Pascal's Wager (Again?)

[Pygoscelis]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but in another thread somebody asked about Pascal's Wager and its flaws (as I see it).

Blaise Pascal was a mathematician living a few centuries ago and apparently he was really motivated to believe in a higher power but was having some trouble doing so. So he invented a "wager" that he thought made sense. It doesn't.

I'll paraphrase his famous wager and then give four flaws in it as they pop into my mind. There are more than these four.

Pascal's Wager:

1. Either God exists or God does not exist.

2. If God exists and you worship him, you go to Heaven.

3. If God exists and you fail to worhip him. you go to Hell.

4. If God does not exist, you lose nothing by worshiping him and gain nothing for not worshiping him.

Flaw Number One: False Dichotomy

The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

Many religious texts, including the bible, have themes of God forbidding the worship of false Gods/Idols, an themes of punishing those who do so. If you picked the wrong God, it is plausible that you will be punished MORE than somebody who picked no God.

Flaw Number Two: Directing Belief

The wager assumes that one can flick belief in God off and on like a light switch.

But belief doesn't work like that. Many atheists I know have tried to believe, earnestly. They come from religious families and felt comfortable with their belief in God and the relationship they perceived that they had with Christ before they lost it. But then logic and reason just got in the way and thy slipped away from the clutches of religious dogma.

And to the outsider, such as myself, who never believed, belief in God is alien. I may as well try to believe in Santa. No matter how hard I may try, it just won't work.

Belief is not as easy to direct as Pascal's Wager suggests.

Flaw Number Three: Believing for the Wrong Reasons

If your belief in God is based only on something as shallow as reward/punishment and not on true belief, love of the Lord, all that warm happy stuff, all that righteous stuff religious folks go on about (I'm an atheist so I don't pretend to understand it), isn't something wrong with this picture?

Flaw Number Four: You Do So Lose By Believing!

If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing and following his directives, so Pascal claims. This is just not so.

Religion is a system of rules and not all of them are beneficial absent the existence of the deity. Sure, it tells you to have some morals which you'd have anyway, but also adds oddities and seemingly arbitrary constraints on your behaviour. It also causes you to waste time on prayer (it is a waste if their turns out to be no God) which could be spent more productively.

The multitde of negatives religious belief brings with it could fill a large book, an its not one I'm looking to write here, as I'm sure it would offend many here (and its not the topic of this thread). My point here is that it is not so clear as Pascal believes it to be that you "lose nothing by believing if there is no God".

 

[Trumble]

The traditional version of "one", which was raised at the time, was not non-Christian theists and perceptions of God, but non Catholic Christian ones, Pascal being a devout Catholic and his critics being Christians of one sort or another. The same argument applies as in the broader context, of course.

Four is incorrect. Pascal never claimed you 'lose nothing', in that case there would be no 'wager'. The argument is that by believing you stand to lose the least if you are wrong; he acknowledged that if you were wrong you would 'lose' in much the way you describe. The point is that if you 'chose' to disbelieve and were wrong you would lose a lot more.

Pascal's wager is rarely taken seriously as an argument for 'believing' any more, but is still used in philosophical argument to cover other situations where the same objections don't arise.

Basically the choices are;

1. Believe and are right, BIG gain, no loss.

2. Believe and are wrong, no gain, small loss

3. Disbelieve and are right, small gain, no loss.

4. Disbelieve and are wrong, no gain, BIG loss.

His point was that, given those, it was smarter to believe. Both 'one' and 'two' are killer objections, although 'one' can be escaped by claiming belief in one version of God (be it Jewish, muslim, Catholic, Protestant, whatever) is good enough... not a claim Pascal made.

 

[Malaikah]

The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

Many religious texts, including the bible, have themes of God forbidding the worship of false Gods/Idols, an themes of punishing those who do so. If you picked the wrong God, it is plausible that you will be punished MORE than somebody who picked no God.

Why? Are you telling me you didn't know that Muslim also believe that worshipping a God other than the real God is a one way ticket to hell?:?

If you are referring to:

3. If God exists and you fail to worhip him. you go to Hell.

Then by worshipping a different God you are still not worshipping God Himself. And if a person doesn't believe in God at all, he is still worshipping something whether he likes it or not, which would usually be his desires.

The only thing missing in this 'wager' is that he didn't mention that even if you worship God alone without an partners, you might still have to do some time in hell depending on your sin level.

 

[Trumble]

Why? Are you telling me you didn't know that Muslim also believe that worshipping a God other than the real God is a one way ticket to hell?:?

No, he is perfectly well aware of that, that's the whole point.

Pascal was assuming that there was only one choice to be made, between believing in (his own Catholic version of) God or not believing in God. The counter-argument is that it isn't that simple, you could believe in and choose between the Catholic God, Protestant God, Jewish God, muslim God or whatever, but only one of those could be 'right'.

 

[Malaikah]

Oh okay. But that isn't so much a flaw as it is an oversimplification, is it?

 

[lolwatever]

^^ umm where did he bring in the idea of a christian or a non christian god?

he simply said (according to pygo's first post)

1. Either God exists or God does not exist.

which is not a false dichotomy

----

as for the other 3 points, my concern is that they're far too "undefined"... like suppose God says 'worship me this way' and then the person decides to worship his own way out of arrogance, does that mean he'll be rewarded for that?

but if you take them into islam's context for example... then yes i do agree with points 2 and 3.

As for 4, that sort of worship is not accepted (in Islam) because you don't really believe in god... you're just doing things out of doubt..

 

[Trumble]

Oh okay. But that isn't so much a flaw as it is an oversimplification, is it?

No, it's a major flaw in the argument, which has that oversimplification as an implied premise.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but in another thread somebody asked about Pascal's Wager and its flaws (as I see it).

hi, thanks for your insightfull post. It showt that you indeed try to think these things trough which is a good sign. Allow me to answer the points you raise from an Islamic pov to the best of my knowledge.

Flaw Number One: False Dichotomy
The first flaw in this logic should be blatantly obvious to Muslims here, and other non-christian theists. Pascal was talking about the Christian God. He didn't seem to realize his false dichotomy. There could be a God and he could be one of the hundreds that you have not chosen to worship.

n Islam every deed is judged by it's intention. If a person worships a false God out of ignorance with good intentions that's a whole different thing from a person who has good knowledge of Islam but yet converts to Christianity because he "likes" it more. In the Qur'an it says: "If you desire a religion other then Islam it will not be permitted". That is an interesting difference between other religions who simply claim that if you have another belief you're already sinning.

Flaw Number Two: Directing Belief
The wager assumes that one can flick belief in God off and on like a light switch.
But belief doesn't work like that. Many atheists I know have tried to believe, earnestly. They come from religious families and felt comfortable with their belief in God and the relationship they perceived that they had with Christ before they lost it. But then logic and reason just got in the way and thy slipped away from the clutches of religious dogma.
And to the outsider, such as myself, who never believed, belief in God is alien. I may as well try to believe in Santa. No matter how hard I may try, it just won't work. Belief is not as easy to direct as Pascal's Wager suggests.

I understand what you mean, you can't force a belief on oneself if there are pertinent questions standing in the way. And if one would try either way for opportunistic reasons then the faith would be insincere and perhaps not accepted. Seems like a dilemma. And as a former atheist, I know exactly where you're coming from. However, now I no longer believe that fully. I've come to believe that to some extend this is not a matter of "mental capabilities" but more like a matter of willingness. From the moment I started to be "willing" to believe I found the answers to my pertinent questions who kept me from believing rather quickly. Of course that's just me, I'm willing to accept there are some people out there who genuinely want to believe but whom's minds are just inhibited by questions they can not answer. But what do these people do with such questions? Do they try to look for an answer or do they just accept the question is un-answerable and allow it to inhibit their mind?

Flaw Number Three: Believing for the Wrong Reasons
If your belief in God is based only on something as shallow as reward/punishment and not on true belief, love of the Lord, all that warm happy stuff, all that righteous stuff religious folks go on about (I'm an atheist so I don't pretend to understand it), isn't something wrong with this picture?

As mentioned in the previous alinea's, each action is judged by it's intentions. Also interesting is that according to Islam, believing or disbelieving gives no guarantee. We will be judged on our actions. In a way people who commit severe sin but do believe and have knowledge are worse then people who commit those same sins out of ignorance.

Flaw Number Four: You Do So Lose By Believing!
If there is no God, you lose nothing by believing and following his directives, so Pascal claims. This is just not so. Religion is a system of rules and not all of them are beneficial absent the existence of the deity. Sure, it tells you to have some morals which you'd have anyway, but also adds oddities and seemingly arbitrary constraints on your behaviour. It also causes you to waste time on prayer (it is a waste if their turns out to be no God) which could be spent more productively.

It is true that "nothing" was a bit exaggerated. However the loss is relatively small and neglectable compared to the loss in the other situation: eternal torture and pain. Next to that I would like to argue that the loss is not obsolete. Take the example you give; it is true if there would be no God (astagfirAllah) then prayer would be unanswered and loose it's direct purpose. However that doesn't make it useless. I'm sure many psychologist will tell you that praying will have a curing and relaxing effect on the psyche of an individual and bring the person in peace. Praying five times a day also gives a person stability and regularity. Of course these "advantages" are small compared to the intended goal of prayer, but still makes them usefull. And I sincerely believe this line of reasoning could be used for any given rule set by Islam. The main purpose of following a rule is always worship trough obedience which in itself is considered useful, but for all of these rules there are always practical benefits to that make life easier. There have been treads here before with challenges to bring a rule that has no practical benefits, and so far none have been brought to my attention. But of course I would encourage you to try and find one either way

The multitde of negatives religious belief brings with it could fill a large book, an its not one I'm looking to write here, as I'm sure it would offend many here (and its not the topic of this thread). My point here is that it is not so clear as Pascal believes it to be that you "lose nothing by believing if there is no God".

To even make that previous challenge a bit more exciting. Not only do I believe that each rule has a practical benefit next to it's spiritual benefit. I also believe those practical benefits exceed any negative effects that could come from that same rule.

 

[wilberhum]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

 

[- Qatada -]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.



Regards.

 

[wilberhum]

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.

Regards.

Not illegan and good are not the same. :rant:
So you are off to a bad start.
And god desides! You bet he does, but I don't think he droppes in every now and then to give us clues. :thumbs_do
I think it is all a matter of our own intent.

 

[Trumble]

But who decides whats right? For instance prostitution isn't illegal in some countries whereas it is in another. Same can be said about drugs etc. The cultures differ, so each culture has its own 'wrongs' and 'rights'.

This is why we believe that God decides what's wrong and right, not humans as we're prone to error.

Prostitution and drugs are rather loaded examples (and both, particularly drugs, are considered as 'wrong' in most places), but what exactly is the problem with such variation? As you say, cultures vary. Why does there have to be an absolute 'wrong' or 'right', or an 'error' on somebody's part, in matters where it is less obvious?

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with a little 'error', either. It's how people learn.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I am likely the only one on this board who advocates in favour of the legalization of both prostitution and marijuana. Both do little harm and greater harm comes from attaching them to the criminal element than not. But thats another thread entirely.

 

[wilberhum]

I am likely the only one on this board who advocates in favour of the legalization of both prostitution and marijuana. Both do little harm and greater harm comes from attaching them to the criminal element than not. But thats another thread entirely.

Hate to burst your bubble. I agree with you.
I don't think marijuana is any worse than beer. :thumbs_do
As for prostitution, most in the trade are victoms of serious abuse and have ended up in a situation where they see no way out. Mostly they are people who are in a desperate situation and need help. Making them criminales is not help. That just further victomises them.

 

[- Qatada -]

There's the contradiction, if we were to prefer the law of the ruler [while people have different opinions in regard to what they think is wrong/right] - then we're worshipping or giving our obedience to someone other than God, which may be a form of worship if it contradicts what God has sent to His Messengers.

 

[wilberhum]

There's the contradiction, if we were to prefer the law of the ruler [while people have different opinions in regard to what they think is wrong/right] - then we're worshipping or giving our obedience to someone other than God, which may be a form of worship if it contradicts what God has sent to His Messengers.

You still run the posibility that your god is a false god and there are no messengers or your messengers really wern't.
It is all a matter of belief.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Well then there is me being me.
I think god would not send a atheist to hell. I think god will judge us on the quality of our person. So I think an atheist who is a good person who does good things will go to heaven.

:salamext:

just out of curiosity do you think that the concept of hell was created by human imagination? The three major religions of this world are following what the mind created... a strange thought.

Also you seem to think that only the people who are bad on earth go to hell, so you dont consider it evil to reject the one who gives you absolutely everything from your wealth/health to your beloved children?

 

[wilberhum]

:salamext:

just out of curiosity do you think that the concept of hell was created by human imagination? The three major religions of this world are following what the mind created... a strange thought.

Also you seem to think that only the people who are bad on earth go to hell, so you dont consider it evil to reject the one who gives you absolutely everything from your wealth/health to your beloved children?

I suspect that all religious concepts were created by humans.
If there is a hell and god is good and just, only bad people would go there.
I find no evil in someone who does not beleive in the existance of god. I think calling non-belief, rejection, is inaccurate.

 

[- Qatada -]

I suspect that all religious concepts were created by humans.
If there is a hell and god is good and just, only bad people would go there.
I find no evil in someone who does not beleive in the existance of god. I think calling non-belief, rejection, is inaccurate.

Those who don't do good to please God, and those who reject God's reward in the hereafter - why should they be rewarded by Him?

Anyway at the time of the Messenger's of Allaah - the people never rejected God - they actually believed in a Higher Being who created everything, but associated others in worship with Him, these other objects are desires, philosophies, man-made laws etc.



Regards.

 

[wilberhum]

Those who don't do good to please God, and those who reject God's reward in the hereafter - why should they be rewarded by Him?

Anyway at the time of the Messenger's of Allaah - the people never rejected God - they actually believed in a Higher Being who created everything, but associated others in worship with Him, these other objects are desires, philosophies, man-made laws etc.



Regards.

There you go again, non-belief = rejection.
Why would god not reward a good person? :thumbs_do
The people never rejected god? Which people? Which god?