Anyone Familiar With Pascal's Wager?

wilheim · May 11, 2004

I noticed the tagline that poster Truthteller uses If I am wrong in believing there is a God, then I will lose only an illusion. If you are wrong in believing God doesn't exist, you will lose your soul Which is essentially the basis of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit). Pascal (June 19th 1623-Aug 19th 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher. His contributions to the natural sciences include the construction of mechanical calculators, considerations on probability theory, studies of fluids, and clarification of concepts such as pressure and vacuum. Following a profound religious experience in 1654, Pascal abandoned mathematics and physics for philosophy and theology.

Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons that were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God.

The Anthropic argument Focuses on basic facts, such as our existence to prove God
The religious or Christological argument is specific to religions such as Christianity: asserts that for example Jesus Christ's life as written in the New Testament establishes his credibility, so we can be sure of the truth of his statements about God.

With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is advantageous to not believing, and hoped that this would convert those that rejected previous theological Theology is literally the study of God. By extension, it also refers to the study of other religious topics. The term theology originated in Christianity, but it can also be used to refer to the study of the beliefs of any other religion or to the contrasting of different religions, a field more usually termed "comparative religion.". Theology is sometimes seen as a form of philosophy.

It states that if you were to analyse your options in regards to belief in Pascal's God carefully (or belief in any other religious system with a similar reward and punishment scheme), you would come out with the following possibilities:

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

wil.

[This message was edited by wilheim on May 11, 2004 at 07:50 PM.]

[This message was edited by wilheim on May 11, 2004 at 07:52 PM.]

D2bets · May 11, 2004

There's a flaw in Pascal's Wager. Doesn't it make the assumption (assuming God does exist) that God wants you to believe in him otherwise he will punish you... What if God exists but doesn't like people who believe in him and pray to him and ask him for shit. What if he prefers people who think for themselves and don't believe in things they can't prove? Isn't this possible? Why not?

wilheim · May 11, 2004

D2 you have to remember Pascal wrote this in the 1650's the premise does suffer from the limited possibilities of that a real God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or no God exists. That premise of course is part of the debate. When discussing this kind of theory natrually anything is possible.

wil.

DarrylParsons · May 11, 2004

Hey Wil,

Doesn't my tagline get at least an honorable mention!?

Marco · May 11, 2004

"You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven"......this line of thinking has always seemed kiss-ass to me...

Personally I don't consider myself to be an atheist....rather more of the agnostic crowd...maybe there is and maybe there isn't....I feel if I live a "good life" then I should get what I deserve to get.....if I get less then it's all pretty much a scam.

I don't want to start a religious argument but a few of my own thoughts to this Pascal thing...

1 Consider that almost all religions contain a thick book with moral passages, a good place and a bad place to go upon death, and the God contained in that fat book is the only one that exists and the only one you may worship....

2 Consider religion as you would language, in that where and who your parents were determine what religion is correct to you....same as the language, if you were raised in Germany you might know how to speak German....If your parents switched religions before you were brought into thier new religion, the old religion of your parents would now be obscene. So, whose religion do you adopt so as to not have your soul sent to some fiery end?

3 the "you may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished"... a little extreme if you think about it.....exactly what are you being punished for? Something you have little reason to believe in? If you're going to punish me then give me an unmistakable sign....like maybe show up once in a while and split the red sea...Yeah, he's coming back, it's only been like 2000 years.

wilheim · May 11, 2004

DP - seriously I have never noticed that. I always read your posts (honest), is it new? Regardless, I like the tagline.

wil.

wilheim · May 11, 2004

Marco - excellent post imho. We think very much alike by the way (as far as existence goes at least). Atheist not really, agnostic certainly.

wil.

DarrylParsons · May 11, 2004

Wil,

It's a few months old actually, but I guess you've got to read a lot of posts so it's only normal to miss a tagline here and there.

I like to think that God (assuming such an entity exists) is more complex a being than a two-pronged decision switch.

codeworks · May 11, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
There's a flaw in Pascal's Wager. Doesn't it make the assumption (assuming God does exist) that God wants you to believe in him otherwise he will punish you... What if God exists but doesn't like people who believe in him and pray to him and ask him for shit. What if he prefers people who think for themselves and don't believe in things they can't prove? Isn't this possible? Why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Pascal does not have a flaw he is addressing the God that is written about in the bible not the GOD you just made up. What religion could Pascal have studied that would back you argument. He theorized and went with probabilites from the Biblical God.

barman · May 11, 2004

Wil, Parsons is sometimes mixed up on political topics

but he seems to have the religion thang down pretty good.

Oh, as for us, we believe in God, but just don't think She's got a whole lot in common with what most Christians view as God.

wilheim · May 11, 2004

Ya know what - "She" just may have made me start this thread just so we would have one (thread) without the "I" word in it. Nice for a change. The Montel thread is another "She" may have divinely inspired.

wil.

D2bets · May 12, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by codeworks:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
There's a flaw in Pascal's Wager. Doesn't it make the assumption (assuming God does exist) that God wants you to believe in him otherwise he will punish you... What if God exists but doesn't like people who believe in him and pray to him and ask him for shit. What if he prefers people who think for themselves and don't believe in things they can't prove? Isn't this possible? Why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Pascal does not have a flaw he is addressing the God that is written about in the bible not the GOD you just made up. What religion could Pascal have studied that would back you argument. He theorized and went with probabilites from the Biblical God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

codeworks, you've completely missed the entire point of what Pascal was saying. He was not addressing the biblical god as his argument was not an argument for the existence of god and was aimed at people who were not convinced of the traditional arguments (the bible) for the existence of god. He was not addressing the biblical god, he was addressing a theoretical god. And what I'm saying is that it's possible there is a different kind of god which makes his beliefe system not advantageous. Maybe god punishes those who believe in him without any evidence and rewards those who refuse to believe without evidence. Why is this less likely than the alternative? Becuase the bible says so?

codeworks · May 12, 2004

Lot of writings on the flaw

In “The Wager,” armed with an artificial binary system of belief and truth, Blaise Pascal attempts to show that atheism is illogical. He begins his argument by proving that although we are capable of reasoning that infinity exists, we are not capable of reasoning whether or not God exists. Next, he argues that it is more sensible to believe that God does exist, because belief carries with it the potential for infinite gain or negligible loss. In actuality, both belief and unbelief carry with them the potential for infinite gain or infinite loss. Furthermore, Pascal erroneously assumes that we may only choose between believing in a specific conception of God or no God at all, and that these are the only options for what actually exists.

Pascal’s first two premises concern our human capacity for knowledge. We humans are both limited, in that we are finite beings, and extended, in that we have parts. (Pascal understands “extension” as the property of having parts.) He believes that in order for us to know something through the faculty of reason, that thing must be comparable to us. Thus, in order for us to know, through reason, the nature of something, it must, like us, have limits. In order for us to know, through reason, the existence of something, it must, like us, have extension.

Based on these premises, Pascal arrives at another: that we are capable of knowing the existence, but not the nature, of infinity. Numerical infinity comprises all numbers; thus, it has parts, and is extended. By observing its parts, we can determine rationally that infinity, as a whole, exists. For example, we can observe that no matter how large a number is, we can always increase its value by adding one. The concept of infinity logically follows from this exercise. However, infinity, by definition, lacks limits. Our finite minds cannot truly conceive of the nature of infinity. How can we concretely conceive of a number that does not increase when we add one to it?

He brings this one step further by asserting that God is a special kind of infinity. We humans, in our reasoning, fail to know not only God’s nature, but his existence as well. This is because, in addition to being limitless, God lacks extension. He is one indivisible being, without parts. Pascal concludes that it is not through our reason that we may come to know God, but through our faith.

Therefore, Pascal does not attempt to prove that God actually exists. Instead, he illustrates by means of a gambling analogy his main thesis: that it is rational to believe that God exists and to behave accordingly. Either God exists or he does not. So let us assume that we are required to bet heads or tails on a coin flip. There is a fifty-fifty chance that the coin will turn up heads. As it stands now, it makes just as much sense to bet heads or tails. However, let’s say the stakes change. If we bet heads (that there is a God), and the coin turns up heads, we win infinite lives of infinite happiness in Heaven. If we bet heads, and the coin turns up tails, we each lose one finite life. Now it seems obvious that, regardless of the odds, it is more sensible to bet heads, because the potential reward is infinite and the potential loss is finite. Pascal goes on to say that the best way to convince ourselves that God exists is to perform Christian rituals and to adhere to Christian morality. This will make us better people and diminish the passions that are enemies of belief.

Pascal’s largest flaw is his use of the terms “finite” and “infinite” to obscure the fact that the stakes, as well as the odds, are actually even. It is true that if we bet that there is a God, and we are right, we stand to win infinite happiness in Heaven, which is everything there is. However, what if we bet that there is not a God, and we are right? If there is not a God, we are free to dictate our own morality and live our lives as we please. We need not waste time executing solemn rituals. We may indulge our passions, or we may be austere, at our own discretion. Our lives are fully our own. If there is no afterlife, this finite life is everything there is. The fact that it is finite is irrelevant, because if there is no infinite life, the finite is everything. Thus, as long as we bet on the winning side, we stand to gain everything there is.

The stakes are still even if we bet on the losing side. Let us assume that we bet that there is not a God, but in fact there is. We lose our chance at infinite happiness, and instead suffer for eternity in Hell. We lose all the potential for happiness that exists, and suffer for the longest duration of time possible. Now, let us assume that we bet that there is a God, but in fact there is not. In attending to our Church-imposed moral obligations, we restrict our own wills and lose the ability to create happy lives for ourselves on our own terms. Living our lives in such a restricted manner, we give up all the potential for happiness that exists (since we must create our own happiness in a world that has no Heaven), and suffer for the longest period of time that exists (since there is no eternity of damnation in a world that has no Hell). As it stands now, whether we choose to believe in God or not, we risk everything.

However, all the above arguments, including Pascal’s, assume that if there is a God, there is necessarily an afterlife. Since he has no means by which to prove otherwise, it is just as conceivable that there is a God, but no Heaven or Hell, as any other hypothesis. If there is a God, but no Heaven or Hell, our belief carries a much smaller reward, and our unbelief carries a much smaller consequence. Now, if we can take away the idea of the afterlife, what is stopping us from asserting that there could be a God who has a non-Christian standard of morality, or no standard of morality at all? What is stopping us from asserting that there is a God, a Heaven, and a Hell, but that all Corpuscularians go to Heaven, all Atomists go to Hell, and everyone else just rots? Pascal’s heads or tails schematic assumes only two options where there are actually infinite ways of believing or not believing and infinite possibilities for what is true.

jimbutorac · May 12, 2004

There was a great novel about Nam called No Bugles, No Drums where the main character is quoted as saying,

"I pay about as much attention to God as he does to me".

newbie666 · May 12, 2004

Descartes was trying to prove there was no God and he finally endedup that it exists...

Someone asked to Einstein. do you believe in God?
Einstein: Is God Ligth?
Someone: Yes.
Einstein: Then i believe in God.

RobFunk · Jul 9, 2004

this is an informative thread. I did a web search, and I learned more about pascal's wager from this. actually, the two gentleman with the pascal refrences got me curious.

truthteller · Jul 9, 2004

I just changed my tag too, darn.

Anyway, I don't believe that "you may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven."

Hitler believed in God just to give you an example

BoratSagdiyev · Jul 9, 2004

The fact that one is happier beleiving is the reason thet those who formed the first civilizations realized that it would be easier to keep thier subjects in check if they also were under the impression that they had to answer to a higher being. Not only keeping them in check but also giving them happiness in the process. Nimrod, the hunter of men, probably realized this and then instituted upon his subjects religion. Most likely a rehashed version gleamed from the remnants of the Summerian civilization which charted the paths of our planets and discovered Pluto thoousand of years prior to Lawrence(that's the same Lawrence that the city in northern Mass is named after).Catholocism is basically a rehashed version of the religions found in Babylon which adopted Summerian religious customs. I am now reading a book by Bill Bryson called " The Short History of Nearly Everything" I get a kick reading it and other pieces of work that detail the rennaissance and afterwards and it's inventors. Halley,Newton,Gallileo they all basically reinvented things that were already invented in order to give them and thier countries power and make the inhabitants proud and themselves rich in the process. They may have gotten a hold of old documents and copied the work of otheres or they nay have used it and added to what was already there and then they destroyed any evidence of the original work.

Dont you be steppin on my shirt man do you know what this is? this is Versace. Can you even spell Versace? Yeah... F O....sachi

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wilheim:

Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons that were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God.

[This message was edited by wilheim on May 11, 2004 at 07:52 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

American · Jul 9, 2004

Choosing to "believe" in God because that is one's best bet, isn't truly believing. It's not in the heart. If there is a God, he'd see right through that ploy and send you to hell just the same. Religion is in the heart, not the knees.

PatPatriot · Jul 9, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>If you are wrong in believing God doesn't exist, you will lose your soul <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can characterize this as being a cheap wager.but I look at it as someone readily enough to lose his soul by not believing is pretty empty and a lost soul to begin with,basically hopeless.

What I always found interesting in life is usually the first person people usually ask for when they are in dyer straights...God help me!!!...When it come down to nut cuttin time its always god they ask for and pray to.

When times are good people are always cummimg all over themselves in their own praise of themselves....Or in other words "fxck god who needs em.I'm doing great"
Pretty shallow in my book.