Backgammon, Pascal, Sklanskyanity

[David Sklansky]

There is actually a connection between those three subjects.

Pascal's wager, I believe, is basically the idea that you should believe in the Christian God because even if there is only a small chance that he exists, you are getting essentially "infinite odds" since it will get you into heaven. Flaws in this idea include the fact that other religions might believe that such a belief guarantees that you DON'T get into heaven (since you are blasphemous) and the concept that if your belief is based on Pascal's argument, you don't truly believe. You can't make yourself believe if you don't.

But there is a somewhat altered version of Pascal's wager (The Sklansky-Pascal Wager) that doesn't have these flaws. The idea comes up all the time if you play bridge or backgammon. In those games you are frequently faced with situations where you cannot possibly win UNLESS something else is true. That something else may be quite unlikely. Your opponent will throw double sixes on his next roll. East is holding no spade. But those facts alone are not enough to win. It is also necessary that you play the situation correctly. Which means play the UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that he will roll double sixes or that East has no spade.

If you don't play that strategy you have no chance at all. However that doesn't mean that you should somehow persuade yourself that your assumptions are likely to be correct. It does no good to be inaccurate with your probability assessments if it flies in the face of evidence and math. Play optimistally while realizing that you were lucky if things turn out OK.

When I defined the basics of Sklanskyanity I mentioned that God wants his conscious evolved creations to "be happy". (Of course that was an oversimplification. I really should have said that he was concerned with their overall well being as a group.) Someone questioned the logical basis for this. I didn't answer at the time but my answer is simply that I assumed it to be true. Not a farfetched assumption if there is God. And without it there is no religion. Meanwhile if God wants to improve Man's overall well being, one way to do this is to be the third party in Prisoner Dillema situations who punishes non cooperaters. In other words make it worthwile to follow the Golden Rule.

So lets's change Pascal's wager thusly:

It is plus EV to ASSUME that there is a God who in some way will make it infinitely better if you follow the Golden Rule than if you don't. (Only if you believe that the chances of such a God existing is zero does this not work.)
Notice that this revised Sklansky- Pascal Wager eliminates the two earlier flaws mentioned. No reasonable person believes that DISOBEYING the Golden Rule may actually be a way into heaven. (As opposed to some religions that might believe that disbelieving in Christ is neccesary for salvation.) Secondly, anybody can ASSUME that God exists without actually believing that there is a high probability that he does. Any non zero probability in their mind suffices.

[Joe826]

But your new interpretation still doesn't escape the criticisms of Pascal's wager as it was. The obvious thing to do would be to say that perhaps God is actually an evil God, and he rewards us in the after life for doing everything we can to break the Golden Rule. Obviously such a scenario is far-fetched, but it's at least conceivable, so there is a slight chance that this is actually the case (no matter how infintesimal).

If we are arguing on the merits of Pascal's wager alone, we can't know which one of these two antithetical beliefs to accept, since they both have the same after-life implications. Of course, we could extend this example and make it even more hairy by talking about those other religions that could very well cast you into eternal damnation even if you do following the Golden Rule.

I just don't see how you escape this.

[David Sklansky]

The difference between your criticisms and the original ones have to do with reasonableness. Your technically correct argument is unreasonable. The original ones aren't.

[Joe826]

As far as I understand, reasonability isn't a part of Pascal's wager, and you've made it a part of yours. Ok.

I'm still not sure I totally understand, though. You've said that in order for there to be a God, it MUST be the case that he would have us follow the Golden Rule, so we ought to follow the Golden Rule JUST IN CASE God actually exists, so we'll be saved or what have you.

You've done nothing to defend your basic premise regarding the Golden Rule, other then to say that most normal people would think that should be the case. That's not really a sound argument.

Additionally, if we're going to make wagers on what's reasonable, it seems that accepting one of the world's religions with at least some historical evidence (like we know Christ did exist, etc.) would be much more reasonable than simply believing that we should follow the Golden Rule and we'll be ok. We have no evidence for this, outside of what you think God should be.

[reubenf]

In a world of rational beings, no such justification is needed for the Golden Rule because it is rational. The Golden Rule is only irrational in a world of irrational beings.

[mosquito]

The other problem is you can substitute anything
"reasonable" for "Golden Rule" in your argument.

While the point of the argument is taken, it has
effectively zero value. You are only pushing your
particular cause, in this case the "Golden Rule".

[jjacky]

very nice thoughts, david, but i want to stress, that the necessary assumptions are very strong:

1. the probability that god exists is not zero
2. god lays infinite odds
3. the probability that disobeying the golden rule may be a way into heaven is zero

i thought about this problem pretty hard (before you put it in this forum) and i came to another conclusion that you did.

in my opinion, there is absolutely no possibility to test the existence of god or his will under the assumption that a god exists, nor any possibility to figure out gods will in any other way. that leads me to the conclusion, that the possibility that god exists is zero OR the probability that disobeying the golden rule may be a way into heaven is NOT zero. with my assumptions your reasoning does not lead to the conclusion you have stated in your post.

i want to mention that i follow the "Golden Rule" anyway (or at least i try to do so in most situations), but i am unable to think out a religious or philosophical reasoning to do so that appears to be proper to me (and i didn't lead or heard about one neither). moreover i am not positive that anyone will ever do so without more or less dubious assumptions.


i hope (but doubt) that i was able to express my thoughts in an understandable way with my limited knowledge of the enlish language.

[d10]

Under this new wager, you still lose out if there is a God who maintains that the only way to heaven is through faith, a situation that most Christians believe to be true. Pascal's wager seems to assume that if there is a God, it is most likely that he will use this standard. The only difference with the Sklansky-Pascal wager is that it uses the beliefs of Sklanskyism as opposed to Christianity. I understand your reasoning for believing that it's unlikely there is a God, but assuming the chance that a God does exist, are you saying you would rather be a follower of your own beliefs than those of an established religion? I realize that believing in Christianity might not be correct, but if God does exist, I believe that it's most likely to be correct than any other religion.

I do notice that you removed any references to getting into heaven with your wager, so it's hard to argue against. I mean I'm sure it is +EV to be a good person if there is a God, if that's all you're trying to say. But I still think it is probably more +EV to believe in an established religion with thousands of years of history, even given the fact that believing in one religion may conflict with another.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
You've done nothing to defend your basic premise regarding the Golden Rule, other then to say that most normal people would think that should be the case. That's not really a sound argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think thats the major flaw in the theory.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The other problem is you can substitute anything
"reasonable" for "Golden Rule" in your argument.

While the point of the argument is taken, it has
effectively zero value. You are only pushing your
particular cause, in this case the "Golden Rule".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the logical crux of the matter, in that you have predetermined a particular standard that appeals to you. Furthermore, although you phrase your wager with the word "assume", this is effectively the same thing as saying "believe without proof" which is the same thing as FAITH to those of us who are Christian believers.