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]

Why would a god not want to demonstrate its actual existence ... ever? Don't you find that curious? Why do they all have to be simply believed to exist (faith) rather than just settling the question and showing themselves to exist?

The standard Christian answer to this question is that God has already revealed himself in Christ. The New Testament records him performing many miracles including your stipulated raising a person from the dead.

Is God's way "curious"? Yes, I suppose it is, but we shouldn't be surprised. I'm sure dogs find our ways to be odd, but of course, they do not understand us in a way analogous to our not understanding God's ways. So God may remain hidden to us for reasons we cannot understand.

I think we can be sure that leprechauns don't exist as they are purely made up characters.

I'd say that leprechauns are not likely to exist outside of folklore because they appear to be fictional characters. Note that I allow room for error on my part here. I do not and cannot know that they don't exist, and I recognize the possibility that leprechauns do exist as actual living things.

As for aliens (in this context meaning intelligent visitors to Earth from outside of Earth) and bigfoot, they are in the same category as gods in that there has yet to be found any evidence for their existence, so I'd default to them not existing until there is some hard evidence that they do.

My approach to this issue is that since I do not know that aliens do or do not exist, I suspend judgment. I try not to ever claim I know what I don't know.

Again, this is a premise we do not agree on. Until you can change my mind about it, then it will do you no good to continue to assert it.

This implies that you do have evidence for the existence of gods.

No, I didn't imply that I have evidence for God when I said that. What I did mean is that you have no evidence for your assertion, or at least no evidence that convinces me.

Apparently "evidence" for gods is not the same as evidence, say, in a crime case or for a scientific analysis. It can be simply opinion, but called evidence.

Actually, there is eyewitness evidence for God just like there might be eyewitness testimony presented to a court of law.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #234]

No, I didn't imply that I have evidence for God when I said that. What I did mean is that you have no evidence for your assertion, or at least no evidence that convinces me.

I think you did. My assertion was that there is no evidence for the existence of gods (not that gods don't exist). And you said you disagree with that assertion. So you disagree that evidence for gods doesn't exist, meaning that you must hold a position that evidence for gods does exist. I was asking for that evidence.

Actually, there is eyewitness evidence for God just like there might be eyewitness testimony presented to a court of law.

Just what I was asking for. Care to share it? I have a feeling the definition of the word "evidence" is going to be relevant in your response.

[brunumb]

The standard Christian answer to this question is that God has already revealed himself in Christ. The New Testament records him performing many miracles including your stipulated raising a person from the dead.

But Christ hasn't revealed himself to me and I have not seen him performing any miracles. He is a character in a book of stories. I'm sure that people in the past have claimed to have seen leprechauns and those stories have also ended up being told in books. Hardly compelling reasons to believe in either. There really does not appear to be any reason why God cannot reveal himself to everyone particularly given the dire consequences of not believing. Although, one good reason just came to mind. He doesn't exist.

[Paul of Tarsus]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #234]

No, I didn't imply that I have evidence for God when I said that. What I did mean is that you have no evidence for your assertion, or at least no evidence that convinces me.

I think you did. My assertion was that there is no evidence for the existence of gods (not that gods don't exist). And you said you disagree with that assertion. So you disagree that evidence for gods doesn't exist, meaning that you must hold a position that evidence for gods does exist.

I didn't agree with your claim because I'm not sure that there's no evidence for God. If a claim is made that there are no chickens, and I disagree with that claim, then I'm not necessarily saying I have chickens. I might think there are chickens but cannot prove there are chickens. As with chickens, so with God.

I was asking for that evidence.

Get ready to deny this evidence!

A common misconception is that Christian miracle claims are confined to the first century. However, about a century ago the Virgin Mary reputedly appeared on several occasions to three children near Fatima, Portugal. On one day Mary performed a miracle causing the sun (or its image) to descend from the sky toward the earth. This miracle was witnessed by a large crowd. As I see it, this episode demonstrates that there is evidence for God although we can dispute the quality of this evidence.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #237]

A common misconception is that Christian miracle claims are confined to the first century. However, about a century ago the Virgin Mary reputedly appeared on several occasions to three children near Fatima, Portugal. On one day Mary performed a miracle causing the sun (or its image) to descend from the sky toward the earth. This miracle was witnessed by a large crowd. As I see it, this episode demonstrates that there is evidence for God although we can dispute the quality of this evidence.

Is it not true that the Catholic church requires "proof" that a miracle occured via intercession of a person before beatification (unless proof of martydom is formally declared by the church)? I believe Mother Teresa is credited with two "miracles" ... both of the healing type and based on very questionable evidence. But they have changed the rules over the centuries which in itself casts doubt on the legitimacy of it all.

In any case, for the example you provided, had you had not snuck in the "or its image" part, then this could clearly be debunked because of the gigantic other implications of the sun "descending from the sky towards the earth" (such as us not being able to have a dialog via this website as the servers would be vaporized along with us). If the sun actually "decended toward the earth" enough for someone to visibly notice it within a day or an hour, then besides the thermal impacts, the orbits of the earth and the other planets would go haywire as they all orbit the sun and we'd all likely be toast for some other reason. Of course, there is always the escape clause that a god would just reverse any of these effects so that there was no damage done, and if miracles are believed then why not god to the rescue for all of the other practical implications of something like this.

This is similar to the "sun stood still in the sky" story so Joshua could finish his battle to protect the Gibeonites against the Five Kings. That would imply that the earth has stopped rotating on its axis, and what force could cause that? Of course ... an all powerful god that can do "anything", but nothing in the natural world. So if the Portugal "miracle" actually happened, the god responsible would have a lot of housekeeping to do to avoid all of the other consequences of sending the sun closer to the earth, and to hide those from the rest of the world who apparently witnessed no such thing.

The "or its image" addition sort of negates the whole thing because now we can explain it by a simple optical illusion, or some atmospheric phenomenon due to strange refractive effects, thermal inversions near the surface if the sun was near the horizon or something like that (eg. the same kind of effect that causes a Fata Morgana). But in that case it would not be a "miracle." Put me in the skeptic camp.

[brunumb]

The "or its image" addition sort of negates the whole thing because now we can explain it by a simple optical illusion, or some atmospheric phenomenon due to strange refractive effects, thermal inversions near the surface if the sun was near the horizon or something like that (eg. the same kind of effect that causes a Fata Morgana). But in that case it would not be a "miracle." Put me in the skeptic camp.

Me too. Whenever I read accounts of alleged miracles like that one, I always wonder why an omnipotent God chose to do something so 'questionable'. Why not the face of Jesus filling the sky and a booming voice that everyone would hear in their own language saying something to the effect of "Hey folks, it's ME"? Or something else that would be spectacular and so definitive that it would be impossible to refute. Instead we get something that is dubious at best and probably involving mass hysteria in a primed audience. To me the miracle is that people still buy into it.

[benchwarmer]

Me too. Whenever I read accounts of alleged miracles like that one, I always wonder why an omnipotent God chose to do something so 'questionable'.

I'm on the same page. It's almost like God is toying with a small part of the population, but seems to enjoy hiding from the vast majority.

If it's a requirement to believe in God in order not to be tortured forever, it seems God is playing a cruel game. Why create an environment where nobody can repeatedly observe/interact with God?

If I had to stand in front of God right now and He asked "Why didn't you believe in me?" I would point to the confusing mess that is Christianity, all the problems in the Bible, and the constant 'hiding' that seems to be going on. Not to mention all the other religions with competing images of gods, etc. How could I possibly be blamed for my current skepticism? We were given the ability to observe our surroundings so we can hardly be blamed for using that ability to question things that seem obviously 'fishy'. I also tried to be a Christian with all that entailed. I prayed, read the Bible cover to cover, attended weekly church service, took part in Bible studies, surrounded myself with other Christens, etc. i.e. I've been there and bought the t-shirt. Eventually though, I examined the label on the t-shirt and things started to unravel. The closer I looked, the more it became apparent that this religion, like all the rest, is likely a sham. It's only possible for one sect of one religion to be right. It's also entirely possible (and quite likely) that they are ALL wrong.

I would actually be more worried about those who adamantly disregard modern knowledge (i.e. observable science) in favor of holy texts. I can only image a deity exclaiming "Holy smokes, I gave you five senses and you decided to believe some ancient manuscripts over what's right in front of you?!".

I would definitely rather be in the "it seemed fishy so I erred on the side of what I can confirm myself" camp rather than "this book says so, so I went with it" camp.

[William]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #238]

I would actually be more worried about those who adamantly disregard modern knowledge (i.e. observable science) in favor of holy texts. I can only image a deity exclaiming "Holy smokes, I gave you five senses and you decided to believe some ancient manuscripts over what's right in front of you?!".

I suspect that if we do indeed exist within a creation, we would most likely get that type of response from any said creator.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Is it not true that the Catholic church requires "proof" that a miracle occured via intercession of a person before beatification (unless proof of martydom is formally declared by the church)?

Yes.

I believe Mother Teresa is credited with two "miracles" ... both of the healing type and based on very questionable evidence. But they have changed the rules over the centuries which in itself casts doubt on the legitimacy of it all.

Science changes the rules too. Do you doubt science for those changes?

In any case, for the example you provided, had you had not snuck in the "or its image" part, then this could clearly be debunked because of the gigantic other implications of the sun "descending from the sky towards the earth" (such as us not being able to have a dialog via this website as the servers would be vaporized along with us). If the sun actually "decended toward the earth" enough for someone to visibly notice it within a day or an hour, then besides the thermal impacts, the orbits of the earth and the other planets would go haywire as they all orbit the sun and we'd all likely be toast for some other reason.

Yes. I know that if the sun got too close to the earth, then we'd all be toast.

Of course, there is always the escape clause that a god would just reverse any of these effects so that there was no damage done, and if miracles are believed then why not god to the rescue for all of the other practical implications of something like this.

Well, if we are considering the truth of the miracle at Fatima, then to rule out God miraculously safeguarding the earth from the sun would be begging the question. If you assume miracles cannot happen, then you are assuming the position you are trying to prove which is a logical fallacy.

This is similar to the "sun stood still in the sky" story so Joshua could finish his battle to protect the Gibeonites against the Five Kings. That would imply that the earth has stopped rotating on its axis, and what force could cause that? Of course ... an all powerful god that can do "anything", but nothing in the natural world. So if the Portugal "miracle" actually happened, the god responsible would have a lot of housekeeping to do to avoid all of the other consequences of sending the sun closer to the earth, and to hide those from the rest of the world who apparently witnessed no such thing.

Are you assuming that God cannot intervene in nature's course by taking control of celestial bodies? If so, then you are begging the question by attempting to prove miracles cannot happen by assuming they cannot happen.

The "or its image" addition sort of negates the whole thing because now we can explain it by a simple optical illusion, or some atmospheric phenomenon due to strange refractive effects, thermal inversions near the surface if the sun was near the horizon or something like that (eg. the same kind of effect that causes a Fata Morgana). But in that case it would not be a "miracle." Put me in the skeptic camp.

Sure, you can opt to explain the Fatima miracle that way, but you can also choose to explain it as a miraculous vision from God. Arbitrarily chosen explanations don't carry much weight.

Now, maybe I should have started out this reply by pointing out that your entire post 235 is a red herring. You went off on a tangent there explaining why miracles are unlikely, but that's not the issue. The issue is your asking for evidence for God after asserting that there is no such evidence. You now have some evidence for God. Yes, I agree that the evidence I presented is problematical, but it is evidence for God nevertheless. You didn't ask for high-quality evidence--just evidence.

Do you then care to concede that your assertion is wrong and that there is evidence for God?

Finally, I see another similarity between fundamentalist Christians and some atheists. In my many debates with Christians, they've often demanded evidence for something I'm arguing and that they don't wish to believe. When I fork over that evidence they never concede that they were wrong when they had denied that evidence. They will find something wrong with it if they don't just ignore it.

Like I said, fundamentalism is not peculiar to religious beliefs.

[Paul of Tarsus]

The "or its image" addition sort of negates the whole thing because now we can explain it by a simple optical illusion, or some atmospheric phenomenon due to strange refractive effects, thermal inversions near the surface if the sun was near the horizon or something like that (eg. the same kind of effect that causes a Fata Morgana). But in that case it would not be a "miracle." Put me in the skeptic camp.

Me too. Whenever I read accounts of alleged miracles like that one, I always wonder why an omnipotent God chose to do something so 'questionable'. Why not the face of Jesus filling the sky and a booming voice that everyone would hear in their own language saying something to the effect of "Hey folks, it's ME"? Or something else that would be spectacular and so definitive that it would be impossible to refute. Instead we get something that is dubious at best and probably involving mass hysteria in a primed audience. To me the miracle is that people still buy into it.

I agree that the Fatima miracle is dubious at best. I would think it's a joke if I didn't know it's meant to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it is evidence for God. You can doubt it and critique it and trash it, but it remains as the evidence for the miracles that some atheists deny. If I was a truly rational atheist, then I would never deny what I cannot know to be false. I do not and cannot know that the Fatima miracle didn't happen, so I'm not going to say I know it didn't happen.