Pascal's wager

[jack]

Pascal's Wager is an ingenious idea, and one that it was necessary to formulise, but it came up in conversation the other day, and I wanted to list a selection of the problems with it that mean it maybe isn't a good idea to rely on it.

I'm interpreting Pascal's Wager as "If I believe X, then I'll go to heaven, and it's possible that X is true, and infinite reward times small chance is infinite reward, so I should believe X." I don't know if "Well, you never know, what have I got to lose" counts.

1. Moral

It's based soley on what's good for the gambler. I'm slways worried by people who say if there wasn't any god they'd just do whatever they felt like. I doubt god would be ok with that.

2. Practical

Can you make yourself believe? It's difficult to make yourself believe anything even if you'd *like* to if you *don't*. So it only really works as a post-fact justification. Though, to be fair, living as if something was true does get your mind used to it. But you can't pretend a relationship with god, only if belief is one way could you even theoretically force it.

Of course, you could argue that you can't force belief, but the Wager says you should open yourself and try to listen (which I did).

3. Mathematical

We've been assuming X is "believe in god" but the argument works equally well if X is "don't believe in god" or "die my hair red" or "join the spanish inquisition[1]." Since you can't do all of them, the argument is obviously flawed.

In fact, a mathematician would probably see the flaw as assuming there's a positive probability of god existing. If you're inspired, or assume, or deduce, then ok, but then you don't need this, and if you don't, then you're just saying "X is possible so X has a positive probability" which is impossible. Imagine picking a real number at random and choosing zero. It's possible but any sensible assignment of probability has to give it probability zero.

[1] Which does solve problems 1 and 2: if, at the risk of your soul, you convert other people, you might get some success. But problems 3+ still bring you down, and an argument that leads to the inquisition is terrifying.

4. More maths

I got this one from wikipedia, who I should probably alert to (3). Even if you're not certain of god, but think there is a positive probability, then throwing a big die and having a 1/100 chance of believing has an infinite expectation. Can you choose between them?

5. Conclusion

Of course, some people would say I'm making equally unsupported assumptions (eg. that my memory is roughly accurate, or that scientific method works). But I think they're necessary assumptions -- that I can't justify. If you've met god, then you have no doubt. But if you've never seen him but want to hedge your bets, then this isn't the way.

Comments

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

If you've met god, then you have no doubt.

I wouldn't go that far, but I would say that my probabilities are resting closer to 1 than 0 in the God Stakes.

I see Pascal's Wager as being for those situations where probability is in the region of .5 and therefore the wager would tip something over the balance.

So, if one is struggling about whether to undertake a course of action, then the wager is along the lines of "It's better to live life to the full than not at all."

How are you this fine morning? (apart from thoughtful :)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I was concentrating more on the people who *don't* have any reason to believe, I should have been more precise. If you suspect, or aren't sure, or are near certain certain, then the wager maybe is applicable, though the other objections may apply.

And for within-life situations I actually do make probabilitic calculations :)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Pascal was a mystic though. We're strange creatures.

The problem is that I tend to see anything over .33 as being good odds.

My maths isn't great and I then tend to over-estimate odds and jump accordingly. Things have this surprising habit of working out right though, so this is good...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

For life, maths probably isn't that helpful, we're not that bad at guessing, especially with a chance of a good payoff -- a lot of the time you *should* jump, even if you're likely to fail.

But you need to keep a good calculator in reserve for things like poker and hypothetical possibilities, where our intuition isn't sharpened :)

Pascal: he probably actually proposed this more as a thought experiment than a reason. But it doesn't stop people trying to use it to justify all sorts of things.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Thing is that I'm XNXX on MBTI, which means I can often compute things better intuitively than with a calculator. It seems that Kepler was similar.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

How are you this fine morning? (apart from thoughtful :)

LOL. I'm good. I got in at 10, so getting better, didn't get anything written last night but thought about it some and watched die hard :) And you?

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Avoiding tidying my room and packing.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Is that avoiding both, or just tidying? :)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

both.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

LOL. Of course. Sorry, but I just had to check. *hugs*

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

*snuggles*

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

*huggles*

Careful, dear. We're in public, remember :)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

*giggles*

*moves six inches away*

yes sweetie.

[edith-the-hutt.livejournal.com]

....and now I want to join the Spanish Inquisition.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I wasn't expecting that. Seriously.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Well there's a vacancy there, unless Ratzinger filled it as soon as he left...

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

The problem of Pascal's Wager is it doesn't consider which god to believe in. In the context of Pascal himself there wasn't really a question, it was either the Roman Catholic god or nothing. However, in a broader scope one could conjecture all sorts of jealous gods who'd prefer you to not to worship rather than worship another god.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes. Or rather (1) if there's uncountably many possible gods, the "positive probability" thing is clearly wrong but (2) even if not, it's still wrong, but a lot harder to see, because given two possibilities, humans tend to assume they're about 80/20 or 50/50.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Christian God is the ultimate in Jealous Gods.

Top of the list of things to do/not do. Not Adultery or murder. Nope, it's that one shouldn't worship anything but Him.

Makes sense from this side of the fence though...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

That was uncountably many possible gods, as in, ones that don't exist. Whether or not this one does :)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

The reason it works for all possible Gods is that if the God is worth anything they'll say "all good things are done as if for me."

Basically, if the spirit resides in an individual, they'll show it and go to heaven.

Or something like that ;)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Well, this is what I assume. I live my life the best way I can, and if God is, well, *God*, he'll understand, and if he isn't then I shouldn't be obeying him anyway.

But it's not pascal's wager, that would have us betting against the existance of foul gods... :)

[(Anonymous)]

I think it is Paschal's Wager, somehow.

It's very Wesleyan, anyway.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

It may be in the original, I meant that whenever anyone's told me about it they've never said anything sensible/optimistic like that.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

The point being you can't 'earn' your way to heaven, you can merely live out the grace and mercy that resides within you.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

twas I, that was.

firefox crashed.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I assumed so :)

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

whichwhat?

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

That it was you.

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

:)

[mair_in_grenderich]

whoa. the comment box looks different. scary. *discovers openID*

er, anyway. I was going to say. That things like this remind me of the little guy in "no highway". Where they say "do you really believe the world's going to end in 1990?", and he says "that's not scientific. it's just the only theory we have right now that predicts the future, so we have to base our lives on it until a better one comes along." or something like that, I probably have it wrong.

anyway, what's the evidence that god exists? experiments by trusted sources?
what's the evidence that he doesn't? mostly along the lines "if he existed, X wouldn't happen, but X does happen".
so one of the things about experimenting by the scientific method is that it should be repeatable. can I do this experiment myself? can I sit in my room and say "god, come talk to me", and have him do so? bible says you should be able to...

hrm. I don't feel like I'm making much sense. and commenting here feels like I'm interrupting a conversation :-)

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

whoa. the comment box looks different. scary. *discovers openID*

Reasonably good idea though.

"that's not scientific. it's just the only theory we have right now that predicts the future, so we have to base our lives on it until a better one comes along." or something like that, I probably have it wrong.

Yeah, except that is science, isn't it?

can I sit in my room and say "god, come talk to me", and have him do so? bible says you should be able to...

OK, I am getting a bit lost by here. It seems obvious to me he doesn't. But it seems obvious to some people that he does.

commenting here feels like I'm interrupting a conversation :-)

LOL. Flurble, meet Angel. Angel, meet Flurble, who I know from, umm, poohsoc? And aj? :)

[mair_in_grenderich]

yeah. yeah. he's advocating being scientific, rather than saying he actually believes in it from his heart.


hello Angel *waves*

*waves back*

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

hello flurble!

My experience is that we expect God to do exactly what we tell Him to, when if He is a God worth worshipping then He won't by definition, because He should be bigger than that.

But He always turns up when I ask Him to. For me, God is as real as cartesiandaemon. Quite possibly more real, as I have far more experiences of God than the daemon...

And no,you're not interrupting. I just talk too much.

Re: *waves back*

[mair_in_grenderich]

yeah, yeah. but suppose I (or jack) has never met him. do we assume that he's real because *you* say so?

At least, I was thinking, something like, Pascal's wager is about people who want a scientific reason to believe in god, even though they've never seen him. And I was thinking, ok, if you haven't met him, scientifically speaking, can you/should you believe in him. And that dude in no highway says, unless there's a better theory.

So, what's the evidence? People like you, coincidences occuring as a result of prayer, *waves hands*, that kind of thing.
What's the anti-evidence? *moof*
[ seems to me that there are various forms of this, most of which make some kind of assumption about the character of god, which is not necessary for belief in one. correct me?]

So, then, I was figuring, can we trust the evidence? What's the probability that you're deluded/hallucinating/imagining things/etc?
The usual test of a scientific experiment is, can we repeat it?

And that's sort of where I got to. Is the experience of meeting god a repeatable experiment, and if not how can I confirm this evidence supplied by a source I consider unreliable?

I should point out that this isn't entirely my view. I'm only wandering into trains of thought. on the other hand I've never really questioned god's existence mostly because of the certainty of those around me, so I guess it is sort of my view.

I still don't know if I made any sense, and this post is rapidly disappearing into past history :)

Re: *waves back*

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

*nods*

makes sense.

I have a friend whom yrieithydd thinks is imaginary - 4 times we're supposed to have met up with Charlie but it just aint happened. I know Charlie exists (she's a priest in Brighton), but yrieithydd is incredibly sceptical now.

The anti-assumptions of God all assume a certain characteristics of God. To say there is no God first requires some sort of assumption of what God is and then to deny that assumption. For me "God is, all else follows." That includes "God is not" because you can't have "God is not" without "God is".

To say there is a God requires no assumptions whatsoever about His characteristics. That blank slate mentality helps me enormously

Making yourself believe something...

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

I think there's a matter of a certain amount of open-ness and flexibility - I can see where the doctrine of predestination comes into its own, because some people just don't seem predisposed to it at all.

I can't make myself believe foo but I can let myself be open to the possibility and thus let myself be convinced. The problem with this is of course where one thought one had the answer, and then finds everything one thought one knew questioned.

Charles/Camilla/Diana is a classic example of this. Charles thought he couldn't marry Camilla, so tried to make the best possible shot of it with Diana, convincing himself in some way he was in love with Diana. After all, the odds against it (Camilla&Charles) happening were mammoth.

One of the things about 'repentance' is that we have to respect the reasons that we made the decisions that we did.

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Yes, both can happen. If friend A says friend B should believe foo then he should listen because A may be right (though reserve judgement until e's actually thought about it) -- that's being open. If B feels he should believe foo he can go through the motions so much he starts *to* -- that's brainwashing yourself. The trick is to know the difference.

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

the point is that there is brainwashing and the steady and slow shifting of belief.

I may want to believe something, but find that the truth is more painful but more compelling. And the truth will always out...

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

Like, I might want to love Diana but slowly realise I don't? Or try to deny God but slowly realise I can't?

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

yes, basically.

CS Lewis had the latter experience (read Surprised by Joy - he talks about being the most miserable convert in Christendom as he walks home from Trinity one evening)

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

And yet, I seem to feel the reverse; I'm certainly drawn to the idea of God[1], and at times would have liked to have leaped, but I've never had any experience of him and am convinced he isn't there, so it would be a self-destructive plunge.

Maybe this is getting too personal.

[1] Eg. like putting religious characters in fiction.

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Your Atheism makes sense of you, in the same way my Methodism makes sense of me, and his Anglicanism makes sense of D. The only other plausible way I could see you would be Roman Catholicism.

Possibly. I don't know. At some point you may become uncomfortable in your Atheism such that you have to look at something else, but that's certainly not now.

I remember someone's prayer. "I don't love you, God. I don't want to love you, God. But I want to want to love you." And sometimes it's that level of honesty that's required, to say 'I'm not there yet, but by grace I could be'.

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

ROFL. I love the icon! :)

The only other plausible way I could see you would be Roman Catholicism.

Can I ask why?

I remember someone's prayer. "I don't love you, God. I don't want to love you, God. But I want to want to love you." And sometimes it's that level of honesty that's required, to say 'I'm not there yet, but by grace I could be'.

*Shiver* I know what you mean.

One thing that affected me most powerfully was the bit in Last Battle when Aslan couldn't persuade the dwarves he was there. At the time I was too young to have been exposed to much other than my parents' belief[1], but I felt really sorry for everyone. Later, I got the metaphor, and worried that the dwarves were me, and resolved to be open. But, conversely, if person A is religion X maybe *they're* just as blind and I can see -- who would know?

[1] School was CoE and mum and dad did a decent job of explaining how some people seemed to believe different things to other people, but I basically didn't notice back then.

Re: Making yourself believe something...

[angelofthenorth.livejournal.com]

ROFL. I love the icon! :)
I'm rather fond of this one as well. slytherincess made the wibblypig for me.

Can I ask why?

You can ask but I don't know if I can answer. It's to do with certainty and tradition, mostly.

*Shiver* I know what you mean.

One thing that affected me most powerfully was the bit in Last Battle when Aslan couldn't persuade the dwarves he was there. At the time I was too young to have been exposed to much other than my parents' belief, but I felt really sorry for everyone. Later, I got the metaphor, and worried that the dwarves were me, and resolved to be open. But, conversely, if person A is religion X maybe *they're* just as blind and I can see -- who would know?

I would say you were Emeth - that if it came to the crunch, you would see things for what they were. Anyone can be a dwarf, or even the talking animals that perished/lost the ability to talk. Aslan lets them live in NewNarnia, but they don't get it so they don't get the whole thing. (It's in CSL's book The Great Divorce).

I'm always afraid of losing my clearsight - I know that I can be incredibly stupid about somethings, because I don't let myself see something. I can often see into people - in the bible it's called "discernment of spirits" - it's not wholly reliable, and it's not there all the time, just when I really need it.