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.

[1213]

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

Unfortunately, I don’t see that to be true. But, it would be nice, if people are righteous, because it would mean this:

…Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[1213]

...

I disagree with that. Even if we think there are many options, choosing none makes you sure loser, choosing one, gives you even small chance for something else than death. It is easy calculation of expected value.

Same challenge here, justify the claim that choosing none has a worse expected value than choose one.

By what I know, you will not have for example eternal life, if you reject God. But, maybe I am wrong, do you know that you could get something after this life, even if you reject God, or other gods?

[William]

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

Unfortunately, I don’t see that to be true. But, it would be nice, if people are righteous, because it would mean this:

…Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

The Pagans would say it like this:

"Whoever is born of Earth does not commit "sin" because Earths seeds [of consciousness] remain in them and they can't sin because they are born of The Earth. In this the Children of Earth are revealed [know themselves] and the children of The Earth [which is sometimes called 'the devil'] are thus also called the "Children of the devil" in relation to those doing the 'calling'.
Regardless of that, Whoever is not righteous and loving is not of Earth. [does not share the Earths righteous loving attitude].

[brunumb]

It is a command in the sense that wholesouled love and devotion to God is a basic requirement for our worship to be acceptable to him. The choice is own, as are the consequences of that choice.

Always capped off with the consequences. Love me.........or else!

[brunumb]

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

Unfortunately, I don’t see that to be true.

Care to support that claim so that it is more than just your biased opinion?

[brunumb]

By what I know, you will not have for example eternal life, if you reject God.

Please explain how you actually know that rather than just believe it. Also, rejecting God is not the same as failing to believe in God.

[Paul of Tarsus]

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.

I love Jehovah and I can assure you I do not love him because he can punish me if I don't. The only people I have heard say such a thing are those that have no idea who He is.

I'm glad that unlike many people, you know who Jehovah is.

Anyway, it would be very helpful if you would explain what you mean by "love Jehovah." Do you love him as a friend?

If Jehovah was lovable, then there would be no need to command anybody to love him.

Love (agape love) is a choice based on what we know and reflected in how we behave. The greatest command is there, not because God is unlovable but because loving him involves making the choice to do so

But why choose to love God? Such a choice is unnecessary if God is lovable.

(see 1 John 5:3)

OK, let's do that. From the NRSV:

For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome...

Thanks for citing this passage. It makes my case. God is clearly a commander, and his love for us is bound inextricably to our obeying what he commands. Liked I posted earlier, God is like a general who loves his men when they obey his orders.

Finally, let me say that there's nothing wrong with understanding love for God like this. Christians have interpreted love for God this way since Christianity's inception. It is only recently that many Christians have tried to remodel God into a being more in tune with modern sensibilities. Nowadays people want him to be a buddy who helps them out on occasion. But he's more than a buddy. He's an authority that we must love like a slave loves his master.

[brunumb]

He's an authority that we must love like a slave loves his master.

What an unfortunate choice of simile. In what fantasy land do slaves love their masters? On the other hand, Christians are actually slaves to the human masters who claim that they know God and speak on his behalf. What we have is a deity that apparently plays hide-and-seek games with his hapless subjects and expects them to follow his commands based on the anonymous writing of alleged human intermediaries. It is very sad that humanity has still not outgrown this reliance on an imaginary solution to all the world's problems.

[amortalman]

Let's say that an unbeliever does as Pascal suggests and tries to believe in God "just in case God exists." What if, based on his investigation, he is unable to believe in God? What should he do? Keep trying? Does he lie and say he believes in God although in his heart he knows he does not? Perhaps he could keep trying to believe and even join a church, get baptized or sprinkled or whatever, go to church every week and participate in all the activities believers do. Would that be acceptable to God (if there is one)? No, his life would be a lie, a sham.

[Kylie]

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.


.

Ya just gotta have faith!