Pascal's Wager

Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Been discussed many times. The basic idea of the wager is an infinite upside against a finite downside - who could not take that bet.

The main refutation is that if there is a god then whichever side of the bet you take, there is an infinite downside (when you pick the wrong god or offend god by picking for bad reasons). Then Pascals wager loses its force and reduces to the usual discussion about whats seems most reasonable.

chez

[edthayer]

It is possible that there exists an all-powerful being that will punish you if you worship Him.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing in God won't get you into heaven.

[bearly]

i have been reading the threads on this forum for a couple weeks, have made a few comments. now i know you all must be intelligent and educated, but where did your study of logical analysis go? most of these threads have the same thing in common: none of the posters seem to find it necessary to insist that the terms be defined firstoff. try it on the pascal "argument". w/out first defining the terms, we end up w/ the that old saw 'more heat than light'..........................b

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
i have been reading the threads on this forum for a couple weeks, have made a few comments. now i know you all must be intelligent and educated, but where did your study of logical analysis go? most of these threads have the same thing in common: none of the posters seem to find it necessary to insist that the terms be defined firstoff. try it on the pascal "argument". w/out first defining the terms, we end up w/ the that old saw 'more heat than light'..........................b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are looking for since his question is very straight forward and has been discussed here multiple times.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible that there exists an all-powerful being that will punish you if you worship Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my kind of god! Whoops!

[bearly]

you made my point. i am speechless. this is what i mean: before we start 'debating' 1) what do we take pascal to mean by 'god'?. 2) what do we take pascal to mean by 'exist'. 3)what will we accept as an adequate definition of 'wagering'?............you may not think these are necessary questions to ask, but where subjects such as this are discussed by professional academics, and those in training, it can take many hours at the black board working out some agreement on the logics of these various terms................b

[David Sklansky]

"It is possible that there exists an all-powerful being that will punish you if you worship Him."

Not at all a ridiculous idea.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
you made my point. i am speechless. this is what i mean: before we start 'debating' 1) what do we take pascal to mean by 'god'?. 2) what do we take pascal to mean by 'exist'. 3)what will we accept as an adequate definition of 'wagering'?............you may not think these are necessary questions to ask, but where subjects such as this are discussed by professional academics, and those in training, it can take many hours at the black board working out some agreement on the logics of these various terms................b

[/ QUOTE ]

And you provide a good example of why many professional academics are not taken seriously.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
you made my point. i am speechless. this is what i mean: before we start 'debating' 1) what do we take pascal to mean by 'god'?. 2) what do we take pascal to mean by 'exist'. 3)what will we accept as an adequate definition of 'wagering'?............you may not think these are necessary questions to ask, but where subjects such as this are discussed by professional academics, and those in training, it can take many hours at the black board working out some agreement on the logics of these various terms................b

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are studying Pascal then it may be important to worry about that stuff but we are assming the questioner is asking about the basic idea represented by the label 'pascals wager'.

and the basic idea is taking a bet with an infinite upside and finite downside. The refutation is clearly evident in the responses.

It seems obvious that the idea and refutation is independent of what Pascal meant by god etc.


chez

[bearly]

your response was a very good one. right on target. it shows, i believe, that math and physics are serious subjects, but philosophy, and conceptual analysis in general, are just for recreational thinking..........b

[bearly]

well ayt., i think it is safe to say that dedicated thinkers are seldom taken seriously by the general public. it is a good defense mech. after all, how would one feel about the state of their own intellectual powers if they took a look at what serious thinkers do? by the way, there is a lot more time and effort devoted to unravelling conceptual confusions than you might think. try modern modal logics, linguistics, philosophy of mind (the new metaphysics) and artificial intelligence................b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
your response was a very good one. right on target. it shows, i believe, that math and physics are serious subjects, but philosophy, and conceptual analysis in general, are just for recreational thinking..........b

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read this several times and can't see how you reached your conclusion. There's a red light on my sarcasm detector but no reading.

Would you care to explain what you mean?

chez

[bearly]

sure, you were right in taking the 'everybody knows what he means by x' approach. but, in physics for example, a high degree of specificity is required. in serious conceptual analysis a similar degree of precision is required. (that is, the dicussion should be able to be expressed in a logic of some modality). when matters of a speculative nature are discussed off-handedly (c'mon, everybody knows) that is recreational thinking. a far better use of time, by the way, than the drivel that passes for mental stimulation on tv.........................b

[ QUOTE ]
a high degree of specificity is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define what you mean by "specificity." How are we to have a meaningful discussion when you just throw these words around without definition? Also, what does "required" mean? And what do you mean by "is"?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
sure, you were right in taking the 'everybody knows what he means by x' approach. but, in physics for example, a high degree of specificity is required. in serious conceptual analysis a similar degree of precision is required. (that is, the dicussion should be able to be expressed in a logic of some modality). when matters of a speculative nature are discussed off-handedly (c'mon, everybody knows) that is recreational thinking. a far better use of time, by the way, than the drivel that passes for mental stimulation on tv.........................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! got you know, I think you're still wrong because people understand the responses enough to understand how pascal's wager is refuted.

I'm usually the one being accused of going into too much specificity but its not

'a high degree of specificity is required'

its 'the required degree of specificity is required'

and I think we met that requirement as explained above. We didn't meet it for people who don't understand the nature of pascal's wager, but most do and nobody asked for a detailed explanation.

chez

[ZeeJustin]

There are everal possible arguments.
1) The chance that god exists could be infinitesmal.
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The upside may be finite. If God is real, there is no reason to believe that "heaven" exists, or if it does, that its "infinitely" +EV.

2) Plus, discarding reason during your lifetime in favor of theist myths may also be viewed as a real loss in that you only had one life -- just this one chance -- to use your brain to its fullest but you chose to fill it with silly beliefs.

3) There may be other mystical explanations in which your use of your faculties to their fullest will gain you reward but not using them will result in a worse state for your "soul".

[bearly]

gee, zee is implicitly suggesting we need a little more specificity concerning 'god'..........b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are everal possible arguments.
1) The chance that god exists could be infinitesmal.
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as there's a chance of an infinite upside then there's an infinite upside.

(ignoring the possibilty of the chance being infinitesmal which is your other point).

chez

[r3vbr]

god can punish infinitly someone who believes in gods..

maybe god wants people to not think about god..
if someone mentions god/religion it makes him mad

maybe his divine plan for us is to see us develop our technology, or see how fast we can develop our logic/reasoning into understanding the universe
maybe he sees religious people as distractions to improving our technology (wich they are) and he will punish every one of them on eternal flame...

therefore everyone who every touched a bible goes to hell and everyone who's a egocentric, logical, rational, atheist, will recieve god's sympathy and approval, and be rewarded.

im not saying this is true, its one of the infinite possibilities of god. and just as likely as any other explanation

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]
Denis Diderot had a good one: " Any Imam could just as well reason the same way."

[BluffTHIS!]

As a Catholic, like Pascal, I believe that the wager is an arguement/proposition that is mostly sound but there are some rational criticisms although some seem highly speculative or manipulative of religious doctrine (a human saying what a god should do based upon their own human understanding for example and not on revelation) and which I would reject. Some of these are:

1) The wager posits an infinite reward that is not appropriate to man who is a finite creature capable only of understanding and enjoying finite rewards and punishments;

2) There should be more choices in the wager. For example God "should" reward differently depending upon varying degrees of belief or unbelief;

3) The wager implicitly posits the Christian God and its conception of Him being true when the wager could logically be applied to any mono or poly-theistic religion;

4) Taking such a wager does not really constitute true belief and would be unlikely to be rewarded even if Christianity is true.

[Azazoth]

Not only is this not a ridiculous idea, it's the basis of many H.P. Lovecraft stories. Worship an ancient, dark God, and get devoured when he rises.

[RJT]

Kid,

[ QUOTE ]
2) Plus, discarding reason during your lifetime in favor of theist myths may also be viewed as a real loss in that you only had one life -- just this one chance -- to use your brain to its fullest but you chose to fill it with silly beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define what the opportunity cost is here?

RJT

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define what the opportunity cost is here?


[/ QUOTE ]

David would say that it is that you are not expending the thought and activity you put into your faith into finding a cure for some disease, a way to redirect hurricanes, or some other scientific activity of benefit to mankind, since he seems to feel that faith and such endeavours are mutually exclusive for the most part.

What is Zeus going to do to me when I choose to worship the wrong God?

Am I better off or worse off than someone who didn't choose to worship a god at all?

[RJT]

Right. And even he were correct that they are mutually exclusive and if I were atheist - -I’d seriously look into KKF’s idea - not the no tax thing, rather the hanging in Thailand for a spell idea first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please define what the opportunity cost is here?


[/ QUOTE ]

David would say that it is that you are not expending the thought and activity you put into your faith into finding a cure for some disease, a way to redirect hurricanes, or some other scientific activity of benefit to mankind, since he seems to feel that faith and such endeavours are mutually exclusive for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess part of the thought and activity of faith is attending Church. When you attend Church, you listen to the Bible. Important lessons and values are taught throughout the Bible. While I understand you can learn these without attending Church, how can you say this is a waste of time?

[ QUOTE ]
What is Zeus going to do to me when I choose to worship the wrong God?

Am I better off or worse off than someone who didn't choose to worship a god at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should examine all deities and after-life-judges to see which has the most +EV (best reward if belived in, worst punishment if not), and then believe in that one. From what I know, the Christian God is pretty high on the list...

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand you can learn these without attending Church, how can you say this is a waste of time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can learn moral philosophy without attending church and not have it polluted by all the religious trappings.

[bearly]

it is not a wager....................b

[bearly]

ok, does anyone see why it is not a wager?

[ QUOTE ]
We should examine all deities and after-life-judges to see which has the most +EV (best reward if belived in, worst punishment if not), and then believe in that one. From what I know, the Christian God is pretty high on the list...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm no expert on all religions, but it seems as if christianity has the worst punishment. I might stand corrected on that, but it's probably up there on the 'worst punishment' list. Islam is probably number one on the best reward. Eternal bliss AND virgins.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as there's a chance of an infinite upside then there's an infinite upside.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a chance of an infinite downside (hell), this is not true.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as there's a chance of an infinite upside then there's an infinite upside.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a chance of an infinite downside (hell), this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The upside is what you can get when you win. If there's a non-infintesimal chance of winning an infinite amount then there a chance of winning an infinite amount. Hence the upside is infinite.

Maybe we mean something different by upside.

My first post was that the problem with the wager is there is also an infinite downside. i think this is the easiest refutation as argueing that there is an infintesimal chance of an infinite upside, that makes the upside finite, is tough.

chez

[SonofJen]

The main objection, philosophically speaking, is that the argument is circular. The payoffs already assume a god exists but the wager asks whether or not a god exists.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
The payoffs already assume a god exists but the wager asks whether or not god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Pascal wasn't interested in if there's a God or not - merely proving that belief in God is positive expected value.

[ReadyEddie]

Coincidentally I'm writing a paper on this for my philosophy class.

I dont agree with the wager, for reasons already stated here, basically:
- belief isnt the only prerequisiste for the "payoff"
- if the wager is followed this is not true belief, and you wont get paid off unless God isn't omnicient
- the wager assumes that you are picking the right God

I think the logic of the wager parallels to some extent the logic of the christians that are believers out of fear.

so im proof reading my paper and i actually caught myself using "positive expected value" in it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
- if the wager is followed this is not true belief, and you wont get paid off unless God isn't omnicient

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it not "true belief", but it's not "belief" at all. Nobody can choose their beliefs. I can't start believing that an invisible pink dinosaur lives in my closet because someone says that if I believe that I'll go to heaven.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- if the wager is followed this is not true belief, and you wont get paid off unless God isn't omnicient

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it not "true belief", but it's not "belief" at all. Nobody can choose their beliefs. I can't start believing that an invisible pink dinosaur lives in my closet because someone says that if I believe that I'll go to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

The force of the wager is the infinite upside. Think of practising the religon as a form of brainwashing and there is a finite chance that the practice will lead to belief before you die. That keeps the upside infinite.

The infinite upside overcomes any objection that relies on reducing the likelyhood of winning the bet (providing the chance of winning remains finite).

chez

[SonofJen]

[ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that Pascal wasn't interested in if there's a God or not - merely proving that belief in God is positive expected value.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only expected value to believe in god if god exists! That's the whole point. Because the argument is circular it collapses in on itself before it can even finish.

[SonofJen]

What class and where? Post your paper when you're done. Good luck.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
It's only expected value to believe in god if god exists!

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you can establish that God absolutely does not exist (which you can't) then it's +EV even if he doesn't happen exist. Basically, as long as we can only discuss God in probability then I don't think it's circular.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- if the wager is followed this is not true belief, and you wont get paid off unless God isn't omnicient

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is it not "true belief", but it's not "belief" at all. Nobody can choose their beliefs. I can't start believing that an invisible pink dinosaur lives in my closet because someone says that if I believe that I'll go to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

The force of the wager is the infinite upside. Think of practising the religon as a form of brainwashing and there is a finite chance that the practice will lead to belief before you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I was just adding to the previous poster's response to the "belief" aspect of the wager.

If anyone ever really tries to get you to believe using Pascal's wager, just counter-offer: If you give me $50, I will believe in your God, and you will be guaranteed to go to heaven; if you don't give me $50, you will be guaranteed to go to hell.

[ReadyEddie]

[ QUOTE ]
What class and where? Post your paper when you're done. Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

UCF
Ethics in Science and technology

the professor gives us take home test where we include 3 short essays about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the class, even the lectures dont have anything to do with the class. It's not that good so ill skip posting it, good enough to give me an A though. Mostly just a rehashing of whats been said on this thread, only like 2 pages.