Pascal's Wager

[Rabi Mansur]

:sl:

The famous French Philosopher Blaise Pascal is noted for among other things what is termed Pascal's wager. It is basically as follows:

1."God is, or He is not"
2.A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3.According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4.You must wager. It is not optional.
5.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that god is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Basically what he is saying is that you can't prove that God exists. But wagering that God exists gives you an infinite to gain but really nothing to lose.

So my question is: If we wager that God does exist, does Islam offer benefits over other religions? To a person who is wagering that God exists, does Islam offer benefits and a way of life that exceeds those of other religions, or is someone accepting Pascal's wager no better off accepting Islam than Christianity or Judaism?

How would you respond to this question if asked by someone who had adopted no religion but wanted to believe in God?

I'm asking this because I have a coworker who is facing this dilemma, and I want to be able to give him a good Islamic perspective on this. He is considering studying with Jehovah's Witnesses, which I really cannot fathom. I told him to at least look at some of the Abrahamic religions first, especially Islam.

شكرا

[Lynx]

So my question is: If we wager that God does exist, does Islam offer benefits over other religions? To a person who is wagering that God exists, does Islam offer benefits and a way of life that exceeds those of other religions, or is someone accepting Pascal's wager no better off accepting Islam than Christianity or Judaism?

I think you've stumbled upon the fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager and why it's not taken too seriously anymore. Well, that's the second most fundamental flaw; the first fundamental flaw is that people can't choose their beliefs. A couple of years ago I would have said that you can eliminate every other religion besides Islam and Christianity since those are the only 2 religions with a concept of punishment for disbelievers. So that kind of at least eliminates a couple of other options if that helps.

[Woodrow]

I think you've stumbled upon the fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager and why it's not taken too seriously anymore. Well, that's the second most fundamental flaw; the first fundamental flaw is that people can't choose their beliefs. A couple of years ago I would have said that you can eliminate every other religion besides Islam and Christianity since those are the only 2 religions with a concept of punishment for disbelievers. So that kind of at least eliminates a couple of other options if that helps.

To carry that further we have to look at the friends interest in JWs. So the choice he actually is making is between JW and Islam. One major difference between JWs and Islam is JWs do not believe in the existence of hell. I think the OP should simply point out the logic of Islam at this time and rephrase Pascal's Wager to read:

1."Hell is, or Hell is not"
2.A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3.According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4.You must wager. It is not optional.
5.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that hell is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you will try to escape hell; if you lose, you risk nothing.
6.Wager, then, without hesitation that Hell is. (...) There is here a knowledge of eternal hell to escape, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Or a simple paraphrase: Better to seek avoidance of hell than to assume it does not exist. if you assume it exists and it turns out it does not, you lost nothing. If you assume it does not exist and it turns out it does you are in for a very hot eternity.

[Pygoscelis]

I think you've stumbled upon the fundamental flaw of Pascal's wager and why it's not taken too seriously anymore. Well, that's the second most fundamental flaw; the first fundamental flaw is that people can't choose their beliefs. A couple of years ago I would have said that you can eliminate every other religion besides Islam and Christianity since those are the only 2 religions with a concept of punishment for disbelievers. So that kind of at least eliminates a couple of other options if that helps.

What Lynx Said. Here's my issues with the Pascal's Wager argument:

1. This argument is based on a false dichotomy. It isn't "My God Exists and Wants X" vs "No God exists". There are any number of possible Gods. Many of those Gods may (and many we speak of seem to) hate the worship of other (false) gods more than the worship of no gods. The safest bet may very well be to worship no god.

2. This argument assumes you can choose your beliefs. If I offered you a million dollars to truly believe that you are a pink elephant, could you do it?

3. This argument reduces theism to nothing bu ta bet, a carnie game. This should be offensive to any religion.

4. This argument assumes that belief for the most selfish of reasons will put you in God's good books and get you into heaven. Perhaps God will reward the honest atheist instead of the selfish "beleiver" seeking to use God.

5. This argument states as a premise that you lose nothing if you believe but are wrong. This is debatable, especially given some of the stringent rituals and rules some religious followers put themselves under, some of which may be inconvenient and some of which may be dangerous.

6. This argument relies on a bit of belief already existing. If you do not believe in Hell, then you will not fear Hell any more than you would fear the mythical afterlives of the ancient greeks or aztecs etc. You would not give an argumetn such as this regarding those any serious attention. So why should anybody give this argument any serious attention, unless they already believe?

There are so many problems with Pascal's Wager that I am frankly amazed that a man as intelligent as Blaise Pascal would have put it forward. It speaks to the time and culture in which he lived, where nobody would openly question religion as we do today. My above points are not brilliant and I have no doubt they would have occurred to Pascal himself had he not been blinded by his faith.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[IAmZamzam]

Pascal's Wager is every bit as intellectually dishonest as people on the other side of the argument saying that they don't believe in religion because of how it "inhibits your freedom" or exists for some sort of purported purpose, etc.--and for the very same reason: the only consideration that should ever go into any decision whether or not to believe something is whether or not that something strikes you as true. Period. Truth trumps. (That's my motto, actually.)

[zoro]

Pascal's Wager is every bit as intellectually dishonest as people on the other side of the argument saying that they don't believe in religion because of how it "inhibits your freedom" or exists for some sort of purported purpose, etc.--and for the very same reason: the only consideration that should ever go into any decision whether or not to believe something is whether or not that something strikes you as true. Period. Truth trumps. (That's my motto, actually.)

Well, Yahya, I expect that most people maintain a similar motto, but for it to be valuable, an answer (or answers) are needed to the challenging question: How do you determine if some claimed "truth" is true? If you are interested in my (long) response to that challenging question, I've posted it (written as letters to my oldest grandchild) at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf .

[IAmZamzam]

Well, Yahya, I expect that most people maintain a similar motto, but for it to be valuable, an answer (or answers) are needed to the challenging question: How do you determine if some claimed "truth" is true?

As best you can as a fallible creature, using your rational (and maybe your intuitive) faculties to your utmost. Really, any way would be preferable to whether or not you think believing in something to be advantageous. That's just hideous.

[جوري]

at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf and at http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf .

back again promoting your 2 person cult? Please read FAQ!

all the best

[zoro]

As best you can as a fallible creature, using your rational (and maybe your intuitive) faculties to your utmost. Really, any way would be preferable to whether or not you think believing in something to be advantageous. That's just hideous.

Oh, I agree: the proof-by-pleasure logical fallacy can lead to hideous consequences. Yet, as I describe in detail in the references already given, it's profitable to examine details about how to "[use] your rational (and maybe your intuitive) faculties to your utmost." One finds, for example, that it's only in "closed systems" (such as games, mathematics, etc.) that "truth" can be determined; in "open systems", in contrast (e.g., in reality), the most that can be determined (using the scientific method and Bayes' theorem) is the probability that some claim is true.

[IAmZamzam]

What does any of it have to do with whether anything is an open or closed system??

[جوري]

Please if I may give you a brief introduction-- Zoro has in the past tried to indoctrinate folks here into his new cult appropriately entitled 'zen of Zero' and I think outside of himself and his oldest daughter that is exactly how many cult members he has.. It is a sort of poetic 'physics' and I use the term physics loosely. Once he starts indoctrinating err ''challenging'' you and per above with his religious pamphlet I believe he has already enclosed it for your perusal and you decide not to succumb to the powers of his miltonic mind he'll unleash a barrage of his followers on you, since his granddaughter isn't here, that will leave only his person-- of course for which he was banned before.. I understand that by now you'd want to offer me one of your famous chill pills but I think I owe it at least to the new comers to what lies ahead..

outside of that best of luck :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[IAmZamzam]

I haven't even read his pamphlet. That Venn diagram he presented at the beginning kind of turned me off to it.

[zoro]

What does any of it have to do with whether anything is an open or closed system??

It's an important distinction emphasized by Karl Popper.

For closed systems (such as all games), truth can be ascertained. For example, in the game of baseball, it's "true" that "three strikes and you're out" (according to the rules of the game). Similarly, in pure mathematics (according to the rules of the game), it's "true" that 1 + 1 = 2.

For open systems, however (e.g., the human body, legal systems, and all natural systems), we can never be certain that we possess "the truth"; at best, we can determine only the probability that some claim is true (or, similarly, false).

Einstein made the distinction referring to mathematics as follows:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Thus, for example, if 1 molecule (or mole) of carbon dioxide (CO2) reacts with 1 molecule (or mole) of water (H2O), the result is one molecule (or mole) of carbonic acid (H2CO3), i.e., 1 + 1 = 1. Similarly, if two pieces of putty or two black holes merge, then 1 + 1 = 1.

The philosophical consequences of such ideas to religion are significant: insofar as they are closed systems (defined by their scriptures), then religious "truths" can be ascertained, but insofar as they are open systems, at best only the probability of the truths of their claims can be determined. For example, if Christianity is treated as a closed system, then the "truth" that Jesus is the son of God can be determined from the New Testament. But in reality, the best that we can do is examine the evidence and, from the evidence, estimate the probability that such a claim is true.

Similarly for the "truth claims" of all religions - thus returning to my original question: How do you determine if some claimed "truth" is true?

[IAmZamzam]

I still don't see any point emerging here.

[zoro]

I still don't see any point emerging here.

Well, to see if the point will "emerge" and if you're interested, then how about providing an example of how you've ascertained that some claim is "true"? If you're not interested, fine.

[IAmZamzam]

I've already said how, and while it may have seemed glib there really isn't much else to say and certainly nothing that you don't already know.

[Woodrow]

I believe the topic has been covered the best it can be here.

:threadclo: