Discounting Pascal's Wager

[beero1000]

I came across the sketch of a fun argument against Pascal's Wager in a footnote of How Not To Be Wrong by Jordan Ellenberg (a good book, if you're interested). It's one I hadn't seen before, and I like it, so I thought I'd flesh it out and post it.

Basically, Pascal argues that there are two possibilities - either god exists or does not. There is a finite cost to being religious, and a finite gain to not being religious. If god exists, then you'd get an eternity of pleasure in heaven due to being religious, and either a no gain (or an eternity of pain, if god is wrathful). If god does not exist, the gain/loss is finite regardless of what you do. Then, the expected value calculation seems to come out in favor of being religious.

Here's the (economic) counter-argument:

There is a time value of pleasure/pain - some amount of pleasure now is better than the same amount later. So, to find the present value of an eternity in heaven, we need to discount the future pleasure - this becomes A/r, where A is the 'pleasure of an instant of heaven' and r is the 'pleasure interest rate'. If an instant in heaven is a finite amount of pleasure (justified by a biological argument from brains?) and the discount rate is positive, then this is a finite present value gain, not an infinite one, even over an infinite stretch of time.

This rules out the infinities of Pascal's wager, and brings it back down to a case-by-case computation of expected values. This way, a low probability of god's existence can very easily be used as a reason to not be religious.

I like it. What do you think?

 

[skepticalbip]

I prefer to point out that there are thousands of religions. The greatest sin that really pisses off a god is for someone to worship a different god than him. For example, it is the number one commandment of the ten commandments, “You shall have no others gods before me.” So choosing the wrong religion out of the thousands is a sure path to hell, if there is an afterlife in which there is reward and punishment.

So the wager becomes whether to live a good but atheistic enjoyable life or to risk odds of choosing the right religion in case there is an afterlife.

If there is an afterlife then being a good atheist wouldn’t piss the big guy off nearly as much as worshiping the wrong big guy so could be forgivable.

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar. You can only hope to get the right number otherwise you have committed the greatest unforgivable sin of worshiping the wrong god and assuring yourself eternal suffering in hell.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar.

A Christain poster elsewhere acknowledged this, but maintained that atheists are the only ones making SURE they never win.
She was also sure that anyone even remotely Christain was close enough and went to Heaven, and while the rest of us were in Hell, the Jews got some recognition for being half-right. She wasn't sure, but maybe the Jews in Hell get to wear "I was a Jew" t-shirts, and only demons above a certain rank got to fuck with them.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar.

A Christain poster elsewhere acknowledged this, but maintained that atheists are the only ones making SURE they never win.
She was also sure that anyone even remotely Christain was close enough and went to Heaven, and while the rest of us were in Hell, the Jews got some recognition for being half-right. She wasn't sure, but maybe the Jews in Hell get to wear "I was a Jew" t-shirts, and only demons above a certain rank got to fuck with them.

That's specific.

 

[beero1000]

I prefer to point out that there are thousands of religions. The greatest sin that really pisses off a god is for someone to worship a different god than him. For example, it is the number one commandment of the ten commandments, “You shall have no others gods before me.” So choosing the wrong religion out of the thousands is a sure path to hell, if there is an afterlife in which there is reward and punishment.

So the wager becomes whether to live a good but atheistic enjoyable life or to risk odds of choosing the right religion in case there is an afterlife.

If there is an afterlife then being a good atheist wouldn’t piss the big guy off nearly as much as worshiping the wrong big guy so could be forgivable.

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar. You can only hope to get the right number otherwise you have committed the greatest unforgivable sin of worshiping the wrong god and assuring yourself eternal suffering in hell.

Sure, but an upside here is that this counter is due to the analysis of the wager itself, and not the possibility of a variety of deities. So, even if there's only one possible option for god - the wager still doesn't hold water...

 

[skepticalbip]

I prefer to point out that there are thousands of religions. The greatest sin that really pisses off a god is for someone to worship a different god than him. For example, it is the number one commandment of the ten commandments, “You shall have no others gods before me.” So choosing the wrong religion out of the thousands is a sure path to hell, if there is an afterlife in which there is reward and punishment.

So the wager becomes whether to live a good but atheistic enjoyable life or to risk odds of choosing the right religion in case there is an afterlife.

If there is an afterlife then being a good atheist wouldn’t piss the big guy off nearly as much as worshiping the wrong big guy so could be forgivable.

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar. You can only hope to get the right number otherwise you have committed the greatest unforgivable sin of worshiping the wrong god and assuring yourself eternal suffering in hell.

Sure, but an upside here is that this counter is due to the analysis of the wager itself, and not the possibility of a variety of deities. So, even if there's only one possible option for god - the wager still doesn't hold water...

True, but as an argument it wouldn't be convincing for most people since most people don't understand math or economics.

However offering them the chance to draw one slip of paper from thousands in a box they can understand. Explain that if they draw the right one then they will be rewarded with heaven but if they draw any of the thousands of other slips then they will be assured of eternal suffering in hell. Alternately, they can choose not to draw a slip which will be a serious strike against them (if there is an afterlife) but their life will be judged and if found worthy they may avoid hell. Otherwise, if there is no afterlife then the drawing is meaningless.

My greatest problem with Pascal's wager is the assumption that the only choice is Christianity or atheism. The fact that if there is an afterlife with reward and punishment then choosing Christianity may be the most certain path to punishment of the two.

As a wager, it should be a wager with risks and odds that most people can understand.

 

[Brian63]

On a fundie forum several years ago in response to someone bringing up Pascal's Wager as such:

I may also add that it is not easy being a Jew or a Christian; it takes a lot of faith. BUT just in case it's all true, wouldn't you rather be on God's side than take your chances for the alternative?

I responded back (in part):

What if the god's side is to just send everyone to heaven who honestly professed their inner beliefs openly, and did not treat their belief system as an insurance policy for the next life? If this god really was omniscient, it is not as if I could trick it or pretend to believe something other than what I really believe anyway. If it really was good, it would not punish me just for having the wrong beliefs about the universe. All in all, my best bet is to be an open atheist, though I am not so because it is a bet. I am so because this is the only life I will ever have, and I do not want to spend it pretending to be something that I am not.

It helps to show how the Pascal's Wager argument is not only logically flawed, but also morally bankrupt. It is harder for them to argue against the latter, as the thought just really never enters their mind that an atheist can be in a more solid moral position than they are. They never think of their own apologetics as being immoral in any way. They tend to be unaware of how to argue against it at all, as their usual apologetics about how God simply exists do not apply to their religious views well, if it is also immoral to then worship that God.

Brian

 

[jonJ]

I put it this way: if God exists and is rational then he will reward rational behaviour. If God exists and isn't rational, then all bets are off and nobody has any better chance of eternal reward than anyone else.

 

[credoconsolans]

I put it this way: if God exists and is rational then he will reward rational behaviour. If God exists and isn't rational, then all bets are off and nobody has any better chance of eternal reward than anyone else.

I think we all know that based on their followers belief systems the majority of gods out there are not rational.

 

[Draconis]

If God/Religion (A) says you must do xxx to enter heaven, and God/Religion (B) says you must not do xxx to enter heaven, then Pascal's Wager doesn't work. There's no way to do both.

 

[ronburgundy]

If there is an afterlife then choosing religion necessarily is playing the lotto but you are risking your soul instead of a dollar.

A Christain poster elsewhere acknowledged this, but maintained that atheists are the only ones making SURE they never win.
She was also sure that anyone even remotely Christain was close enough and went to Heaven, and while the rest of us were in Hell, the Jews got some recognition for being half-right. She wasn't sure, but maybe the Jews in Hell get to wear "I was a Jew" t-shirts, and only demons above a certain rank got to fuck with them.

Any god so insecure to put anyone in hell just for not believing in him is going to be far more pissed at people that believe in someone else than that don't believe in any god. After all, atheist have the "you didn't give enough evidence" excuse, while believers do not.
Its analogous to whether your spouse would be more angry and vengeful if you became asexual and thus stopped having sex with them, versus had sex with someone else instead. Clearly that latter is a worse offense likely to invoke wrath.

After all, the first 2 Commandments are about worshiping "other gods" and even just making any "graven image" of what you think God is or of anything that you worship, due to his own admitted trait of being "a jealous God".


I like to use a different version of this argument, which is that even if you by a 1 in a infinite chance pick the correct God that actually exists, you might get it wrong that he rewards such belief. He is more likely to punish belief. If he created us with our capacity for reason and he intentionally left insufficient evidence of himself for that reason to lead to belief in him, then it implies that he specifically does not want people to believe in him and he might be angry at all believers for not using their gift of reason.

When these arguments are combined it means that your only chance of "reward" for belief is if you pick the right God AND that God rewards such belief. In contrast, you will be punished for belief if your either pick any of the other infinite potential gods, or the actual god punishes belief, making punishment infinite more likely than reward, as a result of belief.

 

[DBT]

Having to hold an unfounded conviction/belief in the existence of an Invisible Undetectable Sky Daddy seems a trivial requirement on which to base Eternal consequences; Eternal Life in reward for being convinced of the existence of an Invisible Undetectable Sky Daddy without evidence.

Death or Eternal Torment being the consequence for the reasonable position: there is insufficient evidence to form a conviction in the existence of an Invisible Undetectable Sky Daddy.

Hardly fair terms.

 

[Malintent]

Pascal's Wager assumes 1 god, and that god specifically is the Abrahamic one. That other gods have been proposed does not make the wager false, it makes it invalid. So, I do not claim Pascal's Wager is wrong.. I claim it has no validity.

 

[Kharakov]

Pascal's Wager assumes 1 god, and that god specifically is the Abrahamic one. That other gods have been proposed does not make the wager false, it makes it invalid. So, I do not claim Pascal's Wager is wrong.. I claim it has no validity.

Well, Pascal's Wager definitely ignores the bible "For God hath shut up together all in unbelief, in order that he might shew mercy to all."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If God/Religion (A) says you must do xxx to enter heaven, and God/Religion (B) says you must not do xxx to enter heaven, then Pascal's Wager doesn't work. There's no way to do both.

Unless you're omnipotent, in which case you can do it without any difficult whatsoever. That's why God really doesn't see what the problem is.

 

[Lunawalk]

Pascal's Wager assumes 1 god, and that god specifically is the Abrahamic one. That other gods have been proposed does not make the wager false, it makes it invalid. So, I do not claim Pascal's Wager is wrong.. I claim it has no validity.

or god exists and does not care about humans. The universe is so large why if god exists it would care about us or our planet.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Wouldn't any god worthy of the title know you weren't sincere and just hedging your bets to get into heaven? Seems less than authentic to me.

 

[DBT]

Wouldn't any god worthy of the title know you weren't sincere and just hedging your bets to get into heaven? Seems less than authentic to me.

A Sociopath doesn't necessarily require 'genuine' feelings - an open display being sufficient. Perhaps bending the knee and offering lip service/allegiance should be sufficient for a Despot/Sociopath Creator who requires The Wager as a means of obtaining Eternal Life?

 

[Kharakov]

Wouldn't any god worthy of the title know you weren't sincere and just hedging your bets to get into heaven? Seems less than authentic to me.

A Sociopath doesn't necessarily require 'genuine' feelings - an open display being sufficient. Perhaps bending the knee and offering lip service/allegiance should be sufficient for a Despot/Sociopath Creator who requires The Wager as a means of obtaining Eternal Life?

From the bible it's apparent that God goes from sociopath, to fucking with their own kid by putting them on a cross, to being lazy so kids don't feel guilty about being lazy, to... wait

If your kid wants to go hang with the exciting humans, and you warn them not to do it, that they will fucking crucify you, and your kid goes and incarnates anyway, are you at fault? hahaha.. a serpentlike voice just said "my stheeed" (or bless you... fucking lisps) in my head. Serpents fucking lisp. hahha...

 

[DBT]

That's a good summary of the Bible, Kharakov. All the key elements of the Story are accounted for.