An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager

[Rational Agnostic]

I won't preface this with anything, other than the fact that this discussion was genuinely interesting to me, and is one of the few discussions that I have seen where the theist actually made me think. I don't think it's at all likely that any gods exist, but perhaps Dr. Jackson made a good argument for religious participation in the religion one sees to be most probable.

 

[John53]

I won't preface this with anything, other than the fact that this discussion was genuinely interesting to me, and is one of the few discussions that I have seen where the theist actually made me think. I don't think it's at all likely that any gods exist, but perhaps Dr. Jackson made a good argument for religious participation in the religion one sees to be most probable.

I confess I only got 10 minutes through the video. My problem with Pascal's Wager is that you would have to rely on a God not knowing that you are only believing in case it might exist. Which would rule it out as being omniscient. Does she address that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I confess I only got 10 minutes through the video. My problem with Pascal's Wager is that you would have to rely on a God not knowing that you are only believing in case it might exist. Which would rule it as being omniscient. Does she address that?

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

Reading your description, I'm feeling that my mind is having trouble following.

I should probably watch the video.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They don't really get going until 15 minutes in. They talk about afterlife decision making and consider it analogous to Pascal's wager.

She brings up Homer Simpson's view that being neutral about religion won't tick off God as much as choosing the wrong religion. Simpson's view is atypical and is to bring humor into the show, but she finds it useful as a prop to discuss Pascal's wager.

So I watch from 15 to minute 17 then skip to 30:30. She emphasizes that the question is about the probability of what God should be expected to be like, because you are not choosing between belief and God or not God but in which religion. She says (and he somewhat agrees) that if being a good person has no impact on the question of whether you are likely to be rewarded positively, then being an atheist or a theist has the same mathematical expected value (50/50). At 56:00 she's saying that you could try to imagine that if God exists you could try to work out the likely characteristics of God. He's saying (opposite) that without empirical evidence (as opposed to philosophical reasoning) it would not matter, because you would not know enough to factor into the probability. I think she is saying that there is a slight sense to trying to work out God's characteristics, while he is saying there is no point in doing so.

I won't preface this with anything, other than the fact that this discussion was genuinely interesting to me, and is one of the few discussions that I have seen where the theist actually made me think. I don't think it's at all likely that any gods exist, but perhaps Dr. Jackson made a good argument for religious participation in the religion one sees to be most probable.

Pascal's Wager was never very good. In a world where we are pressured to behave like we have all kinds of belief and strong faith it is a small comfort, but any person that wants to believe it can and any that doesn't can dismiss it. That pressure is unyielding throughout every age and in every culture that I have heard of. There is just a way that people want us to be, words they want to hear us say, confirmations and affirmations. I think this is Pascal showing the cracks in his feelings about faith. There is too much pressure to have more faith than we can produce.

For a long time there were creationist arguments, but those have changed or are going away. There is nothing to stand on except a choice to believe, a strong desire to see loved ones again, a feeling that someone is watching us, a longing for another time etc. We no longer have the comfort of the authorities we once did.

 

[Heyo]

I won't preface this with anything, other than the fact that this discussion was genuinely interesting to me, and is one of the few discussions that I have seen where the theist actually made me think. I don't think it's at all likely that any gods exist, but perhaps Dr. Jackson made a good argument for religious participation in the religion one sees to be most probable.

I made it to minute 20 and realized that she's good at talking and bad at maths. Pascals Wager not salvaged.

(She brought an example of a game show with 2 doors where you get an infinite utility with a certain chance. If you pick door 1 the chance is 99.999% and for door 2 it is 0.001%. She thinks that it is better to pick door 1 - which is just wrong.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

You think there's no cost to acting cynically and hypocritically by feigning belief in a God?
Putting aside any notion of the long term harm I think such a world view would have, wouldn't this ENTIRELY depend on the religion and dogma you find 'most likely'?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You think there's no cost to acting cynically and hypocritically by feigning belief in a God?

Right. Pascal's Wager relies on anchoring bias: the same way a restaurant will make an expensive bottle of wine seem "cheaper" by having a few ridiculously priced bottles on the menu, Pascal's Wager relies on framing things in terms of very large costs to argue that the cost of dedicating your entire life to a religion is "small."

It's like that old lottery scam: "congratulations! You've won the (insert name) lottery! Your prize is (insert amount that's more than you can spend in a lifetime). All we need to release your winnings is $10,000 for the taxes, which is infinitesimal compared to what we claim you'll be missing out on if you don't give us the money."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I made it to minute 20 and realized that she's good at talking and bad at maths. Pascals Wager not salvaged.

(She brought an example of a game show with 2 doors where you get an infinite utility with a certain chance. If you pick door 1 the chance is 99.999% and for door 2 it is 0.001%. She thinks that it is better to pick door 1 - which is just wrong.)

Timestamp? I have a BS in Math and a MS in Statistics. There actually are "infinities" of varying sizes, which is referred to as cardinality. To use an easy example, the set of positive integers is smaller than the set of all integers, even though both are infinite sets.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Right. Pascal's Wager relies on anchoring bias: the same way a restaurant will make an expensive bottle of wine seem "cheaper" by having a few ridiculously priced bottles on the menu, Pascal's Wager relies on framing things in terms of very large costs to argue that the cost of dedicating your entire life to a religion is "small."

It's like that old lottery scam: "congratulations! You've won the (insert name) lottery! Your prize is (insert amount that's more than you can spend in a lifetime). All we need to release your winnings is $10,000 for the taxes, which is infinitesimal compared to what we claim you'll be missing out on if you don't give us the money."

It definitely depends on the religion. Most modern Christians I know live exactly the same way as atheists would and literally nothing is different about their lives other than the occasional prayer or church attendance.

 

[Link]

Pascal's Wager wants you to hang out with religious people and give them a chance to guide you as part of the toolkit, never asks you to pretend to believe. Also, prayers to God doesn't require you to believe.

 

[PureX]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is a "what if" proposition. And there are no limitations to the "what ifs". If the 'threat' is a what if, then so can the solution be. And the whole proposition cancels itself out.

What if God hates you and when you die is going to torture you forever? What if I kill God first?

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't understand the premise or validity at all. If there is no evidence, no belief present, and if it doesn't make sense, why would anyone truly give it much consideration? Fear based unknowns? Why not instead, pursue truth and acknowledge that most religions champion truth as a foundation for their beliefs and faith? As a Christian, I'm obligated to honor truth. If I do not perceive something to be true, then how would I be honoring truth at all, if I were to adopt the views I didn't truthfully believe? This would cause me more anxiety than to honor truthfully, particularly given what's stated in the bible about liars having no part in the kingdom. Truth matters. When something clicks as a truth it clicks. Until then, why not wait for the leading patiently and give some due diligence to the efforts of understanding?

 

[Link]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it is a "what if" proposition. And there are no limitations to the "what ifs". If the 'threat' is a what if, then so can the solution be. And the whole proposition cancels itself out.

What if God hates you and when you die is going to torture you forever? What if I kill God first?

It doesn't really have this problem. The main problem is that if it's the only life we have, the sacrifice is not a small thing. If you are praying to see God every day and constantly striving to avoid pleasures of "sin", it will be worth it if turns out God makes you see him. Otherwise, the sacrifice for only life is not trivial.

As for what if scenarios, you don't dismiss them, but you don't dismiss the possibility of hell.

However this humbles the argument, it's still even if we torture ourselves every day (which we don't), a sound argument.

 

[Koldo]

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

Isn't there also a chance that not actually believing in it but merely going through the motions of worshipping and praying may make God even more "upset" with you thus getting you an even worse afterlife?

"I was going to turn a blind eye to your behavior until you started pretending to be part of my flock."

 

[PureX]

It doesn't really have this problem. The main problem is that if it's the only life we have, the sacrifice is not a small thing. If you are praying to see God every day and constantly striving to avoid pleasures of "sin", it will be worth it if turns out God makes you see him. Otherwise, the sacrifice for only life is not trivial.

As for what if scenarios, you don't dismiss them, but you don't dismiss the possibility of hell.

However this humbles the argument, it's still even if we torture ourselves every day (which we don't), a sound argument.

It's not really an argument at all. It's just a fantasy argument. And as a fantasy, we can alter it any way we like to gain any solution we want.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't understand the premise or validity at all. If there is no evidence, no belief present, and if it doesn't make sense, why would anyone truly give it much consideration? Fear based unknowns? Why not instead, pursue truth and acknowledge that most religions champion truth as a foundation for their beliefs and faith? As a Christian, I'm obligated to honor truth. If I do not perceive something to be true, then how would I be honoring truth at all, if I were to adopt the views I didn't truthfully believe? This would cause me more anxiety than to honor truthfully, particularly given what's stated in the bible about liars having no part in the kingdom. Truth matters. When something clicks as a truth it clicks. Until then, why not wait for the leading patiently and give some due diligence to the efforts of understanding?

I think a good analogy would be this: let's say I move from a neighborhood that has no history of burglaries or any type of crime to a neighborhood where, say, 1 out of 50 people's homes are burglarized per year. Even though I don't actually believe that a burglary is going to happen this year (since there is only a 2% chance historically), I still would take specific actions to prepare for it in case it occurred, like possibly installing a security system or purchasing heavier doors or stronger locks. It's possible to take actions to prepare for something that you don't believe will occur if the consequences of that thing occurring are large enough.

 

[Balthazzar]

It doesn't really have this problem. The main problem is that if it's the only life we have, the sacrifice is not a small thing. If you are praying to see God every day and constantly striving to avoid pleasures of "sin", it will be worth it if turns out God makes you see him. Otherwise, the sacrifice for only life is not trivial.

As for what if scenarios, you don't dismiss them, but you don't dismiss the possibility of hell.

However this humbles the argument, it's still even if we torture ourselves every day (which we don't), a sound argument.

Sinful pleasures are based on what exactly? I waited 10 years to eat my favorite meal once. One day, I decided to purchase two 1" ribeye steaks. Best steaks I ever ate. Another time, I waited a full year, maybe it was 3 ... anyway to drink a beer. I purchased a coors light and I don't even like Coors light all that much, but man ... Guess what? It was the best beer I ever drank. Fasting, although some people don't practice it just kind of makes things better. So, maybe it has a thing to do with being gluttonous and it being sinful based on a desensitization of its value.

 

[LuisDantas]

The argument isn't about believing that a god exists. It's more along the lines of figuring out which religion you think is most probable and practicing that religion even if you don't believe the god exists, since there's a chance that the god doesn't actually care if you believe in it but only cares if you worship and pray to it. The idea is that the activity of doing that (even if it feels stupid because it's highly unlikely that the god exists) is worth doing anyway since there's very little cost or impact to your life of doing it but potentially huge consequences of not doing it.

Do you think that makes any sense?

I do not.

 

[Balthazzar]

I think a good analogy would be this: let's say I move from a neighborhood that has no history of burglaries or any type of crime to a neighborhood where, say, 1 out of 50 people's homes are burglarized per year. Even though I don't actually believe that a burglary is going to happen this year (since there is only a 2% chance historically), I still would take specific actions to prepare for it in case it occurred, like possibly installing a security system or purchasing heavier doors or stronger locks. It's possible to take actions to prepare for something that you don't believe will occur if the consequences of that thing occurring are large enough.

Cool, this makes sense and based on truth. 1. Concern 2. people like to steal things. 3. You didn't want to lose your possessions to common thieves. I think security systems are cool anyway. I'd have the feed go straight to my phone with a mic and speaker system set just to screw with people. 4. That would be fun.