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
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #251

Post by brunumb »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:43 pm So for the wise atheist, God is like seeing that polar bear in Yellowstone Park. If he's there, then he's expensive, but he's probably not there, so take the bet!
Bears are real. Their habitats, behaviours and the consequences of encountering them are known. You can make an informed estimate of the probabilities involved in encountering one. You don't have to choose to believe any of it against your own intuition. You can also make the bet with no initial outlay on your part.

On the other hand, you can't choose to believe in God. There is no way you can make an informed estimate of the probability for its existence, but your experience tells you that it is pretty low. By accepting the wager you agree to pay up front and invest your entire life on the off-chance that you are wrong in not believing in God. When everything you have experienced tells you that there is no God, there is no compelling reason to accept the wager. You take the risk with a high degree of confidence and no fear that you will be proved wrong.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #252

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From The OP:
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ...
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.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

If I ain't gotta show I speak truth, I can claim not believing in God provides infinitely better outcomes, and negate this wager right then and there.

Until ol' Pascal there can show he knows ALL the 'infinite' advantages to belief in God, well how bout that.

This argument is just another attempt to sneak God belief into the unknown and unknowable gaps in human knowledge.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7968
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #253

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 6:43 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:45 pmThe reason Pascal's wager fails is because it assumed that Christianity - or not - is the only option on the table. It wasn't even in Pascal's day; there was Islam, and still is. There are of course other religions but they aren't so scarey. Islam is. Indeed Pascal assumed that only one version of Christianity is the valid option. If you choose the wrong Christian denomination, then your bet is no better than that of the atheist.

Of course, here you have to start studying form - not just on the logical parameters of the bet but assessing which of the other runners are likely to be true.

That is what these debates are all about and Pascal's wager really doesn't carry a lot of force, these days.
While I agree with your criticisms of Pascal's wager, I'm not really interested in examining the wager for logical validity. Pascal raised the question of making a decision regarding God's existence and the consequences of making an error in that decision. I'm asking how the probability of God existing should impact that decision, something Pascal neglected to do. While I agree that rejecting a wrathful and vengeful God entails very dire consequences, those consequences become trivial if the probability of God existing is very low, and an atheist might then wisely continue to disbelieve in God.

Allow me to illustrate with an example. Say you and I go hiking in Yellowstone Park, and I make a wager with you. If we see a black bear first, I will pay you $10, but if the first bear is a grizzly, you must pay me $1,000. You'd wisely decline the wager realizing that the probability of spotting either bear is about equal. However, if I make the same wager except that the bear we must see for you to pay me $1,000 is a polar bear. In that case you should agree to the wager because even though you risk $1,000, the chances of seeing a polar bear is so low that you realize the bet is worth the risk.

So for the wise atheist, God is like seeing that polar bear in Yellowstone Park. If he's there, then he's expensive, but he's probably not there, so take the bet!
Indeed and in fact I touched on that - given that the wager in itself was invalid. I just had to show that was the case, first. But, yes, the other factors making some aspect of the wager less or more probable or reliable would have to come into the equation. If for example, I know that there are far more black bears in Yellowstone than yellow ones, I won't take your wager and will say why. In the case of a polar bear wager, it's be a shame to rake the money.

In the case of betting on gods and afterlifes, I'd suggest that the best bet is the atheist afterlife. It goes like this:

'If I live my life believing a story that's no more likely to be true than the Islamic one, I have no way of knowing that I'm not going to burn, especially as there are more than one Christianity and you can burn if you choose the wrong one. Thus making a bet in fear is a pointless thing to do.

However, if I live my life as a secularist, I may give up a happy delusion, but being able to think and question freely without fear of being punished for doubt and question is much better. And if there is a god or afterlife, atheist reason will say 'nothing to worry about. No god is going to burn you for hot believing in it'. And if (as seems probable on the evidence) this life is the only one we get, I haven't wasted it in believing tall stories
'. To live as a secularist humanist is the best wager, or so I'd argue.

I call it 'The reverse Pascal'.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #254

Post by JoeyKnothead »

We've gone us from wagering on if God's him there, to what might that species of bear be it, in the Yellowstone Park there.

Religion truly is it an exercise in absurdity.

I propose a different wager...

I bet me two polar bears and a plate of biscuits and gravy, not the first person can show us a reliable means by which we may confirm there a god exists.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7968
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #255

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Yellowstone wager was avery nice and valid analogy of Pascal's wager, where you only stand to lose money. Wheras in Pascal's wager you tisk burning for eternity. Or that's the argument it makes.

In fact, it goes further than Pascal as it recognises the existence of other kinds of bears ,while Pascal's wager only works if you have only one kind (and denomination) of bear. Thus Paul (I recall it was) makes the point refining Pascal's wager, that one needs some data on form re. which color bear one is likely to meet, before placing the bet.

In that analogy, it comes down to making a bet as to how likely one religion is to be true, rather than another and of course, what you stand to lose. That's why Islam as well as a different denomination of Christianity has the same threat: hellfire. With Buddhism, no point betting on that as if it turns out to be true, and you bet on another creed, all you get is a free life.

So it seems, yet again, to come down to deciding whether Christianity is as soundly set on a historical basis as it is claimed to be, or not. And I have got to say that I am more inclined to credit Muhammad as a historical figure than the Christ of the Bible.

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 #256

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 amIn the case of betting on gods and afterlifes, I'd suggest that the best bet is the atheist afterlife. It goes like this:

'If I live my life believing a story that's no more likely to be true than the Islamic one, I have no way of knowing that I'm not going to burn, especially as there are more than one Christianity and you can burn if you choose the wrong one. Thus making a bet in fear is a pointless thing to do.

However, if I live my life as a secularist, I may give up a happy delusion, but being able to think and question freely without fear of being punished for doubt and question is much better. And if there is a god or afterlife, atheist reason will say 'nothing to worry about. No god is going to burn you for hot believing in it'. And if (as seems probable on the evidence) this life is the only one we get, I haven't wasted it in believing tall stories
'. To live as a secularist humanist is the best wager, or so I'd argue.

I call it 'The reverse Pascal'.
Yes, Pascal's wager can be "reversed" this way. As brilliant as Pascal was, he seemed to fail to understand that belief in God as well as unbelief can involve very dire consequences. So what do you do when you face this kind of dilemma in which you can be "damned if you do believe, or damned if you don't believe"? What you do is consider the probabilities of the alternatives. Choose an alternative that has perhaps dire consequences if you err by doubting it but a low probability of being true.

Here's another way of looking at this situation. Say there's a lottery with a jackpot of one million dollars. Many people wouldn't bother buying a ticket if the odds are one in a million of winning. Others may buy a ticket if they cost only one dollar per ticket. If they lose, it's only one dollar lost. But let's say the ticket price is $100 a ticket. Most people if they're wise would not risk losing $100 on a ticket if the odds of winning are one in a million. However, if the odds of winning are one out of two, then you can be sure I'd buy a ticket! My risking a $100 loss is well worth the even chance of winning the one-million-dollar jackpot.

So the moral of the story is that when we make decisions involving gains and losses, it's smart to consider not only the size of the gains and losses but the odds of those gains and losses.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #257

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 256:
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ...
As brilliant as Pascal was, he seemed to fail to understand that belief in God as well as unbelief can involve very dire consequences.
What are these "very dire consequences"?
Paul of Tarsus wrote: ...
Here's another way of looking at this situation. Say there's a lottery with a jackpot of one million dollars. Many people wouldn't bother buying a ticket if the odds are one in a million of winning. Others may buy a ticket if they cost only one dollar per ticket. If they lose, it's only one dollar lost. But let's say the ticket price is $100 a ticket. Most people if they're wise would not risk losing $100 on a ticket if the odds of winning are one in a million. However, if the odds of winning are one out of two, then you can be sure I'd buy a ticket! My risking a $100 loss is well worth the even chance of winning the one-million-dollar jackpot.
...
OH! MY! GOD! MY CHOICE REGARDING PASCAL'S WAGER MIGHT IMPACT ME MY LOTTERY DRAWING!

At least now we ain't getting gobbled us up by polar bears!
Paul of Tarsus wrote: So the moral of the story is that when we make decisions involving gains and losses, it's smart to consider not only the size of the gains and losses but the odds of those gains and losses.
The only "moral" I'm getting out of all this is not the first one yet has shown the god in question exists for us to fear either believing in him, or not believing those who claim he's there to get onto us if we don't.

Oh - and if ya ever go you to Yellowstone, don't let the Polar bears steal em them your lottery ticket!


I dare say, Pascal and Barnum had em them the same thought.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7968
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #258

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:32 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:27 amIn the case of betting on gods and afterlifes, I'd suggest that the best bet is the atheist afterlife. It goes like this:

'If I live my life believing a story that's no more likely to be true than the Islamic one, I have no way of knowing that I'm not going to burn, especially as there are more than one Christianity and you can burn if you choose the wrong one. Thus making a bet in fear is a pointless thing to do.

However, if I live my life as a secularist, I may give up a happy delusion, but being able to think and question freely without fear of being punished for doubt and question is much better. And if there is a god or afterlife, atheist reason will say 'nothing to worry about. No god is going to burn you for hot believing in it'. And if (as seems probable on the evidence) this life is the only one we get, I haven't wasted it in believing tall stories
'. To live as a secularist humanist is the best wager, or so I'd argue.

I call it 'The reverse Pascal'.
Yes, Pascal's wager can be "reversed" this way. As brilliant as Pascal was, he seemed to fail to understand that belief in God as well as unbelief can involve very dire consequences. So what do you do when you face this kind of dilemma in which you can be "damned if you do believe, or damned if you don't believe"? What you do is consider the probabilities of the alternatives. Choose an alternative that has perhaps dire consequences if you err by doubting it but a low probability of being true.

Here's another way of looking at this situation. Say there's a lottery with a jackpot of one million dollars. Many people wouldn't bother buying a ticket if the odds are one in a million of winning. Others may buy a ticket if they cost only one dollar per ticket. If they lose, it's only one dollar lost. But let's say the ticket price is $100 a ticket. Most people if they're wise would not risk losing $100 on a ticket if the odds of winning are one in a million. However, if the odds of winning are one out of two, then you can be sure I'd buy a ticket! My risking a $100 loss is well worth the even chance of winning the one-million-dollar jackpot.

So the moral of the story is that when we make decisions involving gains and losses, it's smart to consider not only the size of the gains and losses but the odds of those gains and losses.
So, how do we evaluate the odds? Do we listen to the seller of lottery tickets that tells you they are one in ten? Or someone who tells you they are one in a couple of million? That's aside from (on one hand) having heard of a number of people who actually won and (on the other hand being told you will meet with a very, very unfortunate occurrence if you don't buy the ticket and keep buying them. And of course, there are other lottery -sales going on. Which one is likely to come up with the prize. Yet again, it's back to 'can you credit the the Bible as reliable reporting?' It seems to come back to that, every time.

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 #259

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:00 pmSo, how do we evaluate the odds? Do we listen to the seller of lottery tickets that tells you they are one in ten? Or someone who tells you they are one in a couple of million? That's aside from (on one hand) having heard of a number of people who actually won and (on the other hand being told you will meet with a very, very unfortunate occurrence if you don't buy the ticket and keep buying them. And of course, there are other lottery -sales going on. Which one is likely to come up with the prize. Yet again, it's back to 'can you credit the the Bible as reliable reporting?' It seems to come back to that, every time.
If I understand your questions, my answer is that knowing the odds of a win or loss can be difficult if you need to rely on what you're told those odds are especially if you don't trust the person telling you what the odds are. As far as I know most lotteries and sweepstakes are honest, or at least the law no doubt mandates that they be honest. If you have access to the means by which the wins and losses are determined (coins, dice, roulette wheels), and you know probability theory, then you can calculate the odds yourself.

Now, if we need to rely on the Bible to let us know if God exists, we should ask ourselves some important questions regarding how likely the Bible is correct. For starters, why would God author a book? People author books because they have limitations in communicating to others, but a perfect God would have no such limitations. It seems improbable, then, that the Bible was authored by God.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #260

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Delete post.

Sometimes I can't tell reality from my own imaginings.

Sorry if I violated site rules. I'll try to do me better best I can.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply