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.

[Tcg]

I agree that it may be impossible for some people to choose to believe in God or anything else, but for the purposes of this debate let's assume that a person at least can try to believe in God through prayer, Bible study, and church attendance.

Try to believe in God? The very few times I have attended church after becoming an atheist has done nothing but reinforce my lack of belief. The same is true of Bible study, but to a much stronger and deeper degree. Once one recognizes the function religious ideas, and especially belief in God, plays to help followers ignore existential realities of life, there is no going back. Once you've seen the little man behind the curtain, you can't unsee him.

As far as prayer goes, why would someone pray to a being they lack belief in?


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

Again, you better be sure that you are right.

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.

I should have posted that to deny God is not without potentially serious consequences. If no God exists, then you have nothing to worry about.

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.

Who's using scare tactics? I'm not, and I'm sorry if I've said anything to frighten you.

I should point out that I'm using very good reasoning. In fact, my analysis of Pascal's wager comes directly from a statistic's text. Statistician's study the risks and rewards of rejecting or failing to reject null hypotheses. It's a procedure they call "hypothesis testing." I'd recommend you read up on hypothesis testing to understand the logic for it.

So since you think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, is that conjecture sure enough that you wish to gamble your eternal fate on it?

You are missing the obvious point. Given that I think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, there is no reason for me to believe there is any eternal fate to gamble.

I understand your position. You think there are no reasons to believe life is infinite. Now, please answer my obvious question: How sure are you that there is no eternal life?

Like any atheist, I think it's wise to make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low.

I've already addressed this empty scare tactic in another post. Repeating the same scare tactic is of no use.

If you are sure there is no God, then there is no need to fear the consequences of rejecting him.

As far as prayer goes, why would someone pray to a being they lack belief in?

You might try prayer just in case you are wrong.

[Tcg]

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.

Again, you better be sure that you are right.

I am.

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.

I should have posted that to deny God is not without potentially serious consequences. If no God exists, then you have nothing to worry about.

That's correct, however, I don't deny God, I lack belief that such a being exists.

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.

Who's using scare tactics? I'm not, and I'm sorry if I've said anything to frighten you.

You didn't frighten my thus the phrase, "Empty scare tactics."

I should point out that I'm using very good reasoning. In fact, my analysis of Pascal's wager comes directly from a statistic's text. Statistician's study the risks and rewards of rejecting or failing to reject null hypotheses. It's a procedure they call "hypothesis testing." I'd recommend you read up on hypothesis testing to understand the logic for it.

No need. I've understood the flaws in Pascal's Wager for years now.

So since you think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, is that conjecture sure enough that you wish to gamble your eternal fate on it?

You are missing the obvious point. Given that I think there is no reason to believe that life is infinite, there is no reason for me to believe there is any eternal fate to gamble.

I understand your position. You think there are no reasons to believe life is infinite. Now, please answer my obvious question: How sure are you that there is no eternal life?

100%

Like any atheist, I think it's wise to make sure that the probability of your being wrong is very, VERY low.

I've already addressed this empty scare tactic in another post. Repeating the same scare tactic is of no use.

If you are sure there is no God, then there is no need to fear the consequences of rejecting him.

I don't. That's why scare tactics don't work on me. Once again, I don't reject God, I lack belief that such a being exists.

As far as prayer goes, why would someone pray to a being they lack belief in?

You might try prayer just in case you are wrong.

This doesn't answer my question.


Tcg

[Paul of Tarsus]

What decision should we make regarding the existence of God, and what are the potential consequences of that decision?

One should make a decision to make a genuine investigation and not close ones eyes to overwhelming evidence. The consequences of not doing this may be fatal.

Of course. Assuming that the null hypothesis is not obviously true or false, it is wise to investigate both its truth and the consequences of either rejecting it or failing to reject it. How serious is it to be wrong in deciding to reject it or fail to reject it? For example, if a tobacco company tells us that smoking does not cause cancer, and a person fails to reject this null hypothesis, then that person may smoke and get cancer! That person better make sure that their probability of being wrong is very low--close to zero.

And note that contrary to what some people are arguing on this thread, what I said is no threat. I'm just pointing out that if one fails to heed a warning, then they are wise to make sure that they are right.

Regarding Pascal's Wager: biblically God will not accept worship based on a mere calculation to avoid punishment. God is looking for men and women of faith who genuinely love Him from the heart and want to please Him. Those that serve God as a back up to being destroyed, will be rejected regardless of their lifecourse and thus find they have wasted their lives anyway.

Hmmm. In that case if somebody fears Jehovah but is unable to love him, then she cannot escape what she fears. After all, it is hard for us to love what we fear.

MATTHEW 7: 20-23

Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew* you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’

I think a person who does not love Jehovah can still do his will. I don't love the government, but I do its will!

Anyway, I think this riddle can be solved if we understand what it means to love Jehovah. I don't believe that loving Jehovah is like loving a friend or romantic partner. If you love your wife, for example, you love her because you are attracted to her physically and personally. Loving Jehovah, on the other hand, is like a soldier loving his commanding officer. The soldier respects his CO because to mistreat him in any way would result in punishment and adverse consequences for the war effort. That's why the Bible commands us to love God: We need to respect God so that all goes well for us. If Jehovah was lovable, then there would be no need to command anybody to love him.

[brunumb]

I agree that it may be impossible for some people to choose to believe in God or anything else, but for the purposes of this debate let's assume that a person at least can try to believe in God through prayer, Bible study, and church attendance.

That sounds more like brainwashing oneself rather than coming to a genuine belief in God. Consistently applying your suggestion to vulnerable minds such as the very young will no doubt lead to belief in the chosen God. But it works for any of the numerous different religions, sects and gods around the world and has nothing to do with what is true. Why try to force yourself to believe something is true when everything tells you it is false? Just in case? Any deity that relies on such a pathetic pathway to belief in him is hardly worthy of worship anyway. If he want people to believe in him, quit the ridiculous game of hide and seek.

[brunumb]

To me, Christianity is easy choice, because Bible has truth, love, righteousness and other knowledge that I don’t think humans would have without God.

Only if you read it with rose-tinted glasses and ignore all the disgusting bits. As to knowledge, what has the Bible given us that we have no discovered for ourselves? Curing leprous houses with incantations and pigeon blood?

However, believing Bible God exists, is not the key to eternal life. Bible promises eternal life for righteous, which is much more than just believing that God is real.

Promises are a dime a dozen. You don't need any gods to live a 'righteous' life.

[brunumb]

Loving Jehovah, on the other hand, is like a soldier loving his commanding officer. The soldier respects his CO because to mistreat him in any way would result in punishment and adverse consequences for the war effort. That's why the Bible commands us to love God: We need to respect God so that all goes well for us. If Jehovah was lovable, then there would be no need to command anybody to love him.

A soldier does not necessarily love or even respect his CO. Both those things are earned. Jehovah has not earned either. Commanding us to love him, or else, is coercion. What is even worse is that this being does not even have the decency to front up and do it personally. All we have are alleged intermediaries telling us what is supposedly coming from Jehovah and the gullible or indoctrinated lap it up unquestioningly.

[Kylie]

.


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

And why that one and not another?


.

You should believe in the God with the worst possible punishment.

I hereby declare that I am a goddess, and my punishment for disbelievers is for them to spend an eternity trying to get their perfectly written reply to post, only for the page to freeze and crash just before it posts so you have to go back and write it again. Over and over. So you should worship me. I accept offerings of chocolate.

[Miles]

.


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

And why that one and not another?


.

You should believe in the God with the worst possible punishment.

Which one is that? Although I have a sneaking suspicion it's the one in the upper left-hand corner. Am I right or am I right?

I hereby declare that I am a goddess, and my punishment for disbelievers is for them to spend an eternity trying to get their perfectly written reply to post, only for the page to freeze and crash just before it posts so you have to go back and write it again. Over and over. So you should worship me. I accept offerings of chocolate.

Sorry, but mere declaration doesn't cut it. Gotta show me you can repeatedly freeze and crash replies---not my own of course---before I'll spring for any M&Ms.


.

[William]

I should have posted that to deny God is not without potentially serious consequences. If no God exists, then you have nothing to worry about.

Since "God" [as a concept] is an interpretation of the Middle Eastern word for "The Creator" the concept of us existing within a creation [therefore implying a creator] only makes the warning "to deny God is not without potentially serious consequences" relevant to such religions which promise dire consequence for those who don't believe those particular Middle Eastern religions ideas of The Creator.

In that regard, Pascal's Wager was focused on a particular religions idea and simply assumed that religions idea was, the truth of the matter.

No such evidence shows this idea of The Creator, to being the actual case. It is just assumption.

I do not know that we currently exist within a creation, but highly suspect that yes - we do. This does not automatically imply that I must therefore believe the creator as being the entity (entities) which middle eastern mythologies have produced and planted into the world.

In viewing the creation I see no evidence of handiwork which suggests to me that if I don't believe in the middle eastern version of The Creator, then I will suffer a serious consequence for not doing so.
Rather I see in the handiwork, a Creator who is not concerned with peoples beliefs as to the Creator's existence so am confident that the creator has no special place to 'punish' those who don't believe they exist within a creation.

Indeed, the creation appears to have been created to appear [on the surface] as if it wasn't created at all. So why would the creator want to punish people for not seeing it as a creation?
On the other hand, I acknowledge that there is some reward in seeing this reality as a Creation, [scratching the surface] even if it is just having a feeling of being able to see through the illusion of it NOT being a creation.

But I wouldn't stoop to claiming The Creator would punish anyone for not seeing it that way. That assumes far too much about The Nature of The Creator, which no human has any right to assume, based on the evidence we do get to see.