What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[emmapro]

There’s what’s called ‘The Pascal’s Wager’ and
there’s another – mine actually – called
‘Emmanuel’s Wager’.

Um, I do not know if you’ve read that of Pascal’s,
but it’s basically a PRAGMATIC, apologetic
approach in betting on Theism or Atheism.

Having developed a penchant for philosophy of
religion over the years, I figured out that, ultimately,
“atheism” is a poor bettor than “theism”. And as
this logic being a wager, the stakes are, for a wise
bettor, to choose the side/outcome that is most
favourable.

Okay, this is briefly the syllogism of Emmanuel’s
Wager©:

1. For the atheist who disbelieves in God but
   ‘believes’ in Evolution:

A. If his worldview is true about evolution, then
when he dies, he wouldn’t even be able to find out
for himself if his worldview was right all along. He
simply vanishes into oblivion according the tenets
of evolution. And with no an I-told-you-so
response to the theist.
B. If his worldview is false and that God exists,
then when he dies, he goes to hell according to the
tenets of Christianity (well, you’re free to raise your
many-gods objection here). And there will be an I-
told-you-so response, this time, from the theist to
him.

1. For the theist who believes in God and rejects
   evolution as the origin of life:

A. If his worldview is true, then when he dies, he
goes to heaven according to the tenets of
Christianity. And there’ll definitely be an I-told-
you-so response to the atheist.
B. If his worldview is false and that evolution is
true, he simply vanishes. He doesn’t need to
confirm anything for himself because evolution was
never his worldview. And no I-told-you-so from
anybody.

So, you see, atheism nurtures TERRIBLE BETTORS
who lose in all two of their (only) outcomes (1a &
b), while theism nurtures WISER BETTORS who win
in all two of their outcome (2a & b).

 

[Oreoracle]

There are many arguments against both Wagers (yours and Pascal’s), but the most important is the point that genuine belief doesn’t arise through gambling. I cannot believe in something merely because I consciously recognize that it would be advantageous.

Do people really believe their gods are so daft that they would be hoodwinked by the mere claim to believe in something? Wouldn’t God know that you aren’t actually convinced?

 

[SecretCatholic]

There are many arguments against both Wagers (yours and Pascal’s), but the most important is the point that genuine belief doesn’t arise through gambling. I cannot believe in something merely because I consciously recognize that it would be advantageous.

A lot of people seem to take it that way. But I don’t see it like that at all. And I don’t think Pascal was arguing that you could or should believe based upon his premise alone. I see it more as an argument to give faith a chance, a try, for you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

You need to be open to faith before being able to accept it, so Pascal’s Wager just reminds us that we have nothing to lose in taking those first steps towards faith. But true faith is both a gift from God and thereafter a choice, not something one can fake, especially before God.

As for your wager, OP: I don’t see any fundamental difference between it and Pascal’s Wager. Also, I don’t see why evolution is a factor here. I, and many/most Catholics believe both in the theory of evolution and in God. And lastly, I suspect many atheists will get to heaven while many so-called “Christians” will not.

There are many people who just don’t have the gift of faith, but try to live their lives morally and seek the truth. These people are on a far better path than the Christian who knows the truth, but gives little heed to living his life the way he’s supposed to and gives a bad name to Christians.

 

[PRmerger]

There are many arguments against both Wagers (yours and Pascal’s), but the most important is the point that genuine belief doesn’t arise through gambling. I cannot believe in something merely because I consciously recognize that it would be advantageous.

Do people really believe their gods are so daft that they would be hoodwinked by the mere claim to believe in something? Wouldn’t God know that you aren’t actually convinced?

The Wagers (Pascal’s and the novel one proposed here) are not meant to stand alone.

They are either the impetus which propels a seeker to consider looking further into theism…

OR

,they are the “final straw” which convinces a wavering seeker, after she has considered a multitude of arguments for the existence of God. She is “almost there” regarding theism, and then, when considering the Wager, is thus compelled to believe based on that final “argument”.

 

[Nihilist]

There’s what’s called ‘The Pascal’s Wager’ and
there’s another – mine actually – called
‘Emmanuel’s Wager’.

Um, I do not know if you’ve read that of Pascal’s,
but it’s basically a PRAGMATIC, apologetic
approach in betting on Theism or Atheism.

Having developed a penchant for philosophy of
religion over the years, I figured out that, ultimately,
“atheism” is a poor bettor than “theism”. And as
this logic being a wager, the stakes are, for a wise
bettor, to choose the side/outcome that is most
favourable.

Okay, this is briefly the syllogism of Emmanuel’s
Wager©:

1. For the atheist who disbelieves in God but
   ‘believes’ in Evolution:

A. If his worldview is true about evolution, then
when he dies, he wouldn’t even be able to find out
for himself if his worldview was right all along. He
simply vanishes into oblivion according the tenets
of evolution. And with no an I-told-you-so
response to the theist.
B. If his worldview is false and that God exists,
then when he dies, he goes to hell according to the
tenets of Christianity (well, you’re free to raise your
many-gods objection here). And there will be an I-
told-you-so response, this time, from the theist to
him.

1. For the theist who believes in God and rejects
   evolution as the origin of life:

A. If his worldview is true, then when he dies, he
goes to heaven according to the tenets of
Christianity. And there’ll definitely be an I-told-
you-so response to the atheist.
B. If his worldview is false and that evolution is
true, he simply vanishes. He doesn’t need to
confirm anything for himself because evolution was
never his worldview. And no I-told-you-so from
anybody.

So, you see, atheism nurtures TERRIBLE BETTORS
who lose in all two of their (only) outcomes (1a &
b), while theism nurtures WISER BETTORS who win
in all two of their outcome (2a & b).

Sure- it’s pretty much the same as Pascal’s wager. But I don’t see why belief in evolution is so critical. A lot of Catholics believe in evolution.

The other thing you’re not factoring is that a lot of atheists and theists both have a dedication to ‘truth’. That is, if they really do believe evolution is the case- they can’t just abandon it, like it’s red or black on a roulette wheel- because they REALLY believe it’s true.

The question is- why do they care about truth so much, if there’s no God. But, the fact is they do.

I think this kind of wager is only applicable at an ethical level- you can decide not to sin, or to go to Church, so you don’t risk Hell. Easy. But you can’t actually genuinely change your beliefs like this- because real beliefs are necessarily linked to what a person REALLY believe to be true.

Or would you like to see Churches full of atheists, who are just going through the motions, cause it seems like a better ‘bet’?

 

[schaeffer]

The suggestion that anyone base their life philosophy on the hope of being able to say “I told you so” to someone after death is bizarre and sad.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Cute, and about as compelling as Roko’s Basilisk.

 

[Oreoracle]

And I don’t think Pascal was arguing that you could or should believe based upon his premise alone. I see it more as an argument to give faith a chance, a try, for you have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

The Wagers (Pascal’s and the novel one proposed here) are not meant to stand alone.

They are either the impetus which propels a seeker to consider looking further into theism…

Fair enough, but I think anyone who has the patience to look up Pascal’s Wager or give you the opportunity to use it in conversation has probably already given religion a lot of consideration. At that point the person’s probably thinking “Alright, I’m interested, but when is this person going to give me a substantive argument for their religion?”

After being disappointed time and again, we eventually see that no substantive arguments are being put forward, and the Wager begins to sound very desperate. It’s like telling consumers that they could save a lot of money by purchasing your product but failing to actually address the quality of the product or its utility.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough, but I think anyone who has the patience to look up Pascal’s Wager or give you the opportunity to use it in conversation has probably already given religion a lot of consideration. At that point the person’s probably thinking “Alright, I’m interested, but when is this person going to give me a substantive argument for their religion?”

After being disappointed time and again, we eventually see that no substantive arguments are being put forward, and the Wager begins to sound very desperate. It’s like telling consumers that they could save a lot of money by purchasing your product but failing to actually address the quality of the product or its utility.

So out of all the arguments you’ve seen presented for theism, what’s the one you find the most compelling?

(It is understood, of course, that you aren’t compelled enough by it to be a believer…however, the question still stands. Out of all of the arguments you’ve considered, which one do you find to be most substantive?)

 

[Oreoracle]

So out of all the arguments you’ve seen presented for theism, what’s the one you find the most compelling?

To be honest, I don’t find any of the arguments compelling. In fact, I don’t know a single Christian who became a Christian because they were presented with a solid argument. Contrast this with atheism: I know people who became atheist (they would prefer the term “agnostic”, probably) through argumentation.

That being said, there are compelling aspects of religion. Years ago, I believed in God because I didn’t want to think that when my family, friends, and I died that we would just cease to exist. I think some people believe in a higher power because it gives them a sense of structure or purpose, much like the psychological need some people have for the military lifestyle. And of course there is a strong sense of community in religion that others find fulfilling. Some people also use religion to fill in the blanks for themselves by addressing any unanswered questions with God. Uncertainty is disconcerting.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So out of all the arguments you’ve seen presented for theism, what’s the one you find the most compelling?

(It is understood, of course, that you aren’t compelled enough by it to be a believer…however, the question still stands. Out of all of the arguments you’ve considered, which one do you find to be most substantive?)

I think the argument from fine tuning has best structure to it. In other words, if we found some evidence that getting a universe that allowed life was very unlikely given naturalistic explanations, it would make the hypothesis that there was some deliberate fine tuning (i.e. by a God) much more plausible.

Unfortunately no one (neither the theologians nor the scientists) have any real answers to the questions that would let us make the above argument. We don’t know what sort of universes might allow life, and we don’t know what sort of laws are more likely than others. Therefore, the argument is a good idea, but we will have to wait until our understanding improves enough to fill in those blanks.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think the argument from fine tuning has best structure to it. In other words, if we found some evidence that getting a universe that allowed life was very unlikely given naturalistic explanations, it would make the hypothesis that there was some deliberate fine tuning (i.e. by a God) much more plausible.

This is a bit off-topic, but regarding the fine-tuning argument, I think it’s only compelling because of our bias. We are living things, so we think that life is special, which makes the probability that life would arise seem relevant. But just because something’s improbable doesn’t suggest design. We would only reach that conclusion if we assumed the unlikely thing is special, which is where our bias come in.

For example, all orderings of the cards of any standard deck are equally likely after the deck is shuffled. But if the cards were in an order sorted by rank and suits, people would insist that the ordering was intentional, even though that ordering is just as likely as any other. So it is the notion that certain arrangements are “special” that makes the argument compelling.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is a bit off-topic, but regarding the fine-tuning argument, I think it’s only compelling because of our bias. We are living things, so we think that life is special, which makes the probability that life would arise seem relevant. But just because something’s improbable doesn’t suggest design. We would only reach that conclusion if we assumed the unlikely thing is special, which is where our bias come in.

For example, all orderings of the cards of any standard deck are equally likely after the deck is shuffled. But if the cards were in an order sorted by rank and suits, people would insist that the ordering was intentional, even though that ordering is just as likely as any other. So it is the notion that certain arrangements are “special” that makes the argument compelling.

That is a reasonable objection, but I don’t think we necessarily need to assume we’re special; it’s more of a “which model fits the data” kind of question. If a naturalistic model predicted that we should observe (i.e. there was a very high probability of) a chaotic universe with no order (or no life) the fact that we do observe order and/or life constitutes evidence against whatever naturalistic model made the “no order/life” prediction. Obviously it wouldn’t be evidence against all naturalistic models, just the ones that can’t predict order/life.

If we couldn’t come up with a naturalistic model that predicted order/life, then the God hypothesis would start to look more attractive, because it does predict order/life (at least insofar as it can be said to predict anything.)

 

[PRmerger]

To be honest, I don’t find any of the arguments compelling.

Well, how about if you offer what arguments you’ve studied?

In fact, I don’t know a single Christian who became a Christian because they were presented with a solid argument.

I don’t think you’ve been hanging around Catholic circles too much then.

Perhaps you mean you don’t know a single Christian in this category personally, but if you haven’t encountered any conversion stories of such Christians in your search for truth, then I am astonished at the parochial nature of your search.

Have you heard of RJ Stove?
Leah Libresco?
Trent Horn?
Jennifer Fulwiler?

 

[PRmerger]

That being said, there are compelling aspects of religion. Years ago, I believed in God because I didn’t want to think that when my family, friends, and I died that we would just cease to exist. I think some people believe in a higher power because it gives them a sense of structure or purpose, much like the psychological need some people have for the military lifestyle. And of course there is a strong sense of community in religion that others find fulfilling. Some people also use religion to fill in the blanks for themselves by addressing any unanswered questions with God. Uncertainty is disconcerting.

Not to mention that Christianity has an answer to the Problem of Evil. And it offers justice regarding the evil that occurs to us.

Atheism’s answer is: Evil just happens. And there’s no justice for those who have suffered immeasurably at the hands of evil people.

Now, please don’t mistake this post as saying, “Because Christianity offers an answer to the Problem of Evil it’s therefore true.”

I am simply proposing that Christianity is better than atheism because, at the very least, we have a better answer to the woman whose husband is slain by a terrorist.

The atheist can only say, “I’m so very sorry. There is nothing more that I can offer. He is gone and the people who did this may get away with it. There may be no justice for you. Ever.”

 

[PRmerger]

I think the argument from fine tuning has best structure to it. In other words, if we found some evidence that getting a universe that allowed life was very unlikely given naturalistic explanations, it would make the hypothesis that there was some deliberate fine tuning (i.e. by a God) much more plausible.

Unfortunately no one (neither the theologians nor the scientists) have any real answers to the questions that would let us make the above argument. We don’t know what sort of universes might allow life, and we don’t know what sort of laws are more likely than others. Therefore, the argument is a good idea, but we will have to wait until our understanding improves enough to fill in those blanks.

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, how about if you offer what arguments you’ve studied?

Pascal’s Wager, the Five Ways, the Fine-Tuning and Watchmaker arguments, several God of the Gaps arguments, historical details of Jesus’ life, arguments from popularity, arguments based on the longevity of a particular religion, arguments for religion in general by appealing to mankind’s tendency toward religiosity, arguments that morality necessitates a deity, etc. There are also many anecdotal arguments that fall under the God of the Gaps umbrella: “Something happened to me and I can’t think of a naturalistic explanation, so it must have been supernatural.”

I don’t think you’ve been hanging around Catholic circles too much then.

I know several Catholics. Most of them don’t even know the basics of the Dogma as outlined in the Catechism, much less how to defend them. They simply grew up Catholic and never questioned it.

I sometimes like to imagine what would happen if the Church issued a test to its members. It would only cover minimal requirements like the Dogma and basic history of the Church that any Catholic should know. I don’t think the Church should be able to say, “We have over a billion members who believe this” when the reality is that many are only nominally Catholic. I would be surprised if even 25% were truly Catholic in the sense of agreeing with the Church’s basic belief structure. Heck, hardly 25% are aware of most of its structure among the Catholics I know.

Perhaps you mean you don’t know a single Christian in this category personally, but if you haven’t encountered any conversion stories of such Christians in your search for truth, then I am astonished at the parochial nature of your search.

Yes, any religion can claim some converts, but I think the prevailing trend is undeniable. The best predictor of someone’s religion is the religion of their parents.

 

[PRmerger]

Pascal’s Wager, the Five Ways, the Fine-Tuning and Watchmaker arguments, several God of the Gaps arguments, historical details of Jesus’ life, arguments from popularity, arguments based on the longevity of a particular religion, arguments for religion in general by appealing to mankind’s tendency toward religiosity, arguments that morality necessitates a deity, etc. There are also many anecdotal arguments that fall under the God of the Gaps umbrella: “Something happened to me and I can’t think of a naturalistic explanation, so it must have been supernatural.”

So what is it about the 5 ways that you find untenable?

I know several Catholics. Most of them don’t even know the basics of the Dogma as outlined in the Catechism, much less how to defend them. They simply grew up Catholic and never questioned it

Indeed. Very sad reality, to be sure.

It’s a non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

My point is that if you have never heard of an atheist being converted to Catholicism through reasoned arguments then your search has been quite insular.

I sometimes like to imagine what would happen if the Church issued a test to its members. It would only cover minimal requirements like the Dogma and basic history of the Church that any Catholic should know. I don’t think the Church should be able to say, “We have over a billion members who believe this” when the reality is that many are only nominally Catholic. I would be surprised if even 25% were truly Catholic in the sense of agreeing with the Church’s basic belief structure. Heck, hardly 25% are aware of most of its structure among the Catholics I know.

Again, sadly true.

Yes, any religion can claim some converts, but I think the prevailing trend is undeniable.

What trend is that? And can you cite some statistics?

And what do you think this means insofar as the truth of Christianity?

The best predictor of someone’s religion is the religion of their parents.

No doubt.

 

[tafan]

There are many arguments against both Wagers (yours and Pascal’s), but the most important is the point that genuine belief doesn’t arise through gambling. I cannot believe in something merely because I consciously recognize that it would be advantageous.

Do people really believe their gods are so daft that they would be hoodwinked by the mere claim to believe in something? Wouldn’t God know that you aren’t actually convinced?

It is perhaps the most common criticism of Pascal’s wager by those who have never taken the time to read it!!! Pascal was no dummy, do you really think he did not consider this very point and you (and so many other critics) are just that much smarter than he.

Here, in the wager itself, is where Pascal addresses the issue that simply by making the wager one does not come to believe:

“I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?

 

[tafan]

To be honest, I don’t find any of the arguments compelling. In fact, I don’t know a single Christian who became a Christian because they were presented with a solid argument. Contrast this with atheism: I know people who became atheist (they would prefer the term “agnostic”, probably) through argumentation.

I know many Christians who started out on the path to Christianity (without even realizing it) due to a wager very similar to Pascal’s argument. They reach a point in their life and they say to themselves “What do I have to loose by checking it out?”