Pascal's wager
Jun. 28th, 2005 11:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackPascal'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.
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.
Re: *waves back*
Date: 2005-06-30 01:21 am (UTC)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*
Date: 2005-06-30 07:34 am (UTC)makes sense.
I have a friend whom
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