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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Before making a wager a person is well advised to examine the terms offered.

The first thing I would ask is "Who is holding the money (payoffs / rewards)?" If "the house" holds the money, show me that the house is trustworthy.

Second I would question "belief = gain." Is there assurance that if "belief" wins there will be a "gain" (payoff)? Show me the money / goods / rewards.

Third question is "belief = no cost." Is NOTHING required other than belief " nothing at all? What is required to prove belief? If one's attitude is "Okay I believe in God. Now get out of my way. I have more important things to do and think about." Does that fulfill the belief requirement or must one do more?

Fourth: "non-belief = loss (if belief wins)." Is there assurance that something will be lost by non-belief? What? How is that known / assured?

Fifth: Are there other games / wagers of similar nature? Do all similar wagers offer similar terms? Thousands of competing gods (games) have been proposed. Which god (game) should one play and why?


The "wager" as presented attempts to stack the deck in favor of one selected god and is based upon unverifiable promises of winnings or losses.

[WinePusher]

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.

Yes, it is a rhetorical device. Just as it is in mathematics. In calculus, when we say that a sequence diverges to infinity all we're saying is that the sequence does not converge to a finite number. We would never say that the sequence converges to infinity as there is no such number that we can comprehend. It just goes off to some huge number that we can't ascertain, thus 'infinity' is merely being used as a qualitative description/rhetorical device. In the same way, Pascal is merely saying that belief in God will result in some 'infinite' incomprehensible, huge, beyond of wildest dreams, gain.

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).

Pascal's wager doesn't deal with this question though. It deals with belief vs nonbelief, not belief in God A vs belief in God B. Wagers between different Gods and different religions would require a different game:

--------------------God A exists----------God B exists
Believe------------Infinite Gain----------Infinite Gain
Do not Believe----Infinite Loss----------Infinite Loss

In such a game there really is no good bet. It's 50-50 either way. However, Pascal's wager wasn't intended to show that belief in one particular God is a better bet than belief in another particular God. It was to show that belief is a better and safer bet than nonbelief. It's an interesting wager and the mechanics of it do in fact show that belief is a better bet than nonbelief, but that's pretty much it. I don't put much stock in it and I don't consider it to be an argument for God's existence. It's just an interesting thought experiment.

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.

Yes, you're right, which is why assumptions need to be imposed on the wager/game if it's to make any sense, that is we assume that belief in God will lead to an infinite gain rather than an infinite loss. I can already predict that many other debaters will object to this, but keep in mind that assumptions are crucial in developing mathematical proofs and scientific models.

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.

Well, I don't consider the wager to be meaningful. I think it's an interesting thought experiment that is technically correct, but doesn't prove God exists. It just shows that in certain cases, belief in God will be a safer bet than disbelief.

[Haven]

Yes, it is a rhetorical device. Just as it is in mathematics. In calculus, when we say that a sequence diverges to infinity all we're saying is that the sequence does not converge to a finite number. We would never say that the sequence converges to infinity as there is no such number that we can comprehend. It just goes off to some huge number that we can't ascertain, thus 'infinity' is merely being used as a qualitative description/rhetorical device. In the same way, Pascal is merely saying that belief in God will result in some 'infinite' incomprehensible, huge, beyond of wildest dreams, gain.

Again, the question remains: a gain of what? Even if I concede your comments on infinity (which I don't think are entirely accurate because 'infinity' in math still pertains to some quantifiable unit, while that isn't the case in the Wager), we still don't know what this gain is. Without knowledge of what is to be gained, any wager would be ridiculous.

However, Pascal's wager wasn't intended to show that belief in one particular God is a better bet than belief in another particular God. It was to show that belief is a better and safer bet than nonbelief.

But one can't say that belief is better than nonbelief without knowing the dispositions of the god(s) in question. In the case of a god that prefers atheists, nonbelief is clearly better than belief.

Yes, you're right, which is why assumptions need to be imposed on the wager/game if it's to make any sense, that is we assume that belief in God will lead to an infinite gain rather than an infinite loss. I can already predict that many other debaters will object to this, but keep in mind that assumptions are crucial in developing mathematical proofs and scientific models.

Many debaters (myself included) will object to this assumption because it makes the Wager question-begging and therefore fallacious. In this case the Wager demonstrates nothing except its proponents' preexisting beliefs in Christian theism. It does nothing other than highlight the Christian faith of those who propose it, which is obviously superfluous.

Well, I don't consider the wager to be meaningful. I think it's an interesting thought experiment that is technically correct, but doesn't prove God exists. It just shows that in certain cases, belief in God will be a safer bet than disbelief.

I respectfully disagree: the Wager is both meaningless (because of the erroneous use of 'infinite' and the undefined 'gain') and either absurd (because of the unknown nature of the god in question) or question-begging (because of the prior assumption of Christianity). Regardless, it fails in every sense.

[help3434]

Well, I don't consider the wager to be meaningful. I think it's an interesting thought experiment that is technically correct, but doesn't prove God exists. It just shows that in certain cases, belief in God will be a safer bet than disbelief.

How is it correct in any sense? All the wager does is make assumptions about what the consequence would be if God exists with no justification for that assumption.

[Goat]

[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.

That does not appear to be true for all people. I know plenty of people who 'hit the rocks' so to speak, and drew themselves up by their own bootstraps without any belief in God.

[WinePusher]

Well, I don't consider the wager to be meaningful. I think it's an interesting thought experiment that is technically correct, but doesn't prove God exists. It just shows that in certain cases, belief in God will be a safer bet than disbelief.

How is it correct in any sense? All the wager does is make assumptions about what the consequence would be if God exists with no justification for that assumption.

In the way Pascal originally formalized the wager it does make sense, as I already explained. As others like Haven have pointed out, there are additional factors that need to be considered, however that doesn't make the wager incorrect, it just makes it incomplete.

I actually have an objection to the wager that no one has yet to present. One should not believe in God due to some selfish desire for heaven or paradise in the afterlife since the belief is not genuine.

[Bust Nak]

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.

But why are you/bjs multiplying the odds with the payoff in the first place? That's not how probabilities work. 1/10 chance at winning and 3/10 chance at winning are different full stop, no matter what the reward is for winning.

In the way Pascal originally formalized the wager it does make sense, as I already explained. As others like Haven have pointed out, there are additional factors that need to be considered, however that doesn't make the wager incorrect, it just makes it incomplete.

It is "incomplete" in the same sense as asserting that "betting on God will 100% net you a loss, so it's a no brainier to be an atheist" is incomplete. Why would anyone bet on the 100% loss? That it makes sense to be an atheist in this particular way the wager formulated means very little, when it is the way it is formulated itself that is being challenged.

[ScioVeritas]

To clarify, for me the use of Pascal's Wager is not an argument I would use to prove the existence of any God, but an intriguing thought experiment that reinforces the idea that belief is better than non-belief if the God of the Bible is assumed to exist.

When I said listed Pascal's Wager among philosophical arguments that was a category mistake on my part.

I don't think this wager is something that applies to other religions because Christianity is the only one (as far as I know, although I could be wrong) that states there is eternal torment for those who reject the God of the Bible. (Buddhism/Hinduism both advocate for reincarnation, Judaism advocates a view that souls who don't go to Heaven are destroyed at death-ceasing to exist and Islam advocates a view that all souls will eventually go to Heaven there would just be some who went through a period of purification by fire in purgatory). None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

To answer the original question of whether Pascal's Wager should be used in a debate - I would answer no. However because I'm predisposed toward belief in the God of the Bible, this thought experiment (along with other factors in my life) work as a means to prevent me from abandoning my faith. -Please note this is not the only reason but one among many.

[Haven]

To clarify, for me the use of Pascal's Wager is not an argument I would use to prove the existence of any God, but an intriguing thought experiment that reinforces the idea that belief is better than non-belief if the God of the Bible is assumed to exist.

When I said listed Pascal's Wager among philosophical arguments that was a category mistake on my part.

I don't think this wager is something that applies to other religions because Christianity is the only one (as far as I know, although I could be wrong) that states there is eternal torment for those who reject the God of the Bible. (Buddhism/Hinduism both advocate for reincarnation, Judaism advocates a view that souls who don't go to Heaven are destroyed at death-ceasing to exist and Islam advocates a view that all souls will eventually go to Heaven there would just be some who went through a period of purification by fire in purgatory). None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

To answer the original question of whether Pascal's Wager should be used in a debate - I would answer no. However because I'm predisposed toward belief in the God of the Bible, this thought experiment (along with other factors in my life) work as a means to prevent me from abandoning my faith. -Please note this is not the only reason but one among many.

Jainism posits a form of nearly eternal torment for those with enough negative karma. Islam has a form of eternal torment identical to that in Christianity.

However, why should the threat of torture be the reason to choose a religion? Should one support a fascist dictator because the dictator tortures dissenters? Why worship such an evil deity, even if it exists?

[ScioVeritas]

To me it's similar to when my parents told me that if I crossed the street without looking then I would be disciplined. That's not to say that they wanted to punish me, but the threat of punishment was there in order that I would choose to do the thing that would lead to my safety. So I don't view my parents as dictators because they told me that I would punished if I didn't listen because the reason they're telling me anything is for my best interest and I trust that they know more than me. If I want to rebel then sure I'm free to run in the street but then I can't be upset if I get hit by a car because I didn't listen.