Pascal's Wager Revisited

[Charlemagne_II]

Pascal’s Wager Argument runs as follows:

*"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is…

…“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."*

All this, by the way, is not presented as a proof for the existence of God, but rather as a reason why we are infinitely better off to believe than not to believe. I’m interested in hearing the reply of atheists to this argument.

 

[MegaTherion]

1. Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy. It presumes that there are only two options (“God exists or God does not exist”) when in fact there are more than two – either gods do not exist, or the Christian god exists, or the Hindu gods exist, or the Zoroastrian gods exist, or the Greek gods exist, or the Norse gods exist, etc.

Just because you avoid one hell (the Christian hell) doesn’t mean that you have avoided all possible hells – for example, if the Norse gods turn out to be real, all Christians will wind up in Nifilheim (unless, of course, you died in battle for the glory of the gods).

1. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the religious person loses nothing if god is not real – this is false. If god is not real, then every moment of this precious life spent worshipping that false god was essentially wasted and not spent doing practical things to better this life.
2. Pascal’s Wager assumes that belief can be willed. In fact, belief is not subject to the will in the simple sense – i.e. I can’t will myself to believe something that I find absurd intellectually.

Generally speaking, “belief” is a word for being convinced that a proposition is true. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will myself to believe in the Hindu gods, I can’t will myself to believe in faeries, and I can’t will myself to believe that I can fly by flapping my wings. I haven’t been convinced that those things are true.

Even if there were only two options in this question, and even if I judged one option to be the “safe bet,” I could not will myself to believe it if I hadn’t been convinced of it.

[Note: belief can be willed in a more complicated sense – one’s desires can determine how critically one examines evidence and/or the kinds of things one is willing to accept as “evidence.”]

In short, I think Pascal’s Wager is deeply flawed…

 

[Nepenthe]

Thanks, MegaTherion, I just couldn’t bring myself to go into this stuff yet again.

Besides, Kierkegaard had it right, not Pascal, and some of us like the neighborhood on THIS side of the cliff!

 

[selylidne]

1. Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy. It presumes that there are only two options (“God exists or God does not exist”) when in fact there are more than two – either gods do not exist, or the Christian god exists, or the Hindu gods exist, or the Zoroastrian gods exist, or the Greek gods exist, or the Norse gods exist, etc.

Just because you avoid one hell (the Christian hell) doesn’t mean that you have avoided all possible hells – for example, if the Norse gods turn out to be real, all Christians will wind up in Nifilheim (unless, of course, you died in battle for the glory of the gods).

It is not a false dichotomy, because there really are no other options. What you meant to say was that there’s more to the possibility “God does not exist” than mentioned by Pascal. It is possible to suppose that God does not exist but that Allah does, in which case the “(Christian) God does not exist” option would have very different consequences than Pascal’s wager suggested.

Furthermore, people who compare the Hindu, Greek, Norse, etc. idea of gods to the Most Holy Trinity, Allah, Ahura Mazda, etc. idea of God likely do not understand either concept. They are confused because we use the word “god” to describe both ideas. The two are almost nothing alike.

In any case, your objection fails to help you. Pascal’s Wager still shows that atheism is always a foolish choice compared to theism. Historical examination and reasoning are enough to discount Ahura Mazda and Allah, leaving as the significant options the Christian or Jewish account of God.

1. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the religious person loses nothing if god is not real – this is false. If god is not real, then every moment of this precious life spent worshipping that false god was essentially wasted and not spent doing practical things to better this life.

This argument sounds good to nonbelievers who feel that going through the motions would be intolerable. The argument is nevertheless unsound: science suggests that religious people are happier, meaning that the religious person gains even if their belief is wrong.

1. Pascal’s Wager assumes that belief can be willed. In fact, belief is not subject to the will in the simple sense – i.e. I can’t will myself to believe something that I find absurd intellectually.

Generally speaking, “belief” is a word for being convinced that a proposition is true. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will myself to believe in the Hindu gods, I can’t will myself to believe in faeries, and I can’t will myself to believe that I can fly by flapping my wings. I haven’t been convinced that those things are true.

Even if there were only two options in this question, and even if I judged one option to be the “safe bet,” I could not will myself to believe it if I hadn’t been convinced of it.

Again, this sounds very noble. It simply isn’t true, nor even a shadow of truth. I would say that belief is a matter of will much more often than it is a matter of logic and intellectual criticism, and that this is as it should be. All social development requires us to trust others without verifying their evidence in the vast majority of cases.

But even if it were true, it would miss the point. We’ve all experienced being wrong when we felt supremely confident of being right. Pascal’s Wager asks the committed atheist just how confident in his own reason he is–and no matter his answer, he can have nothing to back it up but faith.

 

[Nepenthe]

‘No true Scotsman’ all you like, but it’s still a false dichotomy, Selyldyne. Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet. And if you think for one second that ‘religious people live happier lives’ you sure aren’t reading the other parts of this forum very closely!

Fun fact - ‘Allah’ simply means ‘God’ in Arabic. It is not a different entity than the one Christians worship - in fact, Jesus, who was very likely a polyglot considering where he lived and the many languages of traders, conquerors, etc there, probably spoke Aramaic when just ‘hanging out with the friends/family’ - and the Aramaic word for ‘God’ is in fact ‘Ala’’, a direct precursor to the modern word Allah and close relative of the Hebrew ‘Elohim’, etc. Arabic is a Semitic language too.

 

[Leela]

I would say that belief is a matter of will much more often than it is a matter of logic and intellectual criticism, and that this is as it should be. All social development requires us to trust others without verifying their evidence in the vast majority of cases.

This issue is the one that has always gotten to me about Pascal’s Wager and Christianity in general. It is supposed that we will go to hell if we don’t believe in God, but we have no control over what we believe. At least I certainly can not will myself to believe something that I don’t already believe.

Selylidne, if you claim to have this power, perhaps you could demonstrate by making yourself believe that, say, the moon is made out of cheese. This should be no problem for someone with your extraordinary power to make yourself believe things.

Best,
Leela

 

[Nepenthe]

Well, see, if the moon IS made out of cheese, whee, cheese for everyone. And if it isn’t, well, at least we didn’t lose any cheese.

But in the event that it is, in fact, cheese, only the people who believed in its intrinsically caseous nature get any. The rest of the doubters will be stuck eating dry stale crackers for all eternity. Aw, boo.

I’m getting me some camembert right here on Earth thank you, real, demonstrably edible camembert that requires no belief whatsoever, since I can go ahead and stuff my happy face with it without interplanetary travel - and I’m pretty darn sure it’s as tasty as any ideal ‘Mooncheese’ some people feel comfortable believing in - yes, for some rats it’s always around the next corner, isn’t it?

 

[Leela]

Well, see, if the moon IS made out of cheese, whee, cheese for everyone. And if it isn’t, well, at least we didn’t lose any cheese.

But in the event that it is, in fact, cheese, only the people who believed in its intrinsically caseous nature get any. The rest of the doubters will be stuck eating dry stale crackers for all eternity. Aw, boo.

I’m getting me some camembert right here on Earth thank you, real, demonstrably edible camembert that requires no belief whatsoever, since I can go ahead and stuff my happy face with it without interplanetary travel - and I’m pretty darn sure it’s as tasty as any ideal ‘Mooncheese’ some people feel comfortable believing in - yes, for some rats it’s always around the next corner, isn’t it?

Actually, the moon is made of moon.

 

[buffalo]

1. Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy. It presumes that there are only two options (“God exists or God does not exist”) when in fact there are more than two – either gods do not exist, or the Christian god exists, or the Hindu gods exist, or the Zoroastrian gods exist, or the Greek gods exist, or the Norse gods exist, etc.

Just because you avoid one hell (the Christian hell) doesn’t mean that you have avoided all possible hells – for example, if the Norse gods turn out to be real, all Christians will wind up in Nifilheim (unless, of course, you died in battle for the glory of the gods).

1. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the religious person loses nothing if god is not real – this is false. If god is not real, then every moment of this precious life spent worshipping that false god was essentially wasted and not spent doing practical things to better this life.
2. Pascal’s Wager assumes that belief can be willed. In fact, belief is not subject to the will in the simple sense – i.e. I can’t will myself to believe something that I find absurd intellectually.

Generally speaking, “belief” is a word for being convinced that a proposition is true. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will myself to believe in the Hindu gods, I can’t will myself to believe in faeries, and I can’t will myself to believe that I can fly by flapping my wings. I haven’t been convinced that those things are true.

Even if there were only two options in this question, and even if I judged one option to be the “safe bet,” I could not will myself to believe it if I hadn’t been convinced of it.

[Note: belief can be willed in a more complicated sense – one’s desires can determine how critically one examines evidence and/or the kinds of things one is willing to accept as “evidence.”]

In short, I think Pascal’s Wager is deeply flawed…

Then you really do not have anything to lose. You cannot desire what you do not know.

But…what if…

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes, you and I know that it’s pretty much a big ball of concrete - but some people believe much weirder things than mooncheese (y’know, like the Earth being about 6000 years old and stuff like that), and nothing will change their minds, since they’re so afraid they won’t get that cheese or something - heck, I don’t know why they are that way! I’m actually trying to find out!

 

[Sideline]

Somewhere, far removed from me, God exist or God doesn’t exist. I must choose to believe in him or not. If I choose to believe in God then I will have infinite happiness if I am right, and lose nothing if I am wrong. If I choose not to believe, and I am wrong, I will loose out on all the happiness, and gain nothing for my non-belief.

God, it seems, cares more about what I believe than why I believe. He doesn’t care that I am only calling him a friend to get the reward. There is no way that God could look at an non-believer and say, “You lived according to your intellect and compassion. I’m going to be kind despite the fact you didn’t believe in me.” On the other other hand, God is bound to be kind to those who say they did their part by believing.

Is that really what you believe?

Somehow I think not. I think somewhere, deep down, you must believe that sincerity comes to play in this little wager. That you must in some form demonstrate the sincerity of your belief. But if I choose to believe only to get the reward, and to avoid punishment, my faith will be by definition sincere. So even if I believe that Pascal’s wager is the safe bet, it profits me nothing to choose to believe in the hopes of personal gain.

 

[selylidne]

‘No true Scotsman’ all you like, but it’s still a false dichotomy, Selyldyne. Pascal’s Wager is a sucker’s bet. And if you think for one second that ‘religious people live happier lives’ you sure aren’t reading the other parts of this forum very closely!

Intoning the name of a dubious fallacy in an incomplete sentence is not an argument. That’s fine, though, because you’re trying to argue against the principle of bivalence, and you’re not likely to have much success at that if you were to actually use complete thoughts.

Fun fact - ‘Allah’ simply means ‘God’ in Arabic. …

Incidentally, this “fun fact” again demonstrates my claim that you’re confused by the different uses of the word “god”. I know scores of Davids and, guess what?, they’re different people by the same name! You can tell they’re different people because they have different characteristics when you bother to look past the name. The same applies to various religion’s (and, for that matter, individual’s) ideas of God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

So far as I can remember, no one has yet noted the tendency of many lifelong atheists and agnostics to feel that uncertainty about God deep down in their souls not only throughout their lives (one reason why they are chronic visitors to Catholic websites?) but also on their deathbeds, where Pascal’s wager seems supremely logical. Hope springs eternal in the dying man, even if throughout his life he has no use for it and spends himself “proving” the absurdity of religion.

Hope wins in the end. And this is the strength of Pascal’s argument: the appeal to our will to concede what our intellect cannot quite grasp because the finite cannot grasp in toto the Infinite.

One may disagree with Pascal on any point of his thinking; what we cannot say of him is that his argument is absurd. His argument is directed not at Christians, but at atheists. After the initial appeal to self interest succeeds, Pascal would have been the first to concede that growing in the love of God is the real aim of religion, not saving ourselves from perdition.

 

[Nepenthe]

If you were, say, a Lebanese Catholic saying your prayers in Arabic, you would use the word ‘Allah’. It is your own preconceptions of the word’s meaning that is giving you fits, not the word itself, nor it’s actual definition.

When Latin mass is being said, do you think that Jupiter or Zeus is being worshiped when the words ‘Deo’ and ‘Deus’ are used? Or a Persian Deva perhaps?

I know very well that understandings of words are very different to different people - as witness the anglophone Christians and Catholics on this site alone when they say ‘God.’

A lot of the Vagueness problems creep into that Bivalence in this argument, among other problems. A wise man once said, ‘There’s no such thing as a non-profit casino’, so I’d stay away from that wager altogether.

 

[selylidne]

This issue is the one that has always gotten to me about Pascal’s Wager and Christianity in general. It is supposed that we will go to hell if we don’t believe in God, but we have no control over what we believe. At least I certainly can not will myself to believe something that I don’t already believe.

Selylidne, if you claim to have this power, perhaps you could demonstrate by making yourself believe that, say, the moon is made out of cheese. This should be no problem for someone with your extraordinary power to make yourself believe things.

Best,
Leela

It appears as though you’re not thinking through the issue, but just accepting old myths about the divine human mind. How many of your beliefs have you examined critically? Is it even a tenth of a percent? One in a million? Have you fully examined any at all? Our brains have evolved in social circumstances. They don’t work in this magical objective-truth-seeking way you seem to imagine. I’ll bet you’ve taken at face value a dozen claims of other people today already, simply because it was in line with your self-interest to do so.

Your second paragraph is an illogical reversal of a valid argument (many beliefs are willed) into an invalid one (any belief can be willed). The fact is, I already have a belief about the moon’s composition. It was told to me by scientists I trust. I have not attempted to verify it. I don’t trust you, since your reasoning has been shoddy from what I’ve read so far, so you probably can’t convince me the moon is made of cheese even if you offered evidence.

 

[Leela]

It appears as though you’re not thinking through the issue, but just accepting old myths about the divine human mind. How many of your beliefs have you examined critically? Is it even a tenth of a percent? One in a million? Have you fully examined any at all? Our brains have evolved in social circumstances. They don’t work in this magical objective-truth-seeking way you seem to imagine. I’ll bet you’ve taken at face value a dozen claims of other people today already, simply because it was in line with your self-interest to do so.

I can’t see what anyof the above has to do with whether or not we can consciously will ourselves to believe something that we don’t believe which Pascal’s Wager and the justice of salvation through faith pressupposes.

Your second paragraph is an illogical reversal of a valid argument (many beliefs are willed) into an invalid one (any belief can be willed).

Fair enough. You don’t claim that all beliefs can be willed, but you still hold that belief in God can be willed. I can’t see how that could work. I don’t believe in God. How do I go about willing myself to believe in God?

The fact is, I already have a belief about the moon’s composition. It was told to me by scientists I trust. I have not attempted to verify it. I don’t trust you, since your reasoning has been shoddy from what I’ve read so far, so you probably can’t convince me the moon is made of cheese even if you offered evidence.

I’m not trying to convince you. I just thought you could will yourself to believe it. I guess I misunderstood. Apparently your ability to will yourself to believe only applies to certain beliefs. What sorts of beliefs can you will yourself to believe?

Best,
Leela

 

[selylidne]

If you were, say, a Lebanese Catholic saying your prayers in Arabic, you would use the word ‘Allah’.

Indeed, and in that circumstance I’d be using the word with the Catholic ideas of what characteristics are possessed by the divine being, which would be quite different from the ideas of my Muslim neighbor. Gods with different characteristics are not the same god.

It is your own preconceptions of the word’s meaning that is giving you fits, not the word itself, nor it’s actual definition.

When Latin mass is being said, do you think that Jupiter or Zeus is being worshiped when the words ‘Deo’ and ‘Deus’ are used? Or a Persian Deva perhaps?

Haha, wow, you just dig yourself deeper. It’s a nice of trick of you to try to project your confusion onto me; but I have been maintaining the distinction between word and referent which you allude to here but ignore elsewhere.

(Incidentally, “Deus” didn’t mean Jupiter, so your argument doesn’t make historical sense. I understood what you meant, though.)

A lot of the Vagueness problems creep into that Bivalence in this argument, among other problems. A wise man once said, ‘There’s no such thing as a non-profit casino’, so I’d stay away from that wager altogether.

Where is the vagueness in the claim “(The Christian) God exists”? It would be helpful and interesting if you showed us. Also, it would improve our thinking if you could show us what “other problems” you refer to. The sentence about the casino requires several additional but unstated premises (e.g. we should trust that wise man’s statement, no patrons profit at such a casino, the Church is such a casino, Pascal’s Wager is a bet in that casino, profit is bad) to make sense, many of which are unsound, so forgive me for thinking you’re just avoiding thinking.

 

[selylidne]

Selylidne:

It appears as though you’re not thinking through the issue, but just accepting old myths about the divine human mind. How many of your beliefs have you examined critically? Is it even a tenth of a percent? One in a million? Have you fully examined any at all? Our brains have evolved in social circumstances. They don’t work in this magical objective-truth-seeking way you seem to imagine. I’ll bet you’ve taken at face value a dozen claims of other people today already, simply because it was in line with your self-interest to do so.

I can’t see what anyof the above has to do with whether or not we can consciously will ourselves to believe something that we don’t believe which Pascal’s Wager and the justice of salvation through faith pressupposes.

You’ve added the requirement now that we “consciously” will ourselves to believe. My above argument attempted to show that all or nearly all of our beliefs are selected by will, at least subconsciously. If you think about the process consciously, nothing changes however, because it is necessary to (usually) trust people. We evolved to believe things that way because it’s greatly to our advantage. You can test this right now by deciding to disbelieve everything people tell you today until you examine the matter yourself; you’ll quickly see the value in choosing to believe.

Fair enough. You don’t claim that all beliefs can be willed, but you still hold that belief in God can be willed. I can’t see how that could work. I don’t believe in God. How do I go about willing myself to believe in God?

Pascal’s Wager suggests that a good place to start is in realizing that belief in God is to your advantage, and thus want to believe. It can’t stop there, of course; you’d have to figure out how to include God among your other ideas. That would require, among other things, careful study, and considering how certain you are that you’ve gotten all the important bits right.

My own personality is such that I’m constantly comparing my current views against my current set of knowledge and other worldviews. I think it’s fun. Not everyone does. I’ve been wrong on enough beliefs before that it wouldn’t surprise me to be wrong again.

I’m not trying to convince you. I just thought you could will yourself to believe it. I guess I misunderstood. Apparently your ability to will yourself to believe only applies to certain beliefs. What sorts of beliefs can you will yourself to believe?

Best,
Leela

We all can and do will ourselves to believe things which we judge to be (A) to our advantage or (B) true. I wish I could say that B always took precedence, but it doesn’t, for both rational and irrational reasons. The irrational reasons include cognitive biases. The rational reasons include a healthy skepticism of our own ability to ferret out the truth.

The mooncheese business strikes me as neither true or advantageous. Similarly, the main reason I reject conspiracy theories out of hand is because I don’t want to associated with crazies. It’s ignoble, I admit, but it works. I believe that studying conspiracy theories would be a waste of my time and that scientists would be proved right, but that’s just wishful thinking on my part because I don’t want to waste that time.

Heheh, but apparently I’m willing to waste time on Internet forums.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I don’t believe in God. How do I go about willing myself to believe in God?

By giving in to your hope that God exists. If you don’t have such a hope, if fact, if you hope that God does not exist (which is what I think is really the atheist position … the desire that God does not exist), then it’s difficult though not impossible to believe.

People are willing to believe all kinds of things are possible on the basis of hope without evidence … that a missing child still lives … that Iran will not go nuclear … etc., etc. Yet when our own greatest self interest is at risk, when the immortality of our souls is at risk, atheists are all too willing to throw away hope without a scintilla of evidence (scientific or otherwise) that God does not exist.

In fact, the atheist wills God not to exist and cannot see how his will can be changed. The approach of death invariably is the most persuasive deal of the cards that he should bet everything on God.

I have seen it twice with atheists in my own family (one asked me to pray for him weeks before he died, the other began to wear a cross several months before he died). I have never heard of a Catholic on his deathbed who converted to atheism.

 

[buffalo]

Leela

I don’t believe in God. How do I go about willing myself to believe in God?

By giving in to your hope that God exists. If you don’t have such a hope, if fact, if you hope that God does not exist (which is what I think is really the atheist position … the desire that God does not exist), then it’s difficult though not impossible to believe.

People are willing to believe all kinds of things are possible on the basis of hope without evidence … that a missing child still lives … that Iran will not go nuclear … etc., etc. Yet when our own greatest self interest is at risk, when the immortality of our souls is at risk, atheists are all too willing to throw away hope without a scintilla of evidence (scientific or otherwise) that God does not exist.

In fact, the atheist wills God not to exist and cannot see how his will can be changed. The approach of death invariably is the most persuasive deal of the cards that he should bet everything on God.

I have seen it twice with atheists in my own family (one asked me to pray for him weeks before he died, the other began to wear a cross several months before he died). I have never heard of a Catholic on his deathbed who converted to atheism.

Because they spend their life fighting the belief without the necessary intellectual underpinnings. At the end they realize that it is with foundation.