Pascal's Wager
Threads discussing Pascal's Wager will be merged into this one, so that all arguments can be seen in one place.
Quoting lupac
Quoting lupac
Pascal's Wager, Presumption of Atheism
I think Pascal's wager is nigh unassailable in the discussion about the presumption of atheism v theism. The wager being that we ought to be theists because the stakes are far higher to be wrong if theism proves true and atheism false.
In other areas of life I think the wager becomes problematic, for example, which of the many claimed gods should I follow? Because surely I should take the path with the highest risks (according to Pascal) if I want to ensure my long term security, but that hardly seems like a reasonable way to find a a "true" god. Why not just create your own religion where evil-doers suffer eternal torture and the righteous live in an unimaginably wonderful paradise forever? (I’m looking at you, Jesus) But I think that debate is beside the point of the presumption of (a)theism conversation.
Within the "many gods" debate there are competing punishments and rewards depending on which god you choose, whereas within the presumption debate there are only two real options and one clearly has a higher stakes outcome, namely if theism is true, you better find yourself on that side belief.
If the ‘many gods’ problem is too big of an issue I would point to the Marcus Aurelius quote, “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
In conclusion, we should at least be theists based around Pascal's wager and leave “what kind of theists” for another conversation.
Comments (48)
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Christianity at 33% is the popular choice, but does that make it the most likely to be true? Could we be safer with a personal religion based on rationalism?
- if you are evil and god is evil you are punished
- if you are good and god is evil you are punished
- if you are evil and god is good you are punished
- if you are good and god is good you are rewarded
So the only sensible choice is to be good.
The argument applies to god too (he does not know if there is another more powerful god out there somewhere so he has to be good too).
'Do you renounce Satan?'
to which the Irishman replied
'This is no time to be making enemies.'
:smile: :smile:
I’m not arguing for the existence of God, I’m arguing for the presumption of theism. Insofar as Pascal’s wager is used as an argument for God I agree with you. But when we’re talking about if the burden of proof lies on the atheist or theist the wager gives a solid case in the theists favor. Other arguments such as the ontological or cosmological arguments can be used to debate God’s existence.
I think your comment about the “real god” being offended is covered in this discussion as well. I’m not arguing for any particular god, simply some type of god, some type of theism
Pascal’s wager has nothing to do with popularity, if it did we could just say that since most of humanity has believed in some kind of deity all throughout history then we should presume theism.
Out of curiousity, what would a religion based around rationalism look like?
I don’t understand what you’re saying. Why would God have to be fooled? Who said anyone was trying to fool God?
Eternal Life
The USP of most religions is eternal life. The closest concept to that in main stream science is Relativity which implies the past and future are real and permeant. So perhaps a rational religion would claim we could experience all or part of our lives again. Edited highlights would be nice. Perhaps low-lights for sinners (IE Hell). This is similar to the Eternal Return concept popularised by Nietzsche:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
Alternatively, Quantum Immortality proposes that on death our consciousness transmigrates to a living you in another universe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
Creation Story
We could adapt the Eternal Inflation theory from Cosmology:
- God started inflation.
- Inflation was designed by God as a means of generating as many life supporting universes as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation
Scripture
The tenets of the religion would be alterable to reflect new scientific research. That way the (not so) sacred texts of the religion would evolve over time and so remain relevant to new generations.
To cover more bases, you should also accept Jesus Christ as your persona! savior (to meet Protestant conditions for etenal reward), and you should refrain from committing mortal sins, which Catholics believe sends you to hell. The latter also works for Islamic teaching as well.
To be on the safe side, I'd sacrifice lambs and offerings to the gods of Olympus, as well. Maybe also mutter, "Hare Krishna..." .
You may think that all of that sounds ridiculous, but what we are and are not willing to try comes down to just how much it matters, and how desperate we are. The whole "no atheists in fox holes" quip is not met to suggest that atheists are cowards, but just is expressing this insight, that the desperate try everything.
At the times I didn't know it, but the most desperate times in my life were always the most transformative. When one is most desperate is when they discover what they're really too good for, and not too good for, and when most terrified is when one discovers what really matters, and what doesn't.
The thing I think is ridiculous is the notion that we can choose our beliefs based on the potential for benefitting, rather than based on our usual methods for evaluating the truth of propositions.
I also think that that is silly, which is why it is difficult to know what one believes and doesn't, and particular states and circumstances are necessary to discover this. Without the desperation, without the terror, then we construct an image of ourselves pre-experience, based on what seems cool, inspirational, respected. We identify with feel good, positive things, and act them out to the best of our apprehension and appreciation. We are not at every moment transparent to ourselves however, and thus it requires tracking one's self through time, and various circumstances to get a true sense of what and who they are. To get to know themselves, as their own judging companion. A lukewarm existence though, won't reveal much.
I'm right there with you, except that this is not a debate between evidence and evidence, this is a debate between two (supposedly) equal ideas theism and atheism. If we cannot tell for certain which is true, we should move on to other methods of decision making.
I think All sight's point about desperation is meaningful, when the options for traditional reasoning are all used up we have to move on and try something else, or we will be paralyzed
We all do what we need to do to survive (and avoid paralysis), and I'm not judging anyone for doing that. But by that same token, I do what I do - and that is to seek truth, in the way I know how.
As far as your example, this is not a very good one. While you personally may have no access to information regarding the attack, that is not to say that such information does not exist and is not known by those who deal with this topic involving national security. In many cases where a person is thinking that a statement has no evidence in its favor or against, there is actually evidence either for or against.
You have general experience to suggest that there is no good reason for a submarine to be in Cape Cod Bay. Its not like we are at war or anything. So you have evidence on this issue. You know the odds are very low. The point is if you knew nothing about submarines or Cape Cod Bay, you'd have to start with a 50%/50% assumption and then alter that assumption as you gather more evidence.
Lets try and make this simple for you. If you flip a coin, how likely is it to come up heads? Thats an example of a boolean question for which no evidence has been submitted. 50%/50% is your starting point and I going to refrain from going through elementary maths at this point...
But if you had to assign a probability for some reason, what would you? Say we toss the coin 100 times and the person who guesses how many heads gets a prize. Would you:
- Guess 0 heads
- Guess 50 heads
- Guess 100 heads
?
I think the big bang makes it 25% likely there is a God:
50% + 50% * 25% = 62.5% likely there is a God
And so on through the fine-tuning argument and the prime mover...
If you can't understand the most basic concepts in logic and math, then that's also not my problem. I explained how the principle works in a manner that anyone with half a brain should be able to grasp. The fact you can't, probably is because you don't know much mathematics. Have you ever even taken a non-computational course in math?
And there you go again with the BS about a dragon? Like you seriously don't think that there is actually evidence against the existence of a dragon in your garage? Really?
Believe and God exists. Go to heaven
Believe and God does not exist. Religion is only a slight inconvenience
Don't believe and God exists. Go to hell
Don't believe and God doesn't exist. Nothing much to say.
The main issue. We don't know if God exists.
We have to be sensible. We stand to lose big time if we don't believe and God exists but if we believe and God doesn't exist religion is not much of a problem.
So, it's better to believe than not.
What's the flaw?
None.
It's the most sensible choice.
As Christopher Hitchens once pointed out, it’s somewhat bizarre to believe that you could trick an omniscient God as to the sincerity of your belief. You cannot force yourself to believe something that your rational mind refuses to accept.
Additionally, if God is supposedly all-loving and forgiving, who would He consider to be more honest, courageous, and sincere? The person who simply could not make himself believe in a God and remained honest to himself, or the person who spent their life making fawning professions of faith because Pascal told them it was a good bet to achieve personal gain?
You seem to be saying this:
If there is no evidence for or against the existence of X, then there is a 50 percent chance that X exists.
You can replace the “X” with anything other than God to reveal the fallacy. Would you also say:
There is no evidence for or against the existence of fairies, therefore there is a 50 percent chance that fairies exist.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If someone claims that God exists, they can’t escape the responsibility of providing evidence by claiming that, because they can imagine God to exist, that this automatically makes it 50 percent likely to be true.
Thats correct, that is the starting point for your probability analysis. You then proceed to alter 50% up/down by admitting evidence for and against the proposition
Quoting Ryan B
You have empirical evidence that fairies do not exist on planet earth which you have implicitly used to deduce its very unlikely that fairies exist. Imagine asking the same question if you did not even know what a fairy was - then you'd start at 50%/50%.
In the case of God; you have not got empirical evidence of his non-existence; just empirical evidence that he's not been near planet earth. Which is not surprising considering the size of the universe. There is no evidence against the existence of God.
On the other hand, there does appear to be evidence for God's existence: the big bang, the fine tuning argument, the prime mover argument.
So my point is its impossible to dismiss the existence of God outright; therefore Pascal's wager is still applicable.
You’re changing the terms of your argument on the fly. You originally said, “Whether God exists or not is a boolean question. With no evidence either way, its correct to assign a 50%/50% outcome.”
So, by your own logic, you cannot adjust the rate up or down without evidence, which keeps you stuck at agnosticism.
But then, in your latest response, you state that there is evidence for god’s existence after all but no evidence for his non-existence, a convenient position to hold if you tend toward theism.
I would ask, what evidence is there that fairies do not exist? If anything, it’s the fact that fairies have never been seen or reliably documented, which is the SAME evidence against the existence of god.
The Big Bang is not evidence for god any more than it is evidence for fairies. The Big Bang simply describes the first state of the universe that we can reasonably talk about, but doesn’t suggest anything beyond that. Also, the prime mover argument has so many flaws that it hardly counts as evidence for god’s existence, either. I wrote about the first cause argument here:
https://escapingplatoscave.com/2018/10/01/objections-to-the-first-cause-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/
If I wanted to prove the existence of fairies, I would need to do more than point out that you don’t have evidence that they don’t exist. Of course there is no evidence for the nonexistence of something that doesn’t exist. How could there be?
Likewise, if you want to prove that god exists, you have to do better than to point out that no one can prove his nonexistence. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
Let me end by asking you a question: what would change your mind? If you think this is a matter of probability, where Pascal’s Wager is relevant, then what piece(s) of evidence would ever get you to adjust the probability in favor of god’s nonexistence?
Unless you can answer that, then the answer is nothing, in which case you’re not really abiding by the apparent logic of the wager as much as using the wager as justification for a conclusion you favor.
No, for any boolean proposition, you start at 50%/50% and then alter the odds in light of the evidence. For example:
Was there a creator God? Start with 50% and then examine the evidence for:
The Big Bang makes it 50% likely there was a creator:
50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance of creator
Fine tuning makes it 50% likely there was a creator:
75% + 25% x 50% = 87.5% chance of a creator
The Prime mover argument makes it 25% likely there was a creator:
87.5% + 12.5% x 50% = 93.75% chance of a creator.
There is no evidence against a creator (you have given none).
Quoting Ryan B
We know fairies don't exist on earth because we've never seen one. But we would not expect to see god - the universe is too large and too young for God to have had time to visit us:
1x10^24 estimated stars in observable universe
5.1 x10^12 days since start of universe
God must visit 195,694,716,242 star systems a day for God to have visited all star systems in the observable universe by today. Talk about a hectic schedule
So you cannot expect evidence for God in the form of a personal appearance.
Quoting Ryan B
Its a huge suspicious explosion. Was it natural? Thats a 50%/50% call. So you can't dismiss it out of hand if you are doing a probability analysis.
Quoting Ryan B
Your argument against seems to be pinned on the fact the universe did not have a beginning - I argue that eternal is impossible so the universe must have a beginning here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4158/nine-nails-in-the-coffin-of-presentism/p1
Welcome any comments...
Quoting Ryan B
Well some form of proof of God's non-existence or at least a strong argument against his existence, can you give one?
I noticed you skipped the fine-tuning argument in your reply - which seems pretty strong evidence for God - any reason why?
Mathematically you are wrong; if there is a non-zero chance that God exists, then investing in Pascal's wager is in our interests.
Quoting tim wood
I define God as the creator of the universe and try to establish his existence and attributes from that premise. This is a different approach to assigning certain qualities (eg 3Os) to God and then trying to rationalise his existence.
I’ve never had someone use Pascal’s Wager to prove god’s existence and then proceed to comment on god’s itinerary through the universe. An all-powerful god has restrictions regarding travel speed??? He created us in his image but decided to start his itinerary at the other side of the universe?? He created the entire universe but is restricted by its own laws???
These are the types of hasty generalizations that characterize most arguments for god’s existence, which people think prove something they clearly do not.
Us having not seen god is more consistent, and takes less for granted, with the fact of his non-existence than with the fact that he can only travel to so many stars at one time. And even if I were to accept his existence, the argument would tell me nothing about him, and so I haven't really explained anything at all.
I don't think God (if he exists) is Omnipotent or Omniscient. Both are irrational demands upon a deity; no-one can make 1+2=2 or know all the digits of pi. The shear size of the universe dictates that we will not have heard from any materialistic/non-magical God yet.
Back to Pascal's wager, my point was:
- if you have a non-zero percentage for the chance of God's existence
- then you are well advised to pay heed to the wager