Improved Pascal's wagers

[enki23]

Here's mine

Pascal's simplified multivariate wager v1.01
1. God 1 punishes your unbelief with eternal torment in hell.
2. God 2 punishes your unbelief by punishing you, your parents, your children, and your pets with eternal torment in hell.
3. Both gods reward belief with eternal pleasure in heaven.
4. Neither god will reward belief unless it is exclusive
5. Reason and evidence are insufficient to establish the existence or nonexistence either of these gods.

As ole' Blaise indicated, this has the form of a wager on one (and only one) of the two gods, or on neither.

Possible wagers
A. If you bet on both, or on neither, you have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. For all possible states of reality, under these premises, this choice can at best be a push.
B. If you bet on God 2, you have everything to gain, and eternal torment in hell, under God 1, if you lose.
C. If you bet on God 1, you have everything to gain, and eternal torment for yourself and much of your family under God 2 if you lose.

Analysis in the absence of sufficient evidence, a truly rational person would seek to believe in the god with the greatest reward-punishment spread. Since believers are fond of saying the reward and punishment are both infinite, but in opposite directions, then we can still find creative ways to increase them qualitatively. Probably by involving more souls, etc. For instance, magine a god who creates a billion souls to eternally torment every time you masturbate. Further, if you are risk averse (and, when it comes to eternal torment, who isn't?), any decision will dominated by avoidance of the nastiest punishment.

Conclusion If you're risk averse, the rational response under these premises, for any n possible gods (for any integer n > 1) is to come up with the nastiest god you can imagine and worship it. If you aren't completely risk averse, you can imagine the same god being really nice to his believers to further crank up the spread. If the fact that you're making these gods up yourself gives you pause, you can console yourself with the knowledge that any of this can easily be shoehorned into an ontological argument. In fact, you'd be remiss not to, especially since a "perfection" is generally understood by everyone involved to mean "properties I think my god has."

[provis99]

1. let me guess.

You just finished an undergraduate course in game theory...

[enki23]

31. no. though i had a grad level decision theory class a long while back

It ended up being more Bayesian stats evangelism than anything else, though. I'm assuming the "undergraduate" bit was supposed to be a pseudo-subtle dig. But sadly, no. I'm not a mathematician, undergraduate or otherwise. Toxicology is my gig. I'm interested in religion in the same way, and for the same reasons I'm interested in my regular field.

[trotsky]

2. Here's a sledgehammer that demolishes not just Pascal's original wager but yours as well.

If the gods involved are too stupid to see that you're believing for selfish and wrong reasons, then they probably aren't gods to begin with.

[AlecBGreen]

3. hehehe

:thumbsup:

and no, I dont have anything substantive to add to the conversation. :)

[Deep13]

4. Best I can do is pretend to believe.

Choosing to believe is another way of saying that I am lying to myself.

[struggle4progress]

5. The so-called "Pascal's wager" completely misses any interesting or important theological issue,

and I've never encountered it any theological discussion that I thought had any merit

[darkstar3]

7. Which is funny, when you consider its pervasiveness in apologetics.

[struggle4progress]

8. I suppose it depends on what you read. My early intellectual development on such

questions was shaped by reading Russell's Why I am not a Christian, Paine's Age of Reason, and Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone

The liberation theologians later brought me back to Christianity; but, of course, their perspective has very little to do with abstract philosophical considerations -- their concern is theology as a discussion of our responsibilities in particular concrete situations

I suppose that Pascal's wager, and similar arguments, might be of interest if one considers the question Should we intellectually assent to the existence &c&c -- but even if I were interested in such questions, I should regard Pascal's wager as a poor argument. But on my view, the real problem is not the poor quality of the argument: the problem is that it attacks a question that is neither important nor interesting; the theologians, that I read, have no interest in such questions

[darkstar3]

9. That's because the theologians have already accepted the premise of God.

Those outside the circle still wonder "Why should I believe in God?" Pascal's wager, however poorly, attempts to answer that question. I'm surprised you are uninterested in the question yourself, seeing as how anyone you meet IRL might ask it of you at any time.

What would you say if someone asked you "Why do you believe in God?" or "Why should I believe in God?"

[struggle4progress]

10. But I just told you a moment ago that I do not consider that to be a meaningful question:

as an abstract matter, it does not interest me at all. Yet you ask me again, as if I had not just said what I just said

If someone asks me such a question, I ought to be interested in who asks and why the person asks and what that person's actual situation is: there is little point to abstract intellectual blather there

[darkstar3]

11. How convenient for you.

You accept the premise of God. I do not. And thanks to your consideration of this question as meaningless, here ends our conversation.

All theological debate stems from this one issue. If you accept the premise of God, then you have a myriad of questions to ask regarding the nature of said God, and a theology can emerge. If you do not, then those questions are moot.

Irony of ironies: You, and your favorite theologians, consider the question of whether or not there is a God to be meaningless. I, having not accepted the premise of God, consider theological questions regarding the nature of God and our relationship with him to be meaningless. How are we to communicate? How are we to have a debate? The simple answer is that we cannot. Your stance of supposed theological superiority shuts down the debate.

Hmm...eliminating or ignoring tough questions that have been asked for centuries in an attempt to exempt your point of view or shut down the debate...I think there's a name for this: Special pleading.

[struggle4progress]

14. I suspect the real foundational difference, between your standpoint and mine, is that

you think the fundamental religious questions are to be resolved by abstract intellectual constructs, while I regard such constructs as irrelevant to fundamental religious questions

[darkstar3]

15. How very circumloquacious.

To clarify: You believe that the question of God's existence has no bearing on religion?

[struggle4progress]

16. I regard the question as an unproductive distraction, on which we could waste vast expanses

of time in pointless jabber, without obtaining any satisfactory insights or any useful results

[darkstar3]

17. So since you can't provide, or find, an answer for the question,

you wish to ignore it. I still think that's just special pleading.

Do tell me, though, when you finally figure out how many angels can dance on a pinhead. ;)

[struggle4progress]

19. I suppose if I am curious about angels, I should follow the advice of Hebrews 13:

And do not neglect hospitality, for in this manner some have harbored angels unknowingly

[Silent3]

12. When you dismiss the question of the existence of deities...

...as uninteresting and/or irrelevant, what's left of religion apart from superstitious window dressing, or adult play-acting for those who may like the rituals and trappings, on top of what may or may not be a good system for promoting personal contentment or good social behavior?

[struggle4progress]

18. Superstition does not much interest me, nor ritual (except possibly as a way of encouraging

a certain habit of reflective meditation); and I'm somewhat ambivalent about "personal contentment" or "good social behavior" as fundamental goals in life

In practice, we humans all make certain existential choices about our foundational stances, and (as far as I can tell) it is common for us all to be somewhat less than honest with ourselves and with others about what our real choices are: we can cower in the garden, trying to hide ourselves, but there is nevertheless a Voice calling Adam, where are you?. There are deep personal and interpersonal issues about who we tell ourselves we are, and who we tell others we are, and whether we are authentic in making such claims; these issues transcend traditional morality, or ordinary considerations about community standards, or normal prudence and common sense

[Silent3]

24. What kind of "authenticity" comes with so little regard for facts and evidence?

I guess whatever it is, it's always at least one step deeper than any question anyone could ever ask you about it if they were looking for a silly thing like clarity.

[humblebum]

20. "theologians have already accepted the premise of God." Well?

I imagine if they hadn't already have accepted the "premise of God", they couldn't be called theologians, could they?

[darkstar3]

21. A funny statement when you consider that there are theologians who are also atheists.

Study of faith does not require faith.

[humblebum]

22. Then in that case they would be Atheologians since they

don't begin with the premise that there is a god.

[darkstar3]

23. Wrong, as usual.

They are atheists who study religious belief, or theology, from an exterior POV. They don't study a made up thing called "atheology".

The study of theology does not require belief in that theology. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[humblebum]

26. Um? "Theology vs. Atheology: Systematic Engagement with Religion & Theism"

http://atheism.about.com/od/liberationatheology/a/Liberation.htm

http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/09/18/atheology-atheist...


I think it's them there militant atheologists that study atheology. SARCASM

[darkstar3]

27. An interesting, if poorly written, article using a made up term with

no set definition as its focal point. Search Google for the term "atheology" and you'll find everything from a manifesto on atheist thought titled with the word to simple and contradictory statements of supposed definition.

Of course, when I say that there are atheist theologians, I was thinking more along the lines of people like Robert M. Price.

[humblebum]

28. My point is that your criteria for defining a theologian is wrong and

does not fit the description of Robert Price, e.g. "the theologians have already accepted the premise of God." He certainly does not. Regardless, he doesn't really fit the definition of atheologist either. http://atheology.com/

[darkstar3]

29. Whoever said that was my criteria for defining a theologian?

Struggle4progress was talking about theologians that he respects, and those specific theologians don't consider the question of whether or not God exists to be in any way important. Just like s4p, THOSE theologians have accepted the premise of God. It was YOU who suggested that such acceptance was required of theologians, which is specious. Robert M. Price serves as a counterexample to your strange claim, as he is a theologian, a biblical scholar and critic, and an atheist.

Considering that you are now accusing me of making your own claim, I think you're just looking for a way to be contrary. Have fun with that.

[humblebum]

30. Those were your words, and yes 'atheology' is a valid term. nt

[enki23]

32. Actually, no. It doesn't at all. It's central to mainstream Christian theology.

Sure, the wager itself is stupid. Though try telling that to all the freaking apologists out there who try to drag it out every damned chance they get anyway. The question, however, of just what it means to "choose" to believe something is completely wrapped up in it. If I'm capable of choosing, then the wager (other than all the other stupid shit in it) makes complete sense. If i can't choose to believe, then Christian dogma makes no fucking sense at all. Obviously, I'll throw in with the latter option, but anyone even vaguely approaching standard (non-Calvinist standard, anyway) Christian dogma has to contend with that idea. If I can choose to believe, and if there is reason to think that one particular god is sufficiently more probable than all others combined, then the wager works just fine. Implicitly, that includes virtually *all* Christian apologists. Even the ones who pretend they don't like Pascal's wager.

Every time some Christian apologist thinks they have made a real agrument for their god by nattering on about some vague first cause bullshit, they are implicitly meeting all the requirements for Pascal's wager. If they think they can jump all the way up to the Christian god even from a (and no, I won't grant this) "successful" first cause argument, they are making all the same assumptions necessary for Pascal's wager to apply. 1) My god, or no god. 2) You can choose whether or not to believe in that god. and, given that they are christian, nearly always they believe 3) God decides your ultimate reward/punishment based on your decision.

[struggle4progress]

33. It's difficult to imagine how "Pascal's wager" could be "central to mainstream Christian theology"

since Pascal lived more than a millennium and a half after the beginnings of Christianity

Now, in fact, the Pensées 233, in which the "wager" was laid out, also refers to an entirely different point of view: ... Christians ... profess a religion for which they ... declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness ...

That point of view does belong to ancient Christian tradition

[enki23]

34. not much for reading comprehension, eh?

.

[laconicsax]

6. There's a problem with your conclusion.

Namely, that there are an infinite number of possible gods nastier than you can imagine. Also, what if the nastiest god you can imagine punishes believers and unbelievers alike?

The truly rational response is to reason that while the infinite number of possible gods can't all exist, they can all not exist, and not waste your time believing in a god the has an infinitesimally small chance of being the "right one."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5O2E-Vn8aw

[Silent3]

13. Why not a God who values skepticism?

There's nothing to rule that possibility out, and if that variety of deity exists, disbelief might ensure the better afterlife.

Further, suppose their are multiple deities, and rivalries among them. A non-believer might stay clear of trouble caused by jealous gods.

There are no automatic safe bets.

[struggle4progress]

25. ... R. Eliezer made every possible argument, but they did not accept them. He said: 'This carob-tree

will prove it!' Then the carob-tree flew out by its roots. 'A carob-tree doesn't prove anything,' they replied. So he said: 'This river will prove it!' Then the river began running backwards. 'A river doesn't prove anything,' they replied. So he said: 'Look at the schoolhouse walls!' The walls started to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked the walls: 'Don't interfere in scholars' debates!' So the walls still lean: they stopped falling to respect R. Joshua; but respecting R. Eliezer, they did not become upright again. Finally R. Eliezer said: 'Let Heaven prove it!' And a Voice cried out from Heaven: 'R. Eliezer is right!' R. Joshua spoke then, and R. Jeremiah explained what R. Joshua meant: 'Since the Torah was given so long ago at Mount Sinai, now we cannot listen to Heavenly Voices but must go along with the majority.'

When R. Nathan met Elijah, he asked: 'What did the Holy One do at that time?' And Elijah said — 'He laughed' ...

Baba Mezi'a 59b