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.

[Tcg]

For example, if a tobacco company tells us that smoking does not cause cancer, and a person fails to reject this null hypothesis, then that person may smoke and get cancer! That person better make sure that their probability of being wrong is very low--close to zero.

This isn't a good example to represent Pascal's Wager. We know that tobacco exists. We also know that cancer exists. The same can't be said for God or hell.

A better example would be of Sasquatch. If one suggests we should weigh the probability of being attacked by Sasquatch if we step out onto our suburban backyard, that would be a valid comparison to Pascal's scare tactic. Some might say one would lose nothing by staying out of their backyard. The truth is one would lose the beauty of their backyard by succumbing to the fear mongering concerning Sasquatch.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

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!’

I think a person who does not love Jehovah can still do his will. I don't love the government, but I do its will!

Yes but Jehovah has higher standards than human governments. Biblically, he is not satisfied with actions irrespective of the motives.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Loving Jehovah, on the other hand, is like a soldier loving his commanding officer. The soldier respects his CO because to mistreat him in any way would result in punishment and adverse consequences for the war effort.

I love Jehovah and I can assure you I do not love him because he can punish me if I don't. The only people I have heard say such a thing are those that have no idea who He is.

If Jehovah was lovable, then there would be no need to command anybody to love him.

Love (agape love) is a choice based on what we know and reflected in how we behave. The greatest command is there, not because God is unlovable but because loving him involves making the choice to do so (see 1 John 5:3)






JW

[Tcg]

I love Jehovah and I can assure you I do not love him because he can punish me if I don't. The only people I have heard say such a thing are those that have no idea who He is.

This is an interesting claim which clearly goes beyond a statement of belief. How can you support this claim of fact?

To be specific, what evidence can you provide that reveals that those who "say such a thing are those that have no idea who He is?" Additionally, what evidence can you provide that would reveal that you actually know who he is in such a way that would qualify you to make such a pronouncement?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

... what evidence can you provide that would reveal that you actually know who he is in such a way that would qualify you to make such a pronouncement?


Tcg

My studies of the bible and personal experiences provide me with the evidence I need to believe I actually know Jehovah.

Many I have spoken in real life over 35 years as a Christian minister admit to me they have done neither. I see no reason not to take them at their words. None if those that I have met that tell me they too love and have personal relationship with Jehovah, claim to serve Him only to hedge their bets for fear of being destroyed.



JW

[brunumb]

Many I have spoken in real life over 35 years as a Christian minister admit to me they have done neither. I see no reason not to take them at their words.

You mean that you don't require at least two witnesses to confirm their words? Good thing they're not accusing anyone in the church of sexual abuse or molestation.

[Tcg]

... what evidence can you provide that would reveal that you actually know who he is in such a way that would qualify you to make such a pronouncement?


Tcg

My studies of the bible and personal experiences provide me with the evidence I need to believe I actually know Jehovah.

I didn't ask you to explain why you believe you are qualified. I asked you to provide evidence that you are qualified. Your belief that you are qualified isn't evidence that you are.

Belief that you actually know Jehovah is evidence only that you believe you know Jehovah. It isn't evidence that you actually do. Care to try again?


Tcg

[Tcg]

Many I have spoken in real life over 35 years as a Christian minister...

A few anonymous folks you claim to have spoken to can't present your argument for you. You made a claim it is up to you, not them, to support it.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Commanding us to love him, or else, is coercion.

I do not agree. There is no COERCION involved in loving God. Coercion is persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Firstly, "Forced love" is an oxymoron, if it is forced it cannot be love. Further there are no "threats" involved, indeed there is no punishment related to not loving God : each person is free to make that choice or not. Jesus was quoting from the Mosaic law, but there was no punishment for breaking that commandment. Nobody was dragged out and stoned for not loving God, that would remain in the persons heart for God alone to know. Punishment was reserved for actions.

The point Jesus was making was that without love of God (and neighbour) it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to keep all the other commandments (actions). Love was then the basis or the motivation to faithfully adhere to the other laws such as those prohibiting idolatry, sacrilege, blasphemy as well as the laws to honour the Sabbath, give one's best in sacrifices etc. These actions were punishable but love was optional.

Under Christian law, love of God is still "optional" in that in theory, a person could be part of the congregation and not come to love at all God. Jesus warned however that such a person should not be under any illusions that such worship is acceptable to God. If each of us is free to choose to love God or not, is He not free to choose how he feels about it?

To illustrate: A man proposes to a woman. He explains that he's only doing it because his father said he would cut him off if he didn't. He points out that he doesn't find her attractive and doesnt like her personality but he will do it anyway because he's frightened of a life of poverty. If the woman rejects him because she wants a husband that loves her can the man claim she is trying to force her to love him?

BUT DOESNT THE BIBLE SAY GOD WILL DESTROY ANYONE THAT DOESNT LOVE HIM?

No it never does. It says God will destroy the wicked. Biblically, even if their wicked acts or evil disposition stems from their godlessness, it is not their not loving God that gets them killed - someone may not love God simply because they do not know Him, biblically that doesnt make them "wicked" just ignorant . The wicked will be destroyed because of their wicked deeds that stem from a heart of love of evil.

CONCLUSION: God doesn't threaten punishment because one doesn't love Him, nor does he attempt to force people to love him. Thus it cannot reasonably said that "the command to love him is coercion". It is a command in the sense that wholesouled love and devotion to God is a basic requirement for our worship to be acceptable to him. The choice is own, as are the consequences of that choice.






RELATED POSTS

Is Divine love a threat?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p844379

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

Does God only love those that obey Him?
viewtopic.php?p=1031096#p1031096

Can one love God without liking him?
viewtopic.php?p=1026668#p1026668

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

LOVE, HATE and ...POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT

[Paul of Tarsus]

I should point out that I'm using very good reasoning. In fact, my analysis of Pascal's wager comes directly from a statistic's text. Statistician's study the risks and rewards of rejecting or failing to reject null hypotheses. It's a procedure they call "hypothesis testing." I'd recommend you read up on hypothesis testing to understand the logic for it.

No need. I've understood the flaws in Pascal's Wager for years now.

Sorry, but you've demonstrated that you don't understand how to properly test a hypothesis.

I understand your position. You think there are no reasons to believe life is infinite. Now, please answer my obvious question: How sure are you that there is no eternal life?

100%

Hypothesis testing does not allow probabilities of zero or one hundred percent. Both of the probabilities used in hypothesis testing are greater than zero and less than one (one hundred percent). The reason values of zero and one are not allowed is that it is probably impossible to eliminate all doubt regarding null hypotheses.

If you are sure there is no God, then there is no need to fear the consequences of rejecting him.

I don't. That's why scare tactics don't work on me. Once again, I don't reject God, I lack belief that such a being exists.

Again, I'm not trying to scare you.

As far as prayer goes, why would someone pray to a being they lack belief in?

You might try prayer just in case you are wrong.

This doesn't answer my question.

Oh but I did answer your question. You asked why pray to a being you don't believe in, and I answered that the reason to pray to such a being is that you may be wrong about that being's existence.

For example, if a tobacco company tells us that smoking does not cause cancer, and a person fails to reject this null hypothesis, then that person may smoke and get cancer! That person better make sure that their probability of being wrong is very low--close to zero.

This isn't a good example to represent Pascal's Wager. We know that tobacco exists. We also know that cancer exists. The same can't be said for God or hell.

It is arguable that the probability of tobacco's existence and its carcinogenic effects are greater than the probability of God's existence, but the probability of God's existence and his judgment is nevertheless greater than zero. In both cases we should properly assess how serious are the consequences of being wrong.

A better example would be of Sasquatch. If one suggests we should weigh the probability of being attacked by Sasquatch if we step out onto our suburban backyard, that would be a valid comparison to Pascal's scare tactic. Some might say one would lose nothing by staying out of their backyard. The truth is one would lose the beauty of their backyard by succumbing to the fear mongering concerning Sasquatch.

I'm not so sure about Pascal's "scare tactic," but we can apply hypothesis testing to the existence of Sasquatch. I think you'll agree with me that the probability of Sasquatch's existence is low enough that we need not fear him. We can fail to reject the null hypothesis that he doesn't exist and still sleep well. Now, if we assess the risks of a grizzly bear attack when we are staying in a cabin in Montana, then the probability of an attack goes up. You'd be wise to make sure that the probability of an attack is low.