AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Pascal's Wager

82 18645
camm95
offline
camm95
52 posts
Nomad

Hopefully you have all heard of the wager. It states that if the belief in the existance of God was a bet, a rational person would choose to bet on the existance of God and therefore be some sort of Theist. The wager was modeled off of Christianity, and the claim that Pascal makes is that by believing in God, an individual has nothing to lose in their own lives, and if God does exist one has everything to gain in the afterlife. I am specifically wondering what you guys think of that claim. By being a theist there is nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the next. So what do you guys think?

Please entertain the thought of an afterlife and don't claim that this entire thought is crap because there is no afterlife.

Also, if you believe there are things to lose or gain in this life, please elaborate as to what they are and why.

  • 82 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Pascal's wager takes only belief in regard of a "win", while there are also deeds of a human and God's justice. So IMHO, in case the particular Jew or Muslim did a good life, strongly believing in God in whatever form he's presented, he can receive access to Heaven. I still think that there will be some punishment for not accepting Jesus as Savior of all, as this is also a deed and will also be judged. This is up to God to decide of course.


Why would you think that?

It's not meant to "recruit believers", you can't force a person to believe. It's meant to make people consider if there is sense to believe. And yes, a true belief won't play probabilities, it will just be, and the person will persevere in his already existing belief.


...So it is a pointless bet just used to fortify the useless faith that the reader already has?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

...So it is a pointless bet just used to fortify the useless faith that the reader already has?

I think it's more of a way for believers to valorize their belief whenever they have doubts.
camm95
offline
camm95
52 posts
Nomad

The wager as a recruitment tool is hypothetically brilliant, it basically alligns the rational human mind with the irrationality of religion. So while you cannot force anyone to believe, you can drastically raise the odds that someone who only thinks rationally will begin to believe in hope of eternal salvation. Is it a bit dirty? yeah i would say so, but as time has shown alls fair in love war and religion. So while it is unfair to use this as a tool, what does a person have to lose by wagering on Pascal's win? In my opinion a religious life would be kind of debilitating to living a full life here, to some maybe that is more fulfilling, not to me though. I think such an alteration of the way I thought would be one of the greatest perversions my morals could ever go through, that's just me though

driejen
offline
driejen
486 posts
Nomad

The wager as a recruitment tool is hypothetically brilliant, it basically alligns the rational human mind with the irrationality of religion.
I'm sorry but pascal's wager is not rational. It's a wonder how such a flawed argument is still being discussed when it has already been dismantled hundreds of times. I cannot force myself to believe something that I genuinely do not believe through reason.

The only thing that holds pascal's wager together is the assertion that there are only 2 options for the truth, which there is not. Considering you can throw at me the option that God exists, which to me is a truly ridiculous and baseless statement, then I am invited to add my own equally ridiculous and baseless scenarios (and plenty of them). It's already been used countless times as an argument, what if God values rationality and only rewards those who don't believe him, or only after you have seen him in heaven? What if satan is the good one? What if the pastafarians are right and you will painfully turn to noodles and then revert back to a human in infinite cycles if you don't believe in it? I'm sorry but the win win situation is only based on preassumptions already made.

Also, even if there really were only two options, that does not mean they are of equal probability. In fact, how can you assign a probability for something unproven? What is the odds of my head imploding this hour? 50%?

Is it a bit dirty?
If what you mean by dirty is intellectualy dishonest and self deceiving, then it's just as bad as most creationist arguments.

what does a person have to lose by wagering on Pascal's win?
Infinite different scenarios of eternal torture, just as baseless as an all loving god who tortures people for belief.

I think such an alteration of the way I thought would be one of the greatest perversions my morals could ever go through, that's just me though
I seriously doubt anyone is convinced by this argument itself, but rather those who already believe can try to rationalise their existing beliefs using the wager, amongst other things.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Avorne, the main fallacy of what you have just displayed is the word "infinite". So your summary is false. In case you say "I can invent many gods" I say that a single person's invention will remain as such, regardless of how many people will believe in it. So your actions are mostly to confuse those who wish to seek truth in God with false imaginations.


Near infinite is quite accurate there is nothing discerning your "true God" from someone's imagination, so in terms of odd they both have equal standing.

Ah I think I now get the point. There is also a belief that a benevolent God, seeing our beliefs, be them in another "god" or in Himself, will judge people by their capabilities of discerning the truth as well as perseverance in their beliefs. So this adds a whole 0.5 factor of success prior to successful guess of "right God", that if you believe, God might (or might not, therefore a 0.5, with an omniscient and omnibenevolent God this can raise up to 1.0!) take your faith as faith in Him regardless of the name people use.


It doesn't add much to the odds at all as there is just as likely of a chance that this isn't the case. For all you know it could be the atheists who held off accepting any God who are the one's to get to go to heaven.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

It doesn't add much to the odds at all as there is just as likely of a chance that this isn't the case. For all you know it could be the atheists who held off accepting any God who are the one's to get to go to heaven.


Furthermore, If there is a god, he might punish those who believed in a false god more severely than those who believed in no god. In which case, betting on theism would add a potential excess punishment probability.

Actually, this inspires me to me make an equation.

Aknerd's Equation

m
(h/n - ( E f(i))) - c*v)*q - a*ya + t*yt = w
i=1
Where:
h = pleasure gained from heaven (in your chosen religion)
n = number of religions that have exclusive heaven
f(i) = pain gained from hell in the i-th religion that has a hell (think of it as a function).
m = the number of religions that have a hell (not including your religion)
c = the likelihood that you will go your religion's hell
v = the pain gained in your hell
q = likelihood that there is a god at all, or at least one that punishes/rewards belief
a = the pleasure gained per year by being an atheist
ya= how long you expect to live as an atheist
t = the pleasure gained per year by being a theist
yt= how long you expect to live as a theist

(due to type limitations, all multiplication is denoted by the *, if two letters are next to each other, the second is a subscript)

The E is part of sum notation. It means you add up the values obtained from i=1 to i=m (I hope the spacing worked out...)

For example, if if we let Calvinism be the first religion, then f(1) would represent the pain endured in Calvinism hell. In order to complete the sum equation, you have to add up the pain gained in all the hells (1-m)

If w is greater than zero, then you are better off as a theist. If not, then an atheist. You simply replace all the variables with numbers that you feel are accurate for some reason.

This equation assumes all religions have equal probability for being true. If you believe that this is not the case, the equation is pretty easy to edit.

Notice that there are only two positive values: h/n and t*yt. This means you don't have to be super accurate with your values. You'll probably get a value near positive infinity, negative infinity, or slightly less than zero.

For me, q is very near zero, and t*yt<a*ya. So, I am an atheist.

I'm sure there are other equations out there very similar to mine. I just kind of made this up on the spot, so if you see any errors, please do tell.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

...So it is a pointless bet just used to fortify the useless faith that the reader already has?

I think it's more of a way for believers to valorize their belief whenever they have doubts.
I like when the dialogue goes this way. One says a ridiculous thing, the others speculate on this.
I think such an alteration of the way I thought would be one of the greatest perversions my morals could ever go through, that's just me though
Well, from the religious standpoint the thing what you call "full life" contains a perversion of morale. It's normal to be egoistic nowadays, have free sex, have same-gender sex, have abortions, go in deep debt then blaming all around, even make a dialogue that's intended to provoke rage of an opponent. And when you're asked to love thy neighbor and not do bad towards him, you refuse. God does not ask more than this and accepting Him as God.
So while you cannot force anyone to believe, you can drastically raise the odds that someone who only thinks rationally will begin to believe in hope of eternal salvation. Is it a bit dirty?
Hehe. No, this is a normal way of preaching. The person is informed, and has an ability to choose whether to seek for believing or not. If someone does start seeking to believe, this is good for both of us.
Near infinite is quite accurate there is nothing discerning your "true God" from someone's imagination, so in terms of odd they both have equal standing.
Please provide me at least a plausible evidence of any of your imagination be real, and look what I have provided. There is another fallacy of speaking "all ways humans represent God have equal probability to be true", regardless of the source of such an image. So your personal imagination has zero chance of being true.
It doesn't add much to the odds at all as there is just as likely of a chance that this isn't the case.
Okay, 0.5*0.5=0.25. This is still greater than 1/Hell.
what does a person have to lose by wagering on Pascal's win?

Infinite different scenarios of eternal torture, just as baseless as an all loving god who tortures people for belief.
God does not torture, God just lets us torture ourselves, but shows the way for us to get relieved of the torture.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

Aknerd's Equation
heh. You divide heavens but add hells? Why's that?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Aknerd...exactly how are you quantifying these things?

h, f(i), c, v, q, a, ya, t, yt are all subjective or unquantifiable...In other words, your equation has only 2 known variables, and cannot be solved and is therefore useless...

Programpro
offline
Programpro
562 posts
Nomad

I think that Pascal's Wager is rather silly. Or at least, the idea of using it to justify one's religious beliefs is silly.

No one knows for sure what will happen after death. The best we can do is try to be genuinely good people, to support others, to avert suffering, and to be happy in life

If there is a benevolent God, that's definitely what He'd want. And if there isn't, it still makes the world a better place!

vesper, out of curiosity, what do you think is God's opinion of those who do not believe but who try to be good people?

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

My point also remains unanswered: Pascal's wager encourages people to convince themselves of the existence of a god (if you take only one god in account) only because it seems more probable to win and improbable to fail. This kinda seems wrong to me.


This is a good point, and much of the discussion seems to be based around this notion. But the discussion is based on a misunderstanding by the OP. The probability of God's existence (and your picking the right religion) can be very, very low. But the payoff (i.e. heaven) is infinite.
Pascal used a very simple chance analysis of probability times payoff. So even if the existence of God is .000000001, when you multiply that by the infinite payoff, the result is infinitely better than any good that could be gained in a finite life.
And if your wrong, Pascal would argue, then what's the worst that could happen? You spend your life being a good person, helping others, etc.
I've seen some other points on how ridiculous it is to think that someone could force themselves to believe in a god - a point which is well founded. It would be a tough case to make that we can choose what we do and do not believe. But that's not really what Pascal was after. He figured that if someone lived a 'religious life' that the belief would come about of its own accord. By going through the motions of a faithful person, the person might actually become faithful.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

And if your wrong, Pascal would argue, then what's the worst that could happen? You spend your life being a good person, helping others, etc.


Unless there is some sort of hell where you have to spend eternity for picking the wrong God, I would imagine that would be horrible.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

He figured that if someone lived a 'religious life' that the belief would come about of its own accord. By going through the motions of a faithful person, the person might actually become faithful.


This however is not the case. There are plenty of people who have just gone through the paces and have done so for years, yet never ended up becoming faithful.
AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

And if your wrong, Pascal would argue, then what's the worst that could happen? You spend your life being a good person, helping others, etc.


Being religious doesnt mean you are nice, in fact, looking at history and current events, the opposite is true.

Unless there is some sort of hell where you have to spend eternity for picking the wrong God, I would imagine that would be horrible.


Yikes, I better erect my multi godded shrine quick and face north while chanting "come o ye faithful while rubbing my tummy and patting my belly at the same time.

Mage, I want to reply to you but the majority of the time I would only end up saying "I agree" like a magegrey fanboy (*looks at mage with twinkle eyes*) And I like to at least nod to those I respect once in a while, so...

*nod
cloudygrl25
offline
cloudygrl25
27 posts
Nomad

This is probably one of my favorite logical arguments about a higher being.

Showing 16-30 of 82