Pascal's Wager and Faith

[Anselm33]

Well, just as a matter of Pascal’s actual argument, this isn’t the case: Pascal specifically talks about “an infinity of an infinitely happy life” and appeals to the standard way that decision theory would handle infinite utility and non-zero likelihood.

But suppose the argument is framed in your alternate way; suppose what’s really at stake is an eternal outcome of finite value. Then the argument loses its conclusive force.

There are a lot of difficulties involved in following God, as Jesus himself makes clear in verses like Luke 14:26. As many on CAF are keen to point out, it’s not supposed to be easy. And you wouldn’t have to be crazy to think that, if God doesn’t exist, a person would be worse off for trying to follow him.

So if there’s a downside to following God, the point of Pascal’s Wager is to show that the potential upside outweighs it. But how do we know if that’s the case? In the original version, it’s because the upside is infinite. But if it’s some finite value, the same argument doesn’t work. Instead, it becomes a matter of how much the finite value is, how likely it would actually be realized, and what cost is involved in seeking it. So the argument isn’t really complete: you need to fill in a lot of gaps to reach the same decision-theoretic conclusion that Pascal does. And then the problem is that, to fill in the important “how likely” gap, you’re not really using Pascal’s Wager at all: you’re just appealing to all the other, non-pragmatic arguments for the existence of God. And if you’re going to appeal to those anyway, why not just try to show that God exists without the hand-wavy, unconvincing decision theory?

As I pointed out in my later post there are more advanced ways (see the link) in which decision theory can be used to justify Pascal’s Wager, that is to use a “mini-max regret” option; see again: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=171231979581598
The other point that Pascal makes in his proposition, with which I tend to agree, is that God is infinite and unbounded, mysterious, so there is no way of proving He exists.

 

[Candide_West]

CW:

What evidence eliminates God? (Please use summary words; long explanations not required. If there is reason to explicate on one, or more, of them, we will.)

Your statements, above, are naked assertions (so far). Whereas, Catholics (and other believers) have filled these fora with evidence.

God bless,
jf

By my use of the term evidence there is no evidence for or against the proposition. Much like the other examples I provided. As I said, different people use the term to mean different things. Take Empther for example.

As I said though, if you wish to start talking about evidence then we should really do so on a different thread. All that the Wager says about the evidence is that it is not compelling in either direction. I agree with this statement.

 

[Candide_West]

I don’t think that’s what CW is saying. Rather, he/she is saying that his/her understanding of the word “evidence” is restricted enough that it eliminates the possibility of evidence for or against God.

Not the possibility of it no. I specifically said “there is not but **could be **evidence for the existence of God”

If God exists and so desired clearly he COULD give any evidence that he desired. He could make it personal and 100% effective to each individual (because he’s omniscient) and he could do it in such a manner that it doesn’t affect that individuals free will - as he apparently has for those people he has granted revelations (because he’s omnipotent).

But he doesn’t do these things. Fair enough, that’s his call (if he exists) but in the absence of any evidence I have no choice but to not believe in him.

Again though, this is well off topic. Pascals Wager specifically is NOT about evidence. If we are going to talk about evidence it should really be on a different thread.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

By my use of the term evidence there is no evidence for or against the proposition. Much like the other examples I provided. As I said, different people use the term to mean different things. Take Empther for example.

As I said though, if you wish to start talking about evidence then we should really do so on a different thread. All that the Wager says about the evidence is that it is not compelling in either direction. I agree with this statement.

Pascal was very serious about his wager. Quote of his are in BOLD.

this is from: peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, “I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.” If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.

But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and **"I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—**purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs

Lest we take this argument with less seriousness than Pascal meant it, he concludes: "If my words please you and seem cogent, you must know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after."

 

[Serious]

I have three college degrees in the sciences

Totally out of topic questions. What kind of degrees you have? In which sciences? From what college(s)? Just curious. Of course it will be only your word, but I hope that you are not going to lie, since that would be a “mortal” sin.

 

[Candide_West]

Most critiques of Pascal Wager show that people have never actually read what he wrote. The common problems with it: 1) he assumes there is only one choice of religion, and 2) that one cannot make the wager because one cannot force onesefl to believe are addressed in the text, IIRC.
On the latter criticism, it also shows that people miss the whole concept of what Pascal was trying to convey. It was another path to finding God, for those who the classical proofs are insufficient. To those who actually need to take a bigger leap of faith in order to have faith. And he said exactly how to do it.

Read the excellant post #6 on this thread.

With regards to 2) i agree with you. The Wager was intended as a route to try to “help” someone to come to belief through an alternate route by getting over the “blocks” that people put in their way (such as use of their reason).

The former isn’t so much a problem of assumption as order. He argued why the Christian God ought to be the right one “after” he’d done the wager part. Ie you use the wager to decide that you should act as if a god exists, then decide that it is the Christian god. The problem is that you can’t actually decide anything useful from the wager without knowing which god you are betting on existing. So what he should really have done is considered all the other possible gods in the wager. Unfortunately, then he’d have had an infinite array of possible outcomes from the wager instead of just his 4. And therefore would have ceased to be compelling.

 

[ASimon]

Totally out of topic questions. What kind of degrees you have? In which sciences? From what college(s)? Just curious. Of course it will be only your word, but I hope that you are not going to lie, since that would be a “mortal” sin.

I have a degree in the sciences as well. Mine is in Mass Communications, but my degree say Bachelor of Science, so you know I’m legit.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

The problem is that you can’t actually decide anything useful from the wager without knowing which god you are betting on existing.

This is not logical.

You can know “something” exists around the corner without knowing which “something” exists.

When you start putting together sensations (sounds, shadows, smells, etc.) you can infer which “something” is around the corner. Of course, you can always flee from what is coming around the corner, so that you don’t have to encounter whatever it is. That is the atheist’s strategy. Flee or just close your eyes and maybe it will pass you by.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

The problem is that you can’t actually decide anything useful from the wager without knowing which god you are betting on existing.

This is not logical.

You can know “something” exists around the corner without knowing which “something” exists.

No, you misunderstood. You see the wager invites us to act as though a god exists because it in our best interest to remove the things preventing us from believing he does IF he does.*

So in order to act as if he exists I must know which god I am acting as if exists. I am unable to act as if all gods exist as their requirements are often mutually exclusive.*

When you start putting together sensations (sounds, shadows, smells, etc.) you can infer which “something” is around the corner.*

Exactly, so I can gather information about what type of god exists, THEN perhaps I can decide to act as if one of them exists. But as you said above, that requires gathering of evidence. So we’re back to square one - the evidence is (by Pascals own admission) “not compelling”. So we have nothing to go on. The wager has not moved us forwards at all.*

Of course, you can always flee from what is coming around the corner, so that you don’t have to encounter whatever it is. That is the atheist’s strategy. Flee or just close your eyes and maybe it will pass you by.

This paragraph is rather childish and insulting so I think pointing this out is sufficient response here.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

This paragraph is rather childish and insulting so I think pointing this out is sufficient response here.*

It’s not at all childish and insulting. Fear of God is something atheists experience along with theists. It is a universal phenomenon, and it is this universal fear that suggests there really is something around the corner to fear.

So in order to act as if he exists I must know which god I am acting as if exists. I am unable to act as if all gods exist as their requirements are often mutually exclusive.*

You have not proven that this is logical. Some gods are automatically excluded because they really are not Supreme. Are you thinking of Zeus? Even Zeus was subject to the Fates. So obviously while he has great power, he is not in the same league with Pascal’s God and can be eliminated just on the basis of his limitations, some of which are decidedly human rather than divine.

Likewise, there are no gods of any world religions that behave remotely like the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Most of these gods do not even claim to be supreme. If God exists, my (and Pascal’s) idea of Him as supreme (all powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc.) applies only to the God Pascal is talking about, the only God that makes any sense.

If you can think of a more sensible God than the one who claims to be solitary and supreme, do let us know!

You will be smarter than all of the rest of humanity for sure.

 

[Eleve]

As I pointed out in my later post there are more advanced ways (see the link) in which decision theory can be used to justify Pascal’s Wager, that is to use a “mini-max regret” option;

Thanks for pointing that out. While you’re right that this avoids my previous objection, there are at least two objections that do apply to the maximin argument:

The first is just the familiar many-gods objection. If I adopt the maximin principle, my decision will be for whichever alternative has the best worst-case scenario. But the worst-case scenario of Christianity isn’t what Pascal says it is: if any of, to give a few examples, the Muslim God, the Professor’s God (that’s the one who rewards skepticism and punishes mercenary faith), and a malicious God were to exist then Christianity would have just as bad an outcome as the case where Christianity is correct and the agent rejects it. So maximin won’t get me to my decision. And if I appeal to some sort of tiebreaker, then that’s just to say that the maximin Pascal’s Wager does no actual work: I decide whatever I end up deciding because of the tiebreaker, while the weight of the Wager is by definition neutrally balanced.

The second objection is that the maximin principle here is ad hoc. We are not, in our daily lives, maximin decision-makers: we recognize that, for example, the worst-case outcome of crossing the street is still worth even the trivial benefits of going out for ice cream. Perhaps you’re suggesting that I’m mistaken and that I should be a maximin decision-maker, or at least that I should be on some topics. In that case, I’d like to see the argument.

 

[empther]

The A-team will say anything to cast doubt on anything believers say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I have three college degrees in the sciences

Totally out of topic questions. What kind of degrees you have? In which sciences? From what college(s)? Just curious. Of course it will be only your word, but I hope that you are not going to lie, since that would be a “mortal” sin.

B.S. in Chemistry, University of Maine in Orono. Started majoring in zoology, switched to chemistry. Ended up with 202 college credits, about 150 in the sciences.

B.S. in Nursing, University of Southern Maine

DMD, doctorate, in dentistry, Tufts Dental School, Boston ( other dental schools issue DDS, same thing )

I’ll accept your apology, now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Eleve

But the worst-case scenario of Christianity isn’t what Pascal says it is: if any of, to give a few examples, the Muslim God, the Professor’s God (that’s the one who rewards skepticism and punishes mercenary faith), and a malicious God were to exist then Christianity would have just as bad an outcome as the case where Christianity is correct and the agent rejects it.

The Muslim’s God, like the Christian God, is also the God of Abraham. So he is also Pascal’s God. The Professor’s God (being supremely more detached and aloof than professors) would care less (being a knee-jerk liberal) whether I chose him or another God. The malicious God would be malicious even if I chose him.

So the only God it makes sense to choose is the one who cares. I don’t see any god who cares more for us than the God Pascal would logically choose … the God of Abraham … and the Christian’s God…

 

[Poof]

Charlemagne! I was wondering were you went…you’ve been pretty quiet as of late.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Poof

Thank you for noticing. Been busy of late. But Pascal is irresistible!

 

[Poseidon]

Poseidon:

Any sexual act, by anyone, that is not open to and capable of producing progeny, is mortal sin. They’re not segregated out for that! The Church is simply being consistent.

God bless,
jd

Correct. I was only using homosexuals as an example. I agree that they are not necessarily singled out in the law of the church, although they certainly are singled out by the enforcers of that law. Still, that’s completely off topic.

 

[Qoeleth]

The other aspect of Pascal’s Wager is that, if God does not exist, nothing we do really matters anyway, so we may as well be good as be bad.

If God does not exist- it matters not whether I live as good or bad- therefore I lose nothing.
If God does exist- if I act ‘good’ I will get an infinite reward.

So, whether you think the ratio of probabilities for the two options is 90:10 or 50:50, you are still better off being good.

And the idea that we don’t know which God exists- all religions coincide in their meta-ethical principles. A good Buddhist is the same as a good Christian is the same as a good Muslim (getting down to ethical fundamentals). All religions have the same basis- detachment from self, from which arises compassion; and detachment from wordly things, from which arises purity. So a Buddhist saint behaves like a Christian saint. And a Sufi saint behaves like a Buddhist saint. A Stoic saint behaves like a Taoist saint. All practise poverty, detachment, celibacy, charity and humility.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

This paragraph is rather childish and insulting so I think pointing this out is sufficient response here.*

It’s not at all childish and insulting. Fear of God is something atheists experience along with theists. It is a universal phenomenon, and it is this universal fear that suggests there really is something around the corner to fear.

Very strange statement. If someone is an atheist then by definition they do not believe in your god (or any god). Clearly people do not fear what they do not believe to exist. Think about this for a moment. Do you fear the boogeyman? Freddy Kruger? The loch mess monster? Hades?*

No? Right. Because you don’t believe they exist. Same thing for atheists and your conception of god. If you are talking about people who fear your god then you must be talking about Christians.*

So in order to act as if he exists I must know which god I am acting as if exists. I am unable to act as if all gods exist as their requirements are often mutually exclusive.*

You have not proven that this is logical. Some gods are automatically excluded because they really are not Supreme. Are you thinking of Zeus? Even Zeus was subject to the Fates. So obviously while he has great power, he is not in the same league with Pascal’s God and can be eliminated just on the basis of his limitations, some of which are decidedly human rather than divine.*

Makes no difference to the wager. All you need for the wager is a being who assigns post-death rewards and punishments. Since many religions have gods that do that the wager should consider those gods for a starter. Then move onto all other theoretically possible judging gods.*

Likewise, there are no gods of any world religions that behave remotely like the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Most of these gods do not even claim to be supreme. If God exists, my (and Pascal’s) idea of Him as supreme (all powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc.) applies only to the God Pascal is talking about, the only God that makes any sense.*

… To you personally. Clearly to me and plenty of others this is not the case.*

And Yahweh has a great deal in common with many sun gods through history. Compare Mithra to Jesus for an obvious example.*

In any case none of this is within the bounds of the wager. So we’re off topic. That said you do seem to be following the correct approach, of trying to identify all the possible Gods that could exist and thus should be considered in the wager. Alas there are an awful lot of others left yet.*

If you can think of a more sensible God than the one who claims to be solitary and supreme, do let us know!

You will be smarter than all of the rest of humanity for sure.

Haha, very amusing. As I said, I have identified no evidence for the existence of ANY Gods. If some form of evidence does come up though I’ll be sure to let you know (I’ll also probably join the relevant religion too).

 

[Serious]

B.S. in Chemistry, University of Maine in Orono. Started majoring in zoology, switched to chemistry. Ended up with 202 college credits, about 150 in the sciences.

B.S. in Nursing, University of Southern Maine

DMD, doctorate, in dentistry, Tufts Dental School, Boston ( other dental schools issue DDS, same thing )

Ok. So you have B.S. in chemistry, noted. Hmmm B and S… I heard that before.

 

[Candide_West]

Pascal was very serious about his wager. *Quote of his are in BOLD.

Ok, that doesn’t however answer the many reasons why it fails.*

this is from: *peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, “I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.” If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.*

But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and **"I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—*purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs

Yes, that is the wager. Obviously the gaps as discussed previously are still present. The fact that this argument could be applied to any hypothetical situation and that Pascals four options do not come close to the infinite array of possible gods and moralities that could be used by gods in assigning post life rewards and punishments.*

Lest we take this argument with less seriousness than Pascal meant it, he concludes: "If my words please you and seem cogent, you must know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after."

Indeed, seems odd that. Why so concerned people wouldn’t take it seriously?*