Examining Pascal's Wager

[Paul of Tarsus]

(My treatment of Pascal's Wager will be a bit technical in this OP, but please bear with me because my examination of Pascal's Wager should be informative.)

According to Wikipedia:

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).

What decision should we make regarding the existence of God, and what are the potential consequences of that decision?

To answer this question, we should start with the "null hypothesis" (so named because of it's negation, "not.")

H0: God does not exist.

Note that this null hypothesis can be true or false, and we can reject it or fail to reject it. A summary of the four combinations of these possibilities are the following:

We reject the null hypothesis (we believe in God) and
A. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type I" error.
B. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type B correct decision."

We fail to reject the null hypothesis (we don't believe in God) and
C. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type A correct decision."
D. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type II" error.

So if theists err because God doesn't exist, then they commit a Type I error. If atheists err (God does exist), then they commit a Type II error.

Which of these two errors has more serious consequences? As pascal points out in his wager, the gains of believing in God are infinite while the gains of doubt are finite. So if we doubt God's existence, then we better make darn sure we are right. If we believe in God, on the other hand, then the probability of being wrong need not be so low. So contrary to Pascal, I won't tell anybody that it's better to believe in God or not; it's just best to make sure you are making the correct decision whether you believe in God or not. Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

I have no idea what this supposition adds to the debate.

Given that there is no reason to assume that anyone's life is infinite, there is no reason to believe that "the gains of believing in God are infinite." It appears that both theists and atheists share the same fate of a finite life. There is no reason to pretend that belief in God is going to change that unless of course one finds that death denial provides comfort. Many do apparently.

If we knew that life was finite, then I would agree that we have little to gain from God. However, you seem to be overlooking that the whole basis of Pascal's wager assumes that we don't know that life is infinite. His wager is a conclusion based on an examination of the results of being wrong or right about the existence of God. So since you think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, is that conjecture sure enough that you wish to gamble your eternal fate on it?

Like any atheist, I think it's wise to make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low.

[brunumb]

Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

You are assuming that belief in a god is a matter of choice. It is not. Ones brain is either convinced that a god exists, or it isn't. I haven't chosen to not believe in any gods. I can't believe, and I can't simply choose to believe based on some balance of favourable or unfavourable outcomes. I wonder how many believers who were inculcated with their beliefs through indoctrination can honestly say that they actually chose to believe in their deity.

[Tcg]

So since you think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, is that conjecture sure enough that you wish to gamble your eternal fate on it?

You are missing the obvious point. Given that I think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, there is no reason for me to believe there is any eternal fate to gamble.

Like any atheist, I think it's wise to make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low.

I've already addressed this empty scare tactic in another post. Repeating the same scare tactic is of no use.

Pascal's Wager suffers the same fate. It is nothing but an empty scare tactic repeated over and over and over with the presenter hoping that this time it'll work.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

This is very true, but only if you accept Paschal's assumption that those with disbelief will be eternally punished if God exists, and those with belief will always be rewarded with eternal bliss, if God exists. Neither is necessarily true. Certainly, it's not true for Christianity.

I don't wish to get into a debate about the nature of hell, but whatever hell is like, I think it's obviously a fate that nobody wishes to suffer. Or to look at it another way, to reject God and to deny him is not without very serious consequences. At the very least the denier foregoes the good that God has to offer.

So what about a person who is invincibly ignorant of the truth? He has perhaps not heard the gospels, or maybe, for whatever reason, is unable to see the truth. St. Paul writes...
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:

He is speaking of natural law, which all humans understand. And by that law they will be judged, according to Paul. So not accepting God is not automatic damnation, according to His word.

On the other hand, believing is no automatic salvation:
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. [20] But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

If you compare such consequences to the consequences of believing in a nonexistent God, the latter are trivial.

If we can believe God, it's not quite that simple. Paschal's Wager makes some unwarranted assumptions, according to scripture.

What if Paschal's Wager was reversed, and believing would grant you relatively little if God was true, and cause eternal torment if God was not true? Would you still believe?

[JehovahsWitness]

What decision should we make regarding the existence of God, and what are the potential consequences of that decision?

One should make a decision to make a genuine investigation and not close ones eyes to overwhelming evidence. The consequences of not doing this may be fatal.

Regarding Pascal's Wager: biblically God will not accept worship based on a mere calculation to avoid punishment. God is looking for men and women of faith who genuinely love Him from the heart and want to please Him. Those that serve God as a back up to being destroyed, will be rejected regardless of their lifecourse and thus find they have wasted their lives anyway.

MATTHEW 7: 20-23

Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

JW


Does God attempt to COERCE people into loving him?
viewtopic.php?p=1030964#p1030964

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

GOD , EVOLUTION and ...BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

[The Barbarian]

Paschal's Wager is often used as a club to beat up atheists. Not a very good idea, I think. And it's based on faulty thinking, i.e. "don't believe, go to Hell", "believe. go to heaven."

I do notice that people who live their lives to do as God intends as much as they can, seem to be a lot happier. And yes, atheists who follow natural law to the best of their ability, often seem just as happy. The reason, I think, is that what God wants of us is to live in a way that brings us joy rather than sorrow.

So there's the other issue. The atheist might as well say "What if there isn't a God, and I live a life of goodness and contentment for nothing?" Or he might say "I don't have a god, but I do have a code that tells me how to live, and in the time I have as a being, I'm happy." As I read it, God doesn't say that we'll be free of trouble and pain, but he does say that if we follow Him, we will be happy. To the extent that I've been able to be an imitation of Christ, I have been happy. Where I've failed to do so, I've not been happy.

So Barbarian's Wager is a bit different.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

You are assuming that belief in a god is a matter of choice. It is not. Ones brain is either convinced that a god exists, or it isn't. I haven't chosen to not believe in any gods. I can't believe, and I can't simply choose to believe based on some balance of favourable or unfavourable outcomes. I wonder how many believers who were inculcated with their beliefs through indoctrination can honestly say that they actually chose to believe in their deity.

I agree that it may be impossible for some people to choose to believe in God or anything else, but for the purposes of this debate let's assume that a person at least can try to believe in God through prayer, Bible study, and church attendance.

[1213]

...
That basically sums up why Pascal's Wager is useless.

We can invent all sorts of beings that will do either good or bad things to us if we do/don't believe. Pascal's Wager suggests we should believe all of them to avoid all the bad things. Clearly that is both ridiculous and impossible (since we would spend our entire lives searching for all the bogey men who might do bad things to us so we can believe in them).

I disagree with that. Even if we think there are many options, choosing none makes you sure loser, choosing one, gives you even small chance for something else than death. It is easy calculation of expected value.

And, if you think reasonably the choices, there should not be many. Most of alleged gods are on about same level as your left foot shoe. People have kept for example golden calf as their god. I think it should be easy to not choose something that is less capable than you. And if we think for example Hinduism, according to it, all ways can be correct, so by it, it is reasonable to choose for example Christianity, because it is then also one of the correct ways, but it increases your odds, because you basically have chosen two. Islam also points to Christianity, because Quran says people should believe Jesus.

…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
http://quran.com/4/171

To me, Christianity is easy choice, because Bible has truth, love, righteousness and other knowledge that I don’t think humans would have without God. However, believing Bible God exists, is not the key to eternal life. Bible promises eternal life for righteous, which is much more than just believing that God is real.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[Bust Nak]

Which of these two errors has more serious consequences? As pascal points out in his wager, the gains of believing in God are infinite while the gains of doubt are finite.

Pascal is not here to defend this claim. Perhaps you can step up instead? Justify that the consequences are more serious for atheists than theists. This needs to be solid for the argument to hold water.

Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

The whole point of brining infinity into the wager is to remove the need to estimate the probabilities, (as long as it is non-zero.)

I disagree with that. Even if we think there are many options, choosing none makes you sure loser, choosing one, gives you even small chance for something else than death. It is easy calculation of expected value.

Same challenge here, justify the claim that choosing none has a worse expected value than choose one.

[William]

Perhaps back in the day Pascels wager would have made awesome sense and even convinced people to tithe to Christendom.

Christendom has since become an impotent lump who's fables are largely discredited. Nothing more than a shadow The Church casts.