Pascal's wager

[LetThereBe]

This is primarily to the theists.

The basic premise behind Pascal's Wager is that if the atheist is right he gains nothing while the theist loses nothing. However, if the theist is right he gains everything while the atheist loses everything. Therefore, even if the odds of your being correct are small, it is infinitely better to believe due to the possible benefit.

Do any find this to be a valid argument?

[Jack]

if the theist is right...

If which theist is right? What if the theist believes in the wrong god?

[LetThereBe]

It is irrelevant.

The idea is that no matter how low the odds, the theist can only gain, while the atheist can only lose.

Any benefit extended over an infinite amount of time outweighs any transient disadvantage or improbability.

[Jack]

The idea is that no matter how low the odds, the theist can only gain, while the atheist can only lose.

Not so. The Christian who fails to worship the god of Islam is just as screwed after death as the atheist.

[Cephus]

Quote by: LetThereBe This is primarily to the theists.

Why, it's not aimed at theists.

The basic premise behind Pascal's Wager is that if the atheist is right he gains nothing while the theist loses nothing. However, if the theist is right he gains everything while the atheist loses everything. Therefore, even if the odds of your being correct are small, it is infinitely better to believe due to the possible benefit.

It is a false dichotomy, assuming that there is either one specific deity, the Christian God, or no dieties at all. However, there are literally thousands of religions out there, along with an almost infinite number of possible gods. If you pick the wrong one, you go to hell. Therefore, just on a purely statistical basis, the chances against picking the one, true deity and avoiding eternal damnation is so slim as to be laughable.

Besides, even if you want to assume that there is only one deity, don't you think that deity is smart enough to know if you're just believing to hedge your bet? Or are you assuming God is an idiot?

Do any find this to be a valid argument?

Nobody found it to be a valid argument even in Pascal's time.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood Not so. The Christian who fails to worship the god of Islam is just as screwed after death as the atheist.

Indeed, but the chance still exists that the theists particular God is real, while the atheist has no such chance.
At worst the theist faces 'equal screwing' as the atheist, while the theist can potentially gain everything.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Cephus Why, it's not aimed at theists.

It is, but only atheists have been replying. I wish to address this from a different angle, but no theists have responded.

Quote by: Cephus It is a false dichotomy, assuming that there is either one specific deity, the Christian God, or no dieties at all. However, there are literally thousands of religions out there, along with an almost infinite number of possible gods. If you pick the wrong one, you go to hell. Therefore, just on a purely statistical basis, the chances against picking the one, true deity and avoiding eternal damnation is so slim as to be laughable.

As before stated, an the benefit goes to infinite, the miniscule odds are not an issue. If you had a one in ten chance of making a million dollars by risking twenty dollars wouldn't you do it? Most would because what they stand to gain outweighs the risk they are taking.

Quote by: Cephus Besides, even if you want to assume that there is only one deity, don't you think that deity is smart enough to know if you're just believing to hedge your bet? Or are you assuming God is an idiot?

I suppose this depends upon the specifics of the religion. If it is a works oriented faith, the motive is irrelevant. Similarly, some religions preach that faith is the only prerequisite, and do not go into detail about the basis of this faith having any impact.

Quote by: Cephus Nobody found it to be a valid argument even in Pascal's time.

Perhaps not. I have also had this discussion on facebook where I find many who think it valid.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Cephus Why, it's not aimed at theists. It is a false dichotomy, assuming that there is either one specific deity, the Christian God, or no dieties at all. However, there are literally thousands of religions out there, along with an almost infinite number of possible gods. If you pick the wrong one, you go to hell. Therefore, just on a purely statistical basis, the chances against picking the one, true deity and avoiding eternal damnation is so slim as to be laughable. Besides, even if you want to assume that there is only one deity, don't you think that deity is smart enough to know if you're just believing to hedge your bet? Or are you assuming God is an idiot? Nobody found it to be a valid argument even in Pascal's time.

Not quite. Here is a modern day equivalent: you are given a multiple choice test. There is no "none of the above" option. You don't know if the grade will count or not. It would be strategically smarter to at least fill in a response on the test, even if you have to guess. It would be stupid to cross your arms and not answer at all. That only works in the Naruto universe.

Personally, I don't care for some of the implications of the wager:

1.) Ultimate truth is unknowable and it's best just to guess.
2.) Mental assent is acceptable to God.
3.) Fire-and-brimstone: scaring people into acting like a "good person"

[LetThereBe]

Bah, I guess I won't find too many simple-minded theists here.

Pascal's wager is a double-edged sword, and once the theist accepts its validity it is an overwhelming argument against Christianity.

Since the idea of PW is that being an unlikely scenario is outweighed by an infinite benefit, it should be noted that whichever religion has the best afterlife is the only logical choice remaining.

Clearly I expect most people who say Pascal's Wager is valid have no choice but to invent their own religion, with a God and a heaven that please them most. I can personally say that for myself there are certain pleasures that I imagine the Christian God would frown on (and any honest Christian would admit the same). I would probably also prefer to worship for eternity a God that does NOT condone genocide.
I suppose if the theist who accepts this argument is lazy/uncreative they may be a pastafarian. Beer volcano and stripper factory make a pretty nice afterlife, and it doesn't require the thinking that making up your own faith system does.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Not quite. Here is a modern day equivalent: you are given a multiple choice test. There is no "none of the above" option. You don't know if the grade will count or not. It would be strategically smarter to at least fill in a response on the test, even if you have to guess. It would be stupid to cross your arms and not answer at all. That only works in the Naruto universe.

Let's modify that example:

If you put a wrong answer, there should be a 50/50 chance of getting an infinite amount of points off of your grade - because dogma towards a false god could possibly anger the "true" god. Due to the fact that there are an infinite amount of possibilities that would facilitate a "creator of the universe", the odds are very well against you.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Let's modify that example: If you put a wrong answer, there should be a 50/50 chance of getting an infinite amount of points off of your grade - because dogma towards a false god could possibly anger the "true" god. Due to the fact that there are an infinite amount of possibilities that would facilitate a "creator of the universe", the odds are very well against you.

No, I think the illustration is solid. Filling in the incorrect answer and not answering at all have the same penalty. This isn't the SAT. The only hope you have is either knowing the right answer or getting lucky and guessing correctly. The guessing part is part of the reason why I don't like the premise. Pascal's Wager seems to operate more on the "sinners' prayer" mentality, and I don't like that. Furthermore, to extend the metaphor, with some religious dogmatists these days, the multiple choice test would be several pages long and you would have to obtain a perfect score. :eek: But that's a discussion for another time.

[another day]

Ughh...pascals wager is not worth discussing.

I think they should seriously consider adding a rule or a notice that a thread on pascals wager is not to be created, along with a basic description of why. We've had this discussion so many times and everyone agrees that it is a completely stupid idea.

Similarly, some religions preach that faith is the only prerequisite, and do not go into detail about the basis of this faith having any impact.

But believing based on a gamble is not faith at all. Not at all, it's just that - a gamble.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: phoenix_fire No, I think the illustration is solid. Filling in the incorrect answer and not answering at all have the same penalty. This isn't the SAT. The only hope you have is either knowing the right answer or getting lucky and guessing correctly. The guessing part is part of the reason why I don't like the premise. Pascal's Wager seems to operate more on the "sinners' prayer" mentality, and I don't like that. Furthermore, to extend the metaphor, with some religious dogmatists these days, the multiple choice test would be several pages long and you would have to obtain a perfect score. :eek: But that's a discussion for another time.

It's very possible that dogma towards a false god will anger the "real" god more than a complete lack thereof.

[another day]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's very possible that dogma towards a false god will anger the "real" god more than a complete lack thereof.

Yep...consider the Christian god, described bluntly in the bible as "A JEALOUS GOD". I'm sure his pathetic, vengeful ego would be a lot more pissed off if you worshipped another god, then if you worshipped none. It's like a guy who loves a girl. If the girl loves another guy but not him, he would be alot more angry/hurt then if the girl loved no one (not him either).

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Isherwood Not so. The Christian who fails to worship the god of Islam is just as screwed after death as the atheist.

Islam and christianity worship the same God, just throwing that out there.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: another day Yep...consider the Christian god, described bluntly in the bible as "A JEALOUS GOD". I'm sure his pathetic, vengeful ego would be a lot more pissed off if you worshipped another god, then if you worshipped none. It's like a guy who loves a girl. If the girl loves another guy but not him, he would be alot more angry/hurt then if the girl loved no one (not him either).

Get the hebrew word that jealous was translated from, (from greek, from latin) and I'll bet you you won't find the same connotation in the word jealous. You can't read into specific words in a Book that has been translated from so many vastly different languages. And, even if it does mean jealous in the way we use it, that's just that author's perception of God, not necessarily what God is.

[Cephus]

Quote by: LetThereBe It is, but only atheists have been replying. I wish to address this from a different angle, but no theists have responded.

Pascal didn't make the argument to convince theists, he did it to convince non-theists.

As before stated, an the benefit goes to infinite, the miniscule odds are not an issue. If you had a one in ten chance of making a million dollars by risking twenty dollars wouldn't you do it? Most would because what they stand to gain outweighs the risk they are taking.

But as the risks go to infinite, the miniscule odds certainly are an issue. If you had a one in a billion chance of making a million dollars, but if you didn't make it, you lost everything you had, would you risk it? The answer, of course, is hell no.

I suppose this depends upon the specifics of the religion. If it is a works oriented faith, the motive is irrelevant. Similarly, some religions preach that faith is the only prerequisite, and do not go into detail about the basis of this faith having any impact.

But we are talking about Christianity here and a supposedly omniscient deity who would know better.

Perhaps not. I have also had this discussion on facebook where I find many who think it valid.

There are people out there who still think the earth is flat. Rational bankruptcy doesn't make the argument any more worthwhile. It's based solely on fallacious thinking, so much so that no one in Pascal's time took it very seriously. It is only the looney-toon fundamentalists who revived it in recent times because their entire religion is based on fallacious thinking.

[Cephus]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Not quite. Here is a modern day equivalent: you are given a multiple choice test. There is no "none of the above" option. You don't know if the grade will count or not. It would be strategically smarter to at least fill in a response on the test, even if you have to guess. It would be stupid to cross your arms and not answer at all. That only works in the Naruto universe.

But that isn't the case here, you missed one part of the equation. If you guess wrong and the grade does count, then you are taken outside and beaten to a bloody pulp. Picking a response, any response, is no better than picking no response at all, especially since there is no way to determine which, if any, of the responses is true.

[Gods_Mercenary]

But as the risks go to infinite, the miniscule odds certainly are an issue. If you had a one in a billion chance of making a million dollars, but if you didn't make it, you lost everything you had, would you risk it? The answer, of course, is hell no.

The risks aren't infinite, this life is all you're risking.

[Fonceai]

This reminds me of the Rowan Atkinson skit where he plays the Devil.

It relates to this because there is a part where he says, "Yes, Christians? Please go over there... it turns out the Jews were right."

If you really want to "play it safe" with your soul, just do this:

Strip down all the dogma of each religion. What you have left are the morals and ethics. Lo and behold, they are all pretty much identical, with only slight variations.

And none of those morals and ethics are bad things.

So just live that way... just in case... maybe God gives partial credit... or grades on a curve.