Jesus died for our sins” or one says “I believe that a pebble will fall downwards, if dropped” or one says “I believe that two and two makes four in the decimal system”, these are all propositions about the external reality (or an abstraction thereof). One accepts either one of these, if one feels that these propositions are adequately established (even if the process to establish their veracity is totally different). And once the veracity is established in the mind of the person, there is no place or possibility to believe otherwise - and as such there is no volition or choice involved any more.

Again, “choosing to believe the opposite” of what my rational mind tells me is not what’s in play here.

Then there is something wrong with your (rational) mind. There is no “choice” involved if there is only one outcome. (Even MPat understood this.) If there is no “other” outcome, there is no way to evoke “volition” in accepting the inevitable final result.