Examining Pascal's Wager

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #2

Post by The Barbarian »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:06 am 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.
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.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #3

Post by Miles »

.


So which god is it that I should seek to believe in?


Image


And why that one and not another?


.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1949 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #4

Post by benchwarmer »

Miles wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:10 pm .


So which god is it that I should seek to believe in?


Image


And why that one and not another?


.
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).

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #5

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:06 am 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.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #6

Post by Miles »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:06 am Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.
A odd appearing need, when, were it not for the theist proclamation that "god exists," atheism would have no reason to exist. And believe me, being an atheist myself, none of us are concerned with being wrong, in any sense of the word. If theists, or anyone else, has new evidence for the existence of god we'd be delighted to take a look at it.


.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #7

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:19 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:06 am 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.
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. If you compare such consequences to the consequences of believing in a nonexistent God, the latter are trivial.

So atheists, make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low! To play it safe you want to reject any hypothesis that if false, can land you in a lot of trouble.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #8

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Miles wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:10 pm .


So which god is it that I should seek to believe in?


Image


And why that one and not another?


.
You should believe in the one, true God, of course. Other gods don't exist and can do you no good.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #9

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:35 pm
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.
No need to fret. There is no reason to believe that a place such as hell exists or that anyone will suffer there.

Or to look at it another way, to reject God and to deny him is not without very serious consequences.
Empty scare tactics aren't helpful in reasoned debate. Amusing, but not useful.


So atheists, make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low! To play it safe you want to reject any hypothesis that if false, can land you in a lot of trouble.
More empty scare tactics in place of reasoned debate.

Image


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #10

Post by Miles »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:38 pm
Miles wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:10 pm .


So which god is it that I should seek to believe in?


Image


And why that one and not another?


.
You should believe in the one, true God, of course. Other gods don't exist and can do you no good.

Fine, but which one is it, and why?



.

Post Reply