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]

And just to demonstrate that I'm fair, I'd suggest that Christians try atheism if they're game.

How would a theist (not all Christians are) go about trying atheism?

Stop praying and stop going to church. Read atheistic books. Think of reasons to doubt God while ignoring reasons to believe.

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

We hear this trite suggestion time and again. It of course overlooks the fact that many have sought him and found nothing. Absolute zero.

It is possible that God rejects those whom he knows don't really wish to find him. So if the search is not open to God and sincere, then God won't reveal himself.

[Tcg]

And just to demonstrate that I'm fair, I'd suggest that Christians try atheism if they're game.

How would a theist (not all Christians are) go about trying atheism?

Stop praying and stop going to church. Read atheistic books. Think of reasons to doubt God while ignoring reasons to believe.

That's not trying atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. How would a theist try that?

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

We hear this trite suggestion time and again. It of course overlooks the fact that many have sought him and found nothing. Absolute zero.

It is possible that God rejects those whom he knows don't really wish to find him. So if the search is not open to God and sincere, then God won't reveal himself.

This doesn't work either. Many really wish to find him and end up realizing that their is no actual God to find.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Maybe because we don't know where he is. I need to seek a lot of things that are not hiding.

I get that with my car keys sometimes. You'd think the almighty God would be a bit harder to lose track of.


Tcg

[Bust Nak]

But, if you just make up it, I don’t see any value in it, because even you would know that you just made up it and it is not true.

The conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Consider this contrived example. I just rolled a dice that I keep at my desk, I don't know what the result is yet, I haven't looked at it as I am typing this: I just make up six scenarios, of me rolling a 1 to a 6. I know I made all six scenario up, yet only five of these scenarios are false, one is true.

I rolled a 1 by the way, having just looked.

[The authors of the Bible] were serious who wrote it, which makes it different, there is even some potential, while yours doesn’t have any.

Different sure, why would the seriousness of the author of a scenario changes how likely the scenario to be true, let alone reduce the potential to zero? Seriousness doesn't imply they are less likely to be wrong, does it?

[William]

But, if you just make up it, I don’t see any value in it, because even you would know that you just made up it and it is not true.

The conclusion doesn't seem to follow. Consider this contrived example. I just rolled a dice that I keep at my desk, I don't know what the result is yet, I haven't looked at it as I am typing this: I just make up six scenarios, of me rolling a 1 to a 6. I know I made all six scenario up, yet only five of these scenarios are false, one is true.

I rolled a 1 by the way, having just looked.

[The authors of the Bible] were serious who wrote it, which makes it different, there is even some potential, while yours doesn’t have any.

Different sure, why would the seriousness of the author of a scenario changes how likely the scenario to be true, let alone reduce the potential to zero? Seriousness doesn't imply they are less likely to be wrong, does it?

Not really, but it can seriously be made to look that way....

[Paul of Tarsus]

Let's say that an unbeliever does as Pascal suggests and tries to believe in God "just in case God exists." What if, based on his investigation, he is unable to believe in God? What should he do? Keep trying? Does he lie and say he believes in God although in his heart he knows he does not? Perhaps he could keep trying to believe and even join a church, get baptized or sprinkled or whatever, go to church every week and participate in all the activities believers do. Would that be acceptable to God (if there is one)? No, his life would be a lie, a sham.

You've pointed out some legitimate difficulties in Pascal's wager. I didn't really mean to defend Pascal's wager. In the OP, I composed what I thought was a revealing analysis of how sure we should be when we reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis, there is no God. Based on my analysis, atheists should be very sure that the null hypothesis is true when they fail to reject it. Otherwise, they will face God's wrath. Christians, on the other hand, don't need to be so sure when they reject the null hypothesis.

[Tcg]

Based on my analysis, atheists should be very sure that the null hypothesis is true when they fail to reject it. Otherwise, they will face God's wrath.

Thankfully there is no reason to consider your "analysis" valid. There is no reason to be worried about the empty scare tactic of facing "God's wrath."


Tcg

[brunumb]

He's not hiding, and if you seek him, then chances are you'll find him.

If he's not hiding, why do you have to seek him?

Maybe because we don't know where he is. I need to seek a lot of things that are not hiding.

What is the big problem with God simply revealing himself directly and unequivocally to everyone rather than through ridiculous scenarios involving only selected individuals?

I think that might be explained by the logos. The Greeks understood that since God is holy, he will not defile himself by making contact with a sinful world. He then selects those individuals who are most worthy to receive his revelations--the "logos." Christ, of course, personified the perfect logos. He was "the Word" sent by God to reveal the Kingdom of God to all who would receive it. (See John 1.)

What the Greeks may have understood is irrelevant. Where has it been demonstrated as fact? In the Old Testament God seemed to have no trouble at all interacting with this sinful world. This notion of choosing selected individuals simply smacks of some people taking advantage of an 'absent' God and manipulating circumstances to their advantage. Sending Jesus was not the most efficient way of revealing his kingdom either. It didn't work all that well and would have failed completely without human intervention to keep the whole thing alive. Why can't an omnipotent being capable of doing anything reveal himself unequivocally to all people?

[brunumb]

It is possible that God rejects those whom he knows don't really wish to find him. So if the search is not open to God and sincere, then God won't reveal himself.

In other words, God doesn't really care about everyone after all. Where is the love? He could potentially win over everyone by the simple act of revealing himself ways that would be compelling for all to believe in him. Or, is his infinite ego so bruised that he will turn his back on those that have not accepted his existence unquestioningly?

[brunumb]

Stop praying and stop going to church. Read atheistic books. Think of reasons to doubt God while ignoring reasons to believe.

What you are recommending is abandoning the practice of religion. That is not atheism. Atheism is having a lack of belief in gods. You either believe or you don't. You can't simply turn belief on and off like a tap. The things you have suggested may actually open up the mind of a believer so that they see that their faith was misplaced and they find that they no longer believe in God. But that's not trying atheism. It's interesting that you suggested ignoring reasons to believe. That is a two way street if you think about it.