Pascal’s wager

[Nasor]

Most people here are probably familiar with Pascal’s wager. Pascal proposed that one should believe in God since it covers one against the possibility that god exists. If you believe in god and it turns out that you were wrong, there are no consequences – but if you don’t believe in god and it turns out that you were wrong, there could be terrible consequences. So, it’s best to “play it safe” and believe in god. This sort of argument is commonly used by Christians.

Here is my question for Christians who like to use Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in god: are you really capable of believing something simply because you have decided that you want to believe it? Even if I wanted to accept Pascal’s wager in order to “hedge my bets,” I couldn’t; I can’t simply decide to start believing something that is strongly contradicted by reason and evidence. If someone offered me $100 million to believe that the world was flat, I couldn’t take them up on the offer. At best, I could lie and say that I believed the world to be flat. Yet, it appears that many Christians really can simply decide to start believing something simply because they want to. At least I assume they can, otherwise they wouldn’t constantly use Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in god. Doesn’t that say something kind of frightening about how Christians view reality?

 

[Lerxst]

Here is my question for Christians who like to use Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in god: are you really capable of believing something simply because you have decided that you want to believe it? Even if I wanted to accept Pascal’s wager in order to “hedge my bets,” I couldn’t; I can’t simply decide to start believing something that is strongly contradicted by reason and evidence.

It is a good question, and I feel similarly. There have been times when I really wanted to be a believer, but I could not make myself do it.

 

[marv]

Belief is a strange thing. I think that there are two reasons for "really" believing something. They really want to because the belief strikes some sympathetic chord within them. Or because they willingly accept testimony/evidence from someone/something else, and it fits with their mind-set or is not contradicted by any other experience.

 

[MarcAC]

Here is my question for Christians who like to use Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in god: are you really capable of believing something simply because you have decided that you want to believe it?

Is that what Pascal's Wager is stating? I think Pascal said you should try your best to believe because - all things being equal - you end up in a mathematically better position than one who doesn't believe. It is not about "wanting" it is about the "probably better position" and the necessity of belief to be in that position.

You don't believe because you want to believe. You believe because you recognise the better position, and to be in that position you must believe.

Then, hopefully, as time progresses you will recognise the truth value of that belief and see the truth that only those who believe can see.

Even if I wanted to accept Pascal’s wager in order to “hedge my bets,” I couldn’t; I can’t simply decide to start believing something that is strongly contradicted by reason and evidence.

That simply means you "can't" accept the reasonable arguments and evidences presented in favour of the thing. But why?

If someone offered me $100 million to believe that the world was flat, I couldn’t take them up on the offer. At best, I could lie and say that I believed the world to be flat.

Be reasonable!

Let me offer up a better analogy for you: What if someone offered you 100 million dollars, pounds, or euro to believe the Universe was flat?

That more accurately represents the Pascal situation my friend; there is no overwhelming evidence for the existence/non-existence of God as for a spherical Earth orbited by satellites artificial, natural and biological.

A spherical Earth, at present, is easily, objectively verifiable.

God - or God's absence - is in the details that we find hard to observe, yet theologists and scientists alike are making strides to push these observational limits back.

Yet, it appears that many Christians really can simply decide to start believing something simply because they want to. At least I assume they can, otherwise they wouldn’t constantly use Pascal’s wager as a reason to believe in god.

Anyone can believe something that they want to as long as it doesn't overwhelmingly challenge their perception of reality and, also, as long as it is not subjected to substantial negation by evidence. Take a flat, open or closed Universe as an example.

Doesn’t that say something kind of frightening about how Christians view reality?

More so about your interpretation of Pascal's Wager and your view of reality regarding evidence for God's (non-)existence.

 

[SkinWalker]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is assumptions: the assumption that if there is a god, its a Christian one; that this god wants blind believers rather than reasoned skeptics; that there is only one god; etc.

It is completely illogical for anyone to accept a god simply on the basis that "there might be one." Surely a god would not accept such insincerity and refuse any reward for the hypocrite. Indeed, one could hypothesize logically that it would be the skeptic that may enjoy the fruits of heaven (or whatever reward may exist) for questioning the anthropomorphic idea of "God" -and idea that may be completely wrong. There may be a god, but there's far less chance that the patriarchal European version is the right one.

It would be ironic if there were a god, but it punished all that chose to believe in "God," Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, Ba'al, Atun, Quetzalcoatl, etc. and rewarded the atheists who never took those false gods.

 

[Renrue]

To add to the subject,

I also believe Pascal's Wager is a silly idea. The first reason is because you cannot believe from lack of evidence and personal rationality against the notion of an omnipotent, omnicient being.

Secondly, you also have several religions to consider. So the wager is actually "gamble, or don't gamble." Even while gambling, you still have the chance to lose. I could gamble, but I have a chance of still landing in the eternal pit of fire everyone raves about. I just rather not go to church/mosque/temple/synagogue every "holy" day.

True, you can say the Wager pertains to just believing in a god, but where will that get you? Most religions require you to adhere to a certain aspect that separates religions, which leads you to gamble on which set of beliefs you should believe in.

By the way, you can't just say, "Believe in my religion." Because there is always the other guy saying, "No, believe in my religion.


[Renrue]

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
Talks about the wager...
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

 

[Nasor]

You don't believe because you want to believe. You believe because you recognise the better position, and to be in that position you must believe.

You are still saying that one could simply decide to start believing merely because it's necessary to be in "a better position", even though the evidence hasn't changed. Even though I would be in a better position if I could collect millions of dollars for believing that the earth was flat, I couldn't; even thought I "recognize the better position, and to be in that position you must believe". Similarly, even if I recognized that I would be in a better position if I believed in god, that doesn't offer any new evidence into whether or not god exists. You are saying that a person could change their beliefs simply because it would benefit them to hold a different belief, rather than because new evidence or insight became available. That's what boggles my mind about christians who use this argument.

Then, hopefully, as time progresses you will recognise the truth value of that belief and see the truth that only those who believe can see.

So I'm supposed to accept the truth of something before I realize it's true? That seems impossible, unless I can arbitrarily decide to change my beliefs without any change in evidence.

Let me offer up a better analogy for you: What if someone offered you 100 million dollars, pounds, or euro to believe the Universe was flat?

That more accurately represents the Pascal situation my friend; there is no overwhelming evidence for the existence/non-existence of God as for a spherical Earth orbited by satellites artificial, natural and biological.

It still wouldn't matter. If the evidence for whether the universe is flat was ambiguous before someone offers me the money, it's still going to be ambiguous after someone offers me the money. At best, I could lie and say that I believed in a flat universe in an attempt to collect the money - but I couldn't actually become any more sure that the universe is flat simply because someone offered me a reward for believing it.

 

[MarcAC]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is assumptions: that this god wants blind believers...

I think Pascal addressed this one in his wager; something along the lines of: "... in the hope that you will eventually see truth in the belief...."

You may re-assess the arguments and evidences presented in favour of the existence of such a god and may find yourself revising your stance on these. Some of which may be just pure irrational bias.

You may decide selfishly at first, but you may change after. Who knows what changes true belief will bring? Who knows what knowledge? The non-believer turned believer?

It is completely illogical for anyone to accept a god simply on the basis that "there might be one."

Not if you see any heirarchical prospect of an afterlife.

Surely a god would not accept such insincerity and refuse any reward for the hypocrite.

Quite so, thus Pascal's addition of the "hope" that you will come to true sincere belief by first making the decision. Especially if your stance on such a thing is tainted by emotional biases.

Indeed, one could hypothesize logically that it would be the skeptic that may enjoy the fruits of heaven (or whatever reward may exist) for questioning the anthropomorphic idea of "God" -and idea that may be completely wrong.

Similarly, one could hypothesise that an ant is a god. Such a hypothesis would be rather useless in my opinion.

There may be a god, but there's far less chance that the patriarchal European version is the right one.

If one considers all the views of what a god may be like as mutually exclusive and consider the chance that one is correct - sure.

Of course it isn't that simple, and otherwise one has to wonder how anyone could arrive at the conclusion of; "far less chance that the partriarchal European version is the right one" beyond a simple bias.

Chance is a funny thing. While it will tell you that you'll probably get a heads half the time and tail the other half for flipping a fair coin, it can never tell you which you'll get at a particular event. As far as chance goes you can get all heads.

It would be ironic if there were a god, but it punished all that chose to believe in "God," Allah, Yahweh, Elohim, Ba'al, Atun, Quetzalcoatl, etc. and rewarded the atheists who never took those false gods.

Now what are the chances of that?

 

[MarcAC]

You are saying that a person could change their beliefs simply because it would benefit them to hold a different belief, rather than because new evidence or insight became available. That's what boggles my mind about christians who use this argument.

Why? You may rename Pascal's Wager as "Pascal's Warning". The real issue is what is at the heart of the disbelief - especially if objective evidence is ambivalent.

If you had forever to decide G or NG well Pascal's W' wouldn't be as relevant. Pascal's Wager cannot be simply seen as an intellectual game. It's more a life/death situation. Choose D die; choose L, live.

But how or why else do people change their beliefs? Why do people believe anything in the first place? Is it of benefit to them to believe something (if they do) rather than disbelieve/"lack belief"?

So I'm supposed to accept the truth of something before I realize it's true? That seems impossible, unless I can arbitrarily decide to change my beliefs without any change in evidence.

What is the qualitative difference between "realising" something is true and "accepting" its truth? Pascal's Wager stresses belief - with it each of those should come hand in hand. Because you accept/realise something as true does it mean it is true?

If evidence is 50/50 you are safe to believe heads rather than tails. If it's heads you get the money; if it's tails you don't. If you don't believe, you don't get the money by default. Place your bets and find value in the reward afterwards - if there is one.

It still wouldn't matter. If the evidence for whether the universe is flat was ambiguous before someone offers me the money, it's still going to be ambiguous after someone offers me the money. At best, I could lie and say that I believed in a flat universe in an attempt to collect the money - but I couldn't actually become any more sure that the universe is flat simply because someone offered me a reward for believing it.

Who knows what belief will bring? Believe, especially that you'll be none the worse.