Pascal's Wager

[Daxx]

Split from What do you believe and why? (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10297.0.html)

Resources:
Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager)
SEP article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/)
RationalWiki article (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)

	Believe	Not Believe
Real	Saved	Damned
Not Real	Nothing	Nothing

Pascal's wager was debunked pretty quickly in his own day (by Voltaire, no less), but nice try. I believe we've already had a discussion about this in another thread, though I can't find it right now.

[funerallaughter]

	Believe	Not Believe
Real	Saved	Damned
Not Real	Nothing	Nothing

Pascal's wager was debunked pretty quickly in his own day (by Voltaire, no less), but nice try. I believe we've already had a discussion about this in another thread, though I can't find it right now.

I believe that the topic you're referring to is that of Secularism and Church Attendance (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18962.msg270069#msg270069)?

Pascal's Wager has been the target of much criticism, starting in its own day. Voltaire, writing a generation after Pascal, rejected the wager as "indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists." Pascal, however, did not intend the wager as a proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) (under Criticism)
I think you and OT were talking about a person's free will, though, I'm talking about the statistical aspect of the situation; of all the evidence against the existence of a superior being, no one will ever know for sure, or at least be able to give us credible evidence, of a god, but the statistics of the outcome will hold. Whether of not the person believes that a god exists and only "believes" in order to be saved is an option up to them XP

But I don't know much on the subject, mind you, but I'll up on it more (:

[Daxx]

Ah, thanks for finding it. Tell you what, since there's an interesting discussion to be had here, I'll split this off into a new thread if you want to continue discussing it more fully.

[Daytripper]

Mwoah, I found Pascel's wager quite recently, but I saw nothing in it, since it doesn't deal with the actual belief in the available choices. I could ''pick'' the box, but I would not believe it.

The statistics are also flawed. You assume No God + no hell and God + heaven/hell are the only possible outcomes. That is incorrect. What if by worshipping a certain God you are making the actual God madder? In that case staying neutral would be your best bet. 

[Neopergoss]

Ah, thanks for finding it. Tell you what, since there's an interesting discussion to be had here, I'll split this off into a new thread if you want to continue discussing it more fully.

I'd participate in such a discussion.

[killybob]

Ah, thanks for finding it. Tell you what, since there's an interesting discussion to be had here, I'll split this off into a new thread if you want to continue discussing it more fully.

yes please go ahead with that. i would be much joyed at the prospect of discussing such an extraordinary suggestion as has come from this renowned Frenchman.

[Essence]

The big problem with Pascal's Wager is that there are way more then two columns.  You've got to choose between "don't believe at all", "believe in God", "believe in YHWH", "believe in Allah", "believe in the 8-spoke wheel", "believe in your ancestral spirits", "believe in <arbitrary pantheon of humanlike deities", and several dozen more.  Any wrong choice means you're going to hell if Pascal is right. 

In addition to that, there's a pretty significant social component to choosing to believe in something that's not accepted by your society, so the "nothing" part under "not real/believe" is wrong as well.

[Neopergoss]

Any wrong choice means you're going to hell if Pascal is right. 

And there are many, many other religions that have their own versions of heaven and hell and their own rituals/beliefs required to go to the right one. So the question can then become "Why should we choose the Christian one if it doesn't protect us from all of the other Hells?"

The fact that so many exist is pretty strongly suggestive, to me at least, that they're all made up in order to try to scare people into believing/practicing the right rituals/etc.

[killybob]

in many religions it states that if you believe there is an almighty being who created all and you praise him in some way at least and give him credit the he will accept you into his heavenly realm so really there's nothing to lose. actually there's nothing to lose either way because if you pick the wrong religion anyway your going to hell so why not try your luck. better than nothing at least.

[Daxx]

in many religions it states that if you believe there is an almighty being who created all and you praise him in some way at least and give him credit the he will accept you into his heavenly realm so really there's nothing to lose.

Actually most major religions require specific acts to become a member of the religion and gain entry to heaven. It's only really liberal/revisionist/heretical doctrines that have suggested that it's possible for "the faithful" to get a pass. For example: Christianity requires the accepting of Jesus, Islam requires a specific declaration of faith, and so forth. These sorts of thing are usually considered mutually exclusive (many followers consider apostasy a crime or worthy of banishment to hell).

actually there's nothing to lose either way because if you pick the wrong religion anyway your going to hell so why not try your luck. better than nothing at least.

Actually, not necessarily better than nothing. Hell probably does not exist at all, so trying to avoid it is may well be a waste of time if you value your freedom above the miniscule chance that you might somehow get lucky and avoid it. Most formulations of the "atheist's wager" consider life led without following religious rules to have a relatively positive outcome.

[OldTrees]

The big problem with Pascal's Wager is that there are way more then two columns.  You've got to choose between "don't believe at all", "believe in God", "believe in YHWH", "believe in Allah", "believe in the 8-spoke wheel", "believe in your ancestral spirits", "believe in <arbitrary pantheon of humanlike deities", and several dozen more.  Any wrong choice means you're going to hell if Pascal is right. 

In addition to that, there's a pretty significant social component to choosing to believe in something that's not accepted by your society, so the "nothing" part under "not real/believe" is wrong as well.

To illustrate the effects of this point:
1=positive afterlife
0=no after life
-1=negative afterlife
These values are meant as relative to each other. Societal norms are important at an individual level. However for those that choose their society these values (1.00000...01,0.00000...01 and -9.99999...99 rounded to 1,0 and -1)

Gods A and B reward worship
Gods C and D punish worship

	Belief
Reality	A B C D none A 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 B -1 1 -1 -1 -1 C 1 1 -1 1 1 D 1 1 1 -1 1 n 0 0 0 0 0

Totals for each strategy
Believe:
A:2
B:2
C:-2
D:-2
none:0
Hence even accounting for the multiple possible deities and deities that punish followers the math still works out that if you happened to have believed in a rewarding deity your have a positive expected return.
(I assumed the possible versions of punishing and rewarding deities were equal)

The correct counterarguments either deals with truth being more important than self interest or belief not being generated on a whim.

[nerd1]

in fact, pascal's wager is pretty on target, however, it probably should look something like this instead:

	believe	don't believe
true	saved	damned
false	time wasted, however, more chances to find a spouse because of the high number of people who believe in religion	more time allocated, and no boundaries except your own morals, however, less chance to find a spouse.

or

	believe	don't believe
true	very good	very bad
false	somewhat sub-par	good

so if you don't believe your outcomes are either very bad or good, and if you believe your outcomes are either very good or somewhat sub-par, so it would be a better idea to believe statistically, however, this is not a statistic decision, so reason does not necessarily hold true.