Home

The Great Big Arguments #6: Pascal's Wager

Tue, 2008-12-09 23:20 — SmartLX
Question:: 
If God exists and you live as if He does, your reward is infinite. If God does not exist and you live as if He does, you lose nothing. If God does not exist and you live as if He doesn't, you gain nothing. If God exists and you live as if He doesn't, your punishment is infinite. Therefore if there is the slightest chance that God exists, by any analysis of benefit it is better to live as if He does, in other words believe in and worship Him. The same argument is often expressed in shorter form: "What if you're wrong?"
Atheist Answer: 

This is an argument I've been answering constantly ever since I started here. No matter how many times it comes up, there are always those who think it's a brand new, ingenious zinger which will take us by surprise. I'll address it once more and then refer back to here in future.

There are four main issues with the Wager, any one of which would render it nonsensical or inadequate.

1. It presents a false dilemma: that either God exists or no god does.

There is an obvious third option, namely that any deity besides the expected god exists. If the real deity is Thor, for example, the punishment for Christians is infinite (possibly worse than for atheists, who at least do not worship a rival god).

Humans have imagined something like 20,000 different major deities or equivalents so far. Together with the countless ones we haven't thought of yet, there are an infinite number of possible gods. Without evidence for any particular god, all gods share equal probability of practically zero, and the probability of a particular god existing is infinitesimal compared to the probability of one or more rival gods, so worshipping any god is a hugely bad bet.

The response to this, I know, is to argue that there is evidence for your particular god and not for any of the others. That's a valid response, if true. However, if you have proof positive that your god is the one and only there's no need to mess around with probabilities, so you don't need to use Pascal's Wager in the first place. Just push your evidence instead.

2. If there are no gods, you don't lose nothing by living as if there is one. You lose plenty.

You spend hundreds or thousands of hours attending religious services. You give money to organisations whose primary purpose is not to help people but to convert them. You prevent yourself from doing some things you enjoy, not because they hurt anyone but because a book told you to. And so on.

3. Belief in gods is not a choice.

A person either believes there's a god or doesn't. This may change, but it's not a conscious decision by the person. Her or she has to be convinced, or else no longer convinced, one way or the other. The idea that it's beneficial to believe in a god does not support the idea that there is one. They're two independent issues.

4. Any decent god would spot a faker.

This is related to the third point. If an atheist were convinced that it's beneficial to believe in and worship God, he or she could certainly worship, but would still not believe. The worship would therefore be insincere on a fundamental level. It'd be a farce, maintained to give the appearance of belief. Would the Christian god, for example, accept this lip service?

It's said by some religious folks that if you pray with doubt, but pray with sincerity, belief will come. I don't doubt it; if you pray as if there's a god there for long enough, you may manage to forget that there isn't. If brainwashing yourself like this is the only way to believe, however, are you really doing the right thing?

In short, Pascal's Wager uses an incomplete and incorrect premise, and is useless to nonbelievers even if they agree with it. Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician to whom we are all indebted, but his apologetic really let him down. Let this one go, people.

- SmartLX

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 2008-12-13 12:02 — SLCThunk

#5

I would add this as well:

If God exists, we are not sure what he would punish/reward us for. Out of all the qualities humans can exhibit, or which we hold in high esteem, there are many that go contrary to faith in God (which the asker assumes is what God rewards us for)...for example, open-mindedness, rationality, plus a slew of others that could apply to religious or non-religious folks, like kindness, respect, generosity, etc.

Why should we assume that God rewards faith any more than he rewards these other qualities? In fact, if God is some sort of builder/scientist dude who constructed the universe, then learning and being open-minded would imply that we are learning about his creations, even if we don't have faith that they ARE his creations. Wouldn't God like that better than those who just give blind faith and never learn or explore anything beyond some sort of dogma? Also, if God exists, he gave us faith as well as rationality...but faith can be placed in any overarching power (parents, government, etc) as well as God, whereas rationality does not favor anything arbitrary -- it could only favor learning about Gods creations over those of our parents, kings, etc. So rationality is a more Godly value than faith. Therefore, God would be more inclined to reward rational people than faithful people.

Sat, 2008-12-13 18:09 — SmartLX

Thanks, I knew I missed one.

Thanks, I knew I missed one. In short, we don't know how to live as if a god exists.

Sun, 2009-03-22 10:52 — Chucky (not verified)

Pascal answered those arguments in his original

(1) Is clearly wrong, and it seems to indicate to me that you haven't actually read what Pascal said in his Pensees. Obviously it's not a false dilema, either a deity exists or he doesn't. Pascal allows that that deity may not be the Christian God, but and later in the Pensees provides evidence for why he thinks the Christian God is the correct one. Whether or not this deity is the Christian God is irrelevant to the argument.

(2) Is also wrong, at least if we can believe scientific studies into the relative happiness, longevity, and social adjustment of believers compared to non-believers. I am not offering this as a proof of God's existence, simply as a scientific fact.

(3) Is also clearly addressed by Pascal. So what do you say about Pascal's answer?

(4) Pascal is not arguing that anyone should fake anything - explicitly not so. He is arguing that a rational agent would not choose atheism. He wants his readers to earnestly seek God.

I guess I find atheist responses to Pascal's Pensees kind of disappointing. This one reads as if you haven't even read what you're arguing against.

Sun, 2009-03-22 23:12 — SmartLX

Pensees

No, I haven't read the Pensees, nor did I claim to have. I'm replying to the Wager as expressed by modern apologists and other evangelists like Dinesh D'Souza. (To be fair, what I said about Pascal personally was premature. Sorry.) Thousands or millions of proselytisers are working from an incomplete version of the Wager, and most still think it's brilliant. I'm not the only one who might benefit from reading the whole thing.

1. The fact that Pascal followed up with specific arguments for the truth of Christianity demonstrates my point: if you've got those, why only muck about with probabilities? Push the solid stuff, not just the clever-but-general part. Now that I know Pascal put in more effort than I previously thought, it looks like his better work is usually going to waste.

If one instead uses arguments for Christianity to lead into the Wager, the aim is to establish the God of Abraham as not only the most likely god, but the only possible god. Otherwise He's up against an infinite number of other possible gods, and His chances are not good.

2. I didn't say belief and worship have no earthly benefits, I said you don't lose nothing. Worship takes work, belief doesn't always guide actions wisely. The earthly benefits and costs are there to be weighed against each other, independently of the effects after death. To say one has "nothing to lose by believing", as many do, is misleading.

3. Pascal writes:
"There are three sources of belief: reason, custom, inspiration. The Christian religion, which alone has reason, does not acknowledge as her true children those who believe without inspiration. It is not that she excludes reason and custom. On the contrary, the mind must be opened to proofs, must be confirmed by custom and offer itself in humbleness to inspirations, which alone can produce a true and saving effect."

In other words, we have to work to achieve the kind of belief God wants, by opening the way to inspiration. Okay, if he says so. I hope people who use the Wager to witness are actually prepared to help converts follow up.

4. Earnestly seeking a god, if one has decided belief is best, is fair enough. That decision is complicated by the scenario where one dies and meets a different god. Would one prefer to have worshipped one's own, false, rival god, or to have rejected all other gods? How jealous is the average god?

Thu, 2009-03-26 08:56 — Chucky (not verified)

Proof?

Hey mate,

Hope you're having a good day!

1) Because they're different questions. If you agree with the argument then Pascal has demonstrated that it's irrational to be an atheist.

The question of which particular god is true is a different one, and Pascal gives his reasons why he thinks that the God of the Bible is the right one - as opposed to say Allah or some other god.

"Otherwise He's up against an infinite number of other possible gods, and His chances are not good."

I think 1+1=2. There's an infinite number of other numbers but I wouldn't be justified in believing something else if I have more evidence the answer is 2.

"There are three sources of belief: reason, custom, inspiration. The Christian religion, which alone has reason, does not acknowledge as her true children those who believe without inspiration. It is not that she excludes reason and custom. On the contrary, the mind must be opened to proofs, must be confirmed by custom and offer itself in humbleness to inspirations, which alone can produce a true and saving effect."

I think that's it. I really liked that quote, thank you for that. Pascal has it right here IMHO. God is real. It is God who can inspire us if we let him. Some random god can't inspire us, because - we agree here, I hope: they don't exist - but if there is a real God who exists, he can do that.

Food for thought. Hope you have a good day today :-)

Sat, 2009-03-28 07:32 — SmartLX

Pascal

1. Yes, if Pascal's larger argument is sound then atheism is irrational, but...duh. That's true of almost any apologetic.

Otherwise, we're actually in a great deal of agreement. Christian apologetic has a reasoned case at least, whether or not it is sound or "wins". If there's a god who can simply make people believe in him/her/it, he/she/it can go right ahead. Fixing people's reason and custom to allow it shouldn't be a problem either.

You have a good day too Chucky, and the rest of you. It's good to be back.