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]

Actually, that diagram is from Simon Fraser University and was used in their article to demonstrate that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved. So nobody was trying to mislead the viewer to think it was designed.

Except for yourself of course.

I see that you are accusing me of lying. In what way was I trying to mislead anybody into thinking that the bacterial flagellum was designed? But just for the record, it seems likely to me that the bacterial flagellum did evolve although I openly admit that I have no evidence to point to that it evolved. But the fact remains that our world does contain some striking examples of apparent design.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #222]

Not lying. It appeared to me that you originally submitted that diagram to support the notion that the bacterial flagellum was designed, that's all.

We still haven't resolved what about the cosmos gives it the appearance of design. It seems that anytime someone sees patterns then the conclusion must be that a designer is involved. But nature produces such patterns purely based on the physical and chemical properties of matter. No God necessary.

[Tcg]

In what way was I trying to mislead anybody into thinking that the bacterial flagellum was designed?

A poster that posts using the ID "Paul of Tarsus" posted this:

Allow me to conclude with an amazing image of an apparent design, the bacterial flagellum.

Are you not that very same poster?


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

In what way was I trying to mislead anybody into thinking that the bacterial flagellum was designed?

A poster that posts using the ID "Paul of Tarsus" posted this:

Allow me to conclude with an amazing image of an apparent design, the bacterial flagellum.

Are you not that very same poster?

Where is my deception?

By the way, I've noticed that fundamentalist Christians are quick to interpret disagreement as deception. Fundamentalism does not appear to be limited to the religious.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Not lying. It appeared to me that you originally submitted that diagram to support the notion that the bacterial flagellum was designed, that's all.

Yes. I wanted the posters here to see that the bacterial flagellum looks like something people design. I searched for an image of it on Google and posted it here. How is that a deception?

We still haven't resolved what about the cosmos gives it the appearance of design. It seems that anytime someone sees patterns then the conclusion must be that a designer is involved. But nature produces such patterns purely based on the physical and chemical properties of matter. No God necessary.

In some cases, yes, nature's undirected forces can result in apparent design, but it does not follow that all apparent design in nature is necessarily a result of undirected forces.

[Paul of Tarsus]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #221]

If there is or was life on Mars that might be visible, then all you need is a camera mounted on the rover to check for it.

Of course they examine anything and everything the various cameras see! If bigfoot came marching through the frame I can assure you someone would notice it. But given the complete lack of any evidence from all the prior Mars missions of any intelligent life, or anything big enough to be visible to the human eye, it doesn't make sense to design a mission to hunt for bigfoots (or ants).

Maybe, but it makes good sense to me to look for any kind of life on Mars. I don't see how it would be such a problem.

By the way, I don't know about Mars, but some scientists are looking for Bigfoot on earth. It doesn't hurt to take a look. Carl Sagan argued that way for SETI.

Do you think I'm harassing you or that I am upset?

Not really, but frankly I'm seeing some "atheistic passion" in your arguments--something akin to fundamentalism.

Uh--God designed and created it, perhaps. So I see you recognize only one possibility regarding how DNA came about. You've ruled out theistic design from the outset.
Which god?

When I refer to God, I'm generally referring to the Judeo-Christian God minus some of his problematical attributes like omnipotence. If God is "cleaned up," then his existence becomes much more plausible.

Until one of these entities can be demonstrated to exist, I don't see how it makes any sense to attribute anything to them. First show the existence of any god (pick one), then we can talk about what it might have designed and created...

...I'm open minded with respect to gods existing ... I just have never seen any convincing evidence that they do. Still waiting.

Can you explain what demonstration of God's existence you would accept? What evidence would you accept? It appears that you've already ruled out apparent design in nature.

Why not attribute it to bigfoot, or aliens, or leprachauns?

Attribute what? The design in nature? I cannot rule out any of those entities because I don't know if they don't exist. Is it safe to assume that you know they don't exist?

...there is just no evidence that gods exist...

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.

People like Higgs can use reason to conclude something exists by using inference even if there is no direct evidence for that thing.

Higgs did not "conclude" that the boson he postulated existed. He described how mass could arise in gauge particles via a process called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This led to description of a gauge field (Higgs field) and its corresponding boson (now called the Higgs boson) and suggested that the boson must have a high mass-energy. So his analysis predicted the existence of this high mass-energy boson, but it was not concluded that it existed until it was actually found by LHC.

Well, I suppose "conclude" was too strong a word to use. Higgs predicted as you say that his favorite boson's existence would be demonstrated, and he did so without any direct evidence. In any case, it's an example of using that inference I spoke about earlier to come to a realization of something that at least could exist. We can in a similar fashion realize at least the possibility of God existing. We should employ inference consistently and not just to what we find comfortable believing.

Many people have predicted the existence of gods over the millennia, but none have yet to be demonstrated to exist.

I've already explained that I do not agree with this asserted premise. In the course of a debate, you and your interlocutor must agree as to the truth of the premises. If not, then the debate devolves into stating claims that will merely be denied.

[benchwarmer]

Maybe, but it makes good sense to me to look for any kind of life on Mars. I don't see how it would be such a problem.

I think the missing part of the puzzle here is not understanding the funding and experimental design involved in a Mars mission.

It's already been pointed out that if the cameras happen to pick up some unexpected lifeforms then it will of course be analyzed.

However, when initially planning the mission, they have to pick and choose the goal of each experiment and piece of equipment carefully since only a limited amount of payload is reasonable to bring to Mars. There would be no point in purposefully looking for intelligent life when all data so far makes it a very slim possibility. i.e. if there is intelligent life on Mars, it's likely well hidden underground or using cloaking technology we don't understand.

Could we include extra instrumentation to focus on possible underground dwellings or maybe extra instruments to try and detect any anomalies that may be camouflage or cloaking technology? Sure, but we would be wasting valuable payload space for something that is extremely unlikely. The mission must be focused on what we have a good chance at achieving.

If an alien stumbles by and gets detected by existing instrumentation then that's just a bonus. No point in expending the time and effort to expect that though.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Maybe, but it makes good sense to me to look for any kind of life on Mars. I don't see how it would be such a problem.

I think the missing part of the puzzle here is not understanding the funding and experimental design involved in a Mars mission.

It's already been pointed out that if the cameras happen to pick up some unexpected lifeforms then it will of course be analyzed.

However, when initially planning the mission, they have to pick and choose the goal of each experiment and piece of equipment carefully since only a limited amount of payload is reasonable to bring to Mars. There would be no point in purposefully looking for intelligent life when all data so far makes it a very slim possibility. i.e. if there is intelligent life on Mars, it's likely well hidden underground or using cloaking technology we don't understand.

Could we include extra instrumentation to focus on possible underground dwellings or maybe extra instruments to try and detect any anomalies that may be camouflage or cloaking technology? Sure, but we would be wasting valuable payload space for something that is extremely unlikely. The mission must be focused on what we have a good chance at achieving.

If an alien stumbles by and gets detected by existing instrumentation then that's just a bonus. No point in expending the time and effort to expect that though.

The camera on the Mars rover should suffice nicely for checking for multicellular life on Mars. There's really no significant extra cost in doing so. In fact, I'd bet that at least some of the folks at NASA are hoping to see something very interesting on the surface of Mars be it aliens or just some enigmatic rock formations. Mars' surface area is 56 million square miles, so there's plenty of room there for things waiting to be discovered. Let's keep our minds and our eyes open to the possibilities.

[brunumb]

In some cases, yes, nature's undirected forces can result in apparent design, but it does not follow that all apparent design in nature is necessarily a result of undirected forces.

That's very much a two way street. It has yet to be demonstrated that any such apparent design in nature required supernatural assistance.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #229]

Can you explain what demonstration of God's existence you would accept? What evidence would you accept? It appears that you've already ruled out apparent design in nature.

I think you'd have to pick a god first, then based on how it is described you could come up with some methods whereby it could show itself to actually exist. Some gods are described not as a human-like form but as a mysterious energy or "being" with no physical description (very convenient, of course). Others like the Christian/Muslim/Jewish godhead are apparently described to have a human-like form if humans are made in his own image ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27 KJV).

So this particular god could convince someone like me that it exists by actually appearing and doing something convincing that only a god could do such as performing a bona-fide miracle, bringing a known dead person back to life, etc. But all described gods seem to have the same characteristic of hiding themselves at all times for some curious reason, and generally have the identical characteristics as something that does not actually exist. 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?

Attribute what? The design in nature? I cannot rule out any of those entities because I don't know if they don't exist. Is it safe to assume that you know they don't exist?

Anything currently attributed to gods is what I was referring to. I think we can be sure that leprechauns don't exist as they are purely made up characters. 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.

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. Can you please share it with us? My assertion is that there is no evidence, so maybe it boils down to what "evidence" means in this context. What might convince you may not convince me or someone else. 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.

We can in a similar fashion realize at least the possibility of God existing.

Sure ... I'm an atheist so do not claim that gods don't exist and have not in this thread ... only that I don't believe that they do for lack of any convincing evidence (to me). The possibility that they might exist cannot be said to be zero. You are apparently happy to believe they exist because what is evidence to you is not evidence to me (eg. the cosmos appears to have been designed does not convince me that it was designed, but apparently does convince you). Some things just can't be settled in a scientific, hard evidence, based way and this is one of them. I suppose I am like the hypothetical doubter scenario addressed by Pascal in that "I am so made that I cannot believe".