Pascal's Wager again

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence " but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

[bjs]

For the sake of the argument lets pretend that Zs statement in point one that we have less than 1/10 percent chance of being right is accurate. Mathematically, 1/10 of a percent of a chance at infinite gain is infinitely greater than a zero percent chance. In math any chance at infinity is infinitely greater than no chance.

Well, mathematically isn't a 3/10 of one percent chance at infinite gain three times better than a 1/10 of 1 percent chance?

No, its not. Mathematically, 1/10 chance at infinity and 3/10 chance at infinity are the same.

Philosophically, one could argue that we should seek the most logically coherent and consistent view of God, but the math aspect doesnt change.

[Haven]

The Wager does neither of these things. Pascal begins by giving the agnostic every possible advantage. In other works he comments on the evidence for God. In his Wager he sets aside all the evidence for any specific God or for theism in general.

The idea of the Wager is to begin from the assumption that we cannot establish that there is or is not a God. With that assumption made, what do we do now? We have to make a choice. Even the act of not choosing is itself a kind of choice. We can take a theistic worldview with any of the variations within that category, or we can take a non-theistic worldview with any of the variations within that category. Pascal then considers the various possible outcomes from each hypothesis. He then concludes that, mathematically speaking, any form of theism is infinitely more beneficial than any form of non-theism.

This conclusion is unjustified because Pascal ignored so many complexities about the possible preferences of any gods that may exist.

It may be possible* that there exists a god who prefers, for some reason, people who reject theistic belief to people who accept theistic belief. In this case, wagering on atheism would be the best decision.

It may also be possible that there exists a god who is indifferent to people's beliefs regarding gods. In this case, wagering on theism or atheism would be equally useless.

Furthermore, there may exist a god who is indifferent to atheists but opposed to people who choose to worship gods other than her/him/it. In this case, wagering on atheism would be the best decision, because it would eliminate the possibility of worshiping the wrong god.

Finally, there may be a god (as in the case of Islam and Christianity) who rewards those who worship him/her/it, but is opposed to those who worship other deities and those who don't believe in deities. In this case, wagering on theism would be essentially as detrimental as wagering on atheism, due to the overwhelming possibility (far less than the 10% mentioned in a previous post, given the thousands of gods mentioned by humans and the many more that could be conceptualized) of choosing the wrong deity.

Pascal's Wager fails for these reasons, and this is why it hasn't been taken seriously in philosophical circles for centuries.

[Haven]

Also, "infinite gain" needs to be more clearly defined. What does "gain" mean here? Material gain? Emotional gain? Something else? Is "gain" something that can even be quantified (talking about an "infinity" of something unquantifiable is incoherent)? Because "gain" isn't defined clearly, there's not enough information to even make sense of Pascal's Wager. And if gain can be defined and quantified, the arguments in my previous post show why the Wager is absurd. Either way the argument fails.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Z!!!

I don't think that God would be impressed with our gambling. There has to be a certain amount of faith to continue to believe in God. When things get rough in our life, without faith, we would hit the trails and hike anywhere but in His presence. Faith is the assurance of things not seen, but things hoped for. We know in this life that there will be suffering and hard times, but we also know that this life is not the end, and our hope is in Him, and His promises. Believing in God without faith, is a relationship based on little substance.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't think that God would be impressed with our gambling.

If not, he and I might just get along well (except for the belief and worship and baptism stuff). I do not gamble except occasionally on a person (take a chance that outcomes will be positive " and often lose) or once in a while on a real estate purchase (win some, lose some but come out ahead overall).

On second thought, I'd probably get along with Jesus okay but not with the OT guy.

There has to be a certain amount of faith to continue to believe in God. When things get rough in our life, without faith, we would hit the trails and hike anywhere but in His presence.

When things have gotten rough in my life I have set about to change them in positive directions " and done so successfully " sometimes with the involvement of friends, but often alone. I've never been the least inclined to hope for divine intervention or guidance or anything of the sort.

I am aware that many people "turn to God" in difficulty " but my reaction is "find out what needs to be done and do it." That works for everything in life for me " mileage may vary for others.

Faith is the assurance of things not seen, but things hoped for.

Rather than hoping for things I seek to make positive outcomes happen.

We know in this life that there will be suffering and hard times, but we also know that this life is not the end,

Not all of us conduct our lives with the expectation that "things will be better after you die" (or worse if you don't worship right). I'd rather do things right in the life I know I have rather than hoping for something afterward.

and our hope is in Him, and His promises. Believing in God without faith, is a relationship based on little substance.

Professing belief but failing to "walk the talk" seems hypocritical " and also seems very common among people I have known throughout life. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

[WinePusher]

For the sake of the argument lets pretend that Zs statement in point one that we have less than 1/10 percent chance of being right is accurate. Mathematically, 1/10 of a percent of a chance at infinite gain is infinitely greater than a zero percent chance. In math any chance at infinity is infinitely greater than no chance.

Well, mathematically isn't a 3/10 of one percent chance at infinite gain three times better than a 1/10 of 1 percent chance?

No, its not. Mathematically, 1/10 chance at infinity and 3/10 chance at infinity are the same.

Philosophically, one could argue that we should seek the most logically coherent and consistent view of God, but the math aspect doesnt change.

Yes, when you're dealing with infinite values in mathematics everything is essentially equivalent.

Most people are introduced to the concept of infinity when dealing with limits. So, for example, at first glance 4^ should be greater than itself. If we were dealing with exact numbers then 4^3 or any other positive integer would be greater than 3. However, 4 raised to the power of infinity is not greater than infinity, it's actually equal to infinity. We can verify this using limits, as the limit as x goes to of 4^x is equal to infinity.

[Haven]

Yes, when you're dealing with infinite values in mathematics everything is essentially equivalent. Most people are introduced to the concept of infinity when dealing with limits. So, for example, at first glance 4^ should be greater than itself. If we were dealing with exact numbers then 4^3 or any other positive integer would be greater than 3. However, 4 raised to the power of infinity is not greater than infinity, it's actually equal to infinity. We can verify this using limits, as the limit as x goes to of 4^x is equal to infinity.

That's correct.

The question that pertains to Pascal's Wager is infinite values of WHAT?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 15 by Zzyzx]
This topic holds promise, but mostly unexplored so far.
I would have expected the polar opposite Clifford Principle to be invoked, see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/
but that would be more appropriate to the Philosophy sub-forum.
What can we make of Pascal vs. Clifford on a more quotidian basis?
I think there is real meat for debate here, getting at the heart of what it means to be a "believer" vs. an "unbeliever".
Consider whether whomever is taken with Pascal's Wager already has accepted the metaphysical preconception that whatever God there may be is pretty much subject to human faults like vanity and bossiness. I suppose there's no certainty that God is not "human", whatever that might mean. Such people will incline towards conventional religion, arguably anything from animism to Monotheism (of rather Henotheistic types, i. e. Islam, Haredi Jews, or any of various Christian Fundamentalist/orthodox types).
On the other side there are these days any number of people of Clifford-Principle presuppositions who feel duty-bound to oppose any belief that cannot prove itself scientifically. Strangely enough this may tend to overlap with people who are Atheists of quite contrasting types whether Communist, Nazi, or New Athelst.
Food for thought, probably best left undigested.

[WinePusher]

Also, "infinite gain" needs to be more clearly defined. What does "gain" mean here? Material gain? Emotional gain? Something else? Is "gain" something that can even be quantified (talking about an "infinity" of something unquantifiable is incoherent)? Because "gain" isn't defined clearly, there's not enough information to even make sense of Pascal's Wager. And if gain can be defined and quantified, the arguments in my previous post show why the Wager is absurd. Either way the argument fails.

First of all, I don't understand why everybody in this thread is calling Pascal's wager an argument. A wager isn't an argument, by definition of the words. Second of all, we can understand Pascal's wager by illustrating it in the form of a simple game (for those who don't know game theory is the scientific and mathematical study of decision making).

A simple payoff matrix for Pascal's wager would look like this:

--------------------God exists----------God does not exist
Believe------------Infinite Gain--------No Loss
Do not Believe----Infinite Loss--------No Loss

As you can see, by choosing to believe God exists the individual will either have a gain or will have no losses whatsoever. However, by choosing to not believe the individual will either have an infinite loss or no loss whatsoever. Now, to deal with your objections.

While Pascal was a mathematician, it would be erroneous to take the word 'infinite' literally since this subject matter can't be quantified (which you already pointed out). In fact, the concept of infinity can't be quantified which is why in mathematics the term 'infinity' is often used as a qualitative description, the same way Pascal is using it in his wager. Lastly, the idea that there is a loss associated with belief in God is nothing more than an opinion. I could easily assert that there is a loss associated with a disbelief in God which would give us the following payoff matrix:

--------------------God exists----------God does not exist
Believe------------Infinite Gain--------Loss
Do not Believe----Infinite Loss--------Loss

Even if there is a loss associated with belief and disbelief the best bet, according to the matrix and the rules of game theory, is to choose belief since there is a double loss associated with disbelief, one finite loss and one infinite loss. The only way your position would be rational is if you managed to objectively show that there is a loss associated with belief and no loss associated with disbelief.

[Haven]

Nice to see game theory used around here!

While Pascal was a mathematician, it would be erroneous to take the word 'infinite' literally since this subject matter can't be quantified (which you already pointed out). In fact, the concept of infinity can't be quantified which is why in mathematics the term 'infinity' is often used as a qualitative description, the same way Pascal is using it in his wager.

The way Pascal uses the term 'infinity' renders it meaningless. How can one speak of "infinite gain" or "infinite loss" when one doesn't know what is meant by infinite or what is gained or lost? The word "infinite" in this context is simply a rhetorical device that makes "some undefined loss/gain" seem more ominous to the untrained reader.

There are simply too many undefined terms for the Wager to be meaningful in any sense.

Lastly, the idea that there is a loss associated with belief in God is nothing more than an opinion. I could easily assert that there is a loss associated with a disbelief in God which would give us the following payoff matrix:

--------------------God exists----------God does not exist
Believe------------Infinite Gain--------Loss
Do not Believe----Infinite Loss--------Loss

Even if there is a loss associated with belief and disbelief the best bet, according to the matrix and the rules of game theory, is to choose belief since there is a double loss associated with disbelief, one finite loss and one infinite loss. The only way your position would be rational is if you managed to objectively show that there is a loss associated with belief and no loss associated with disbelief.

Which God? Keep in mind that, although Pascal (and presumably you) assume the Christian god is the only one in question, I raised several possible gods that could exist, each of which would change the considerations of the Wager (a pro-atheist god, an indifferent god, and so on).

Again, if a god exists that prefers atheists (and punishes theists), then it would be better to wager on atheism. If a god exists that couldn't care less about humans theistic or non-theistic beliefs, then either wager is equal. If a god exists that is indifferent to atheists but will punish believers in a different god, then wagering on theism is riskier. There are simply too many possible god options for either wager to be clearly a better choice.

For the Wager to be meaningful, one must know which god is most likely to exist, and the only way that this could be done is to examine arguments and evidence for the existence/nonexistence of various gods (and gods in general). This makes the Wager superfluous, because for it to be meaningful we'd have to go back to the standard theistic/atheistic argument format, with agnostic atheism as the default, which is the very thing that Pascal wanted to avoid.