Pascal's wager

Not at all I know of multiple unfounded assumptions in it, but no one here has discussed those. They are focusing on the assumptions they think are unfounded which are either not in the wager at all, or not an assumption.

Sorry I forgot again that you are discussing some "commonly understood" pascal's wager without a reference text, while I keep talking about the pascal's actual wager. I disagree with your summary of the wager, so anything in your analysis after that means nothing. As you pointed out before, considering the statement "if X then Y", means nothing if X is false. Your summary of the wager does not match the actual wager, hence is false, and thus any conclusion you choose to draw from it is meaningless.

You point out manything I don't know, and don't need to know to consider the wager. I also have no way of knowing if I'll be alive tomorrow, next week or next year. If anything that keeps me enjoying living, but still preparing for the fact that I may live 50 more years, or only a few days. I am not paralyzed by the lack of information on which to "bet" on my future.


My few "friends" with whom I've had theological discussions would consider me at best an pragmatic agnostic though maybe somewhere closer to Diest with a touch of transcendental karmic slant.

You say "The subject is whether or not it is reasonable to assume that belief (or in your terms, "betting" on a god) is the key to eternal life." to which I'd say no its not reasonable and its also not what pascal's wager says.

Personally, I don't consider "belief alone" sufficient to "bet on god". But each of us has to decide on what to bet, so its up to the individual to decide the daily ante. I totally agree I have no way of knowing for sure which god is god, nor formally how to bet. I have sought the answer in many directions, but don't have a definitive "god" not do I really know what the gods want, but I can try to understand. But I can try to gain enlightenment. To me that is a key point of the discussion of the wager. Once you accept that you have already been beting, and continue to bet every day, then you can try to understand the relative gain/lost is, one can choose an informed path forward. If you have bet that betting does not make sense, and are at peace with your decision, then who am I to challenge it -- but don't try to argue about the meaning of a wager if you don't know/consider the actual text. I presumed you were continuing to argue because after I pointed out the actual text because somewhere deep down you are uncertain and that maybe like many people, especially those from eastern european upbringings, see the challenge/debates as a way to learn.


Are you really incapable of seeing what is in the actual wager rather than your imagined version?

While its fine you started this thread with a "commonly understood", but wrong, summary of the wager I expect that after seeing the correct wager that "common" version is irrelevant. Your continue argumentum ad populum is, I agree, pointless. Unless you are the one that is just being disingenuous now.

 

Thanks for sharing your views.. I'd concur on your interpretation of what a just god would do vis-a-via original sin.


I've been to Hell Michigan and Hell canyon in South Dakota.

I've also been to Hell in Grand Cayman, though I think its limestone not a'a lava. Much like the limestone formations in the caves of the Yucatan Peninsula

 

One of the reasons I left christianity was this, right here. All the screaming, ranting, and raving was the "believers", and the reasoned, accepting, logical people were not. Made me step back and take a serious look at what I really wanted my life to mirror.

I believe a lot of things... some of which are completely contradictory. And, I know it. It doesn't matter that much to me, because I'd rather be Happy than Right. If more of us were Happy, rather than so serious about being Right, I think the world would be a better place.

 

“...What will the present chaos lead to? How will it all end?
It can only end in one way. Mankind will be sick of it all....â€

“Love God and find him within - the only treasure worth finding.â€

“Don't Worry Be Happyâ€



Meher Baba, Avatar of the Age

 

Sorry airportkid.. I seem to have skipped answering your very meaningful post. You clearly identified what you considered unjustified assumptions. Maybe I can help clear those up.

I'll address these, but not quite in order.. (I'm grouping based on what you seem to consider is "assumed")
you must wager. It is not optional.
and
since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled
These are at best a very very weak assumption. Since you are either doing what it takes to "wager" (via belief and/or actions), or you are not doing it. If you are not doing it, then that is indistinguishable from wagering no. Pascal's only assumption here is that you are making that choice. One might say it is a weak assumption because you could be unconscious about your choice and can argue that to wager one must make a conscious decision. But I content that by making the choice, even unconsciously, you are wagering. If you choose not to believe and/or not to act in accordance with at least one of your god's requirements, then you are betting against god. If you follow all your god's requirements, you are betting god is. Since your beliefs/actions either do, or do not, follow the all the requirements you are always betting one way or the other.

Next is the statement
You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake,[Pg 67] your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery.
and
But there is an eternity of life and happiness
and
Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Here is is defining what he is defining the wager's "stakes" and that there is no partial payout. I agree that these are an assumption, one could put more or less items on the what to loose and what to gain. But to define a wager one must define, by assumption, what are the terms as the items to gain/loose are part of the analysis. So it is fine for Pascal to define the starting point and for the analysis is to determine if the risk/rewards of the wager are sufficient.

For any wager the terms are always "assumed", and then one must analyze if it is good to take wager. If you disagree with the terms, or if you agree with them but don't like the risk/reward, you are alway free, to reject the wager. However, as discussed above, in this wager, rejecting is the same as accepting it and saying "no".

The only real assumption here is about what his terms mean. Pascal has assumed the term "GOD" is associated with some model that provides a infinite afterlife with positive value. He is assuming that that betting on GOD is betting on the infinite afterlife. (Pascal also uses a masculine pronoun for god). Pascal does not need to assume such a god exists. But the reader does need to assume that "god" means something tied to an infinite afterlife. Since Pascal's terms of the wager are consistent with multiple different (christian and non-christian) god-models, the wager language is reasonably well formulated and it can understood with respect to any of those religions. For anyone whose god-model is inconsistent with the wager, the term "god" would need to be replaced with some "other" god-model, (e.g. christian god, islamic god, karmic reincarnation process) that provides/impacts the infinite afterlife.


The statement
But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss
is most just restatement of the wagers gains/losses. There is, in here, a more subtle assumption. The phrase "an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain" can be viewed as adding to the wager's original outcome of eternity of life and happiness (its saying how happy now..), but that is pretty minor and if his initial infinity is aleph-null and the infinity of happiness is aleph-null, then the product is still aleph-null infinity (and its not an assumption at all). But if the second added infinity was an attempt to increase aleph-one, then it is a bit of an assumption. But the level of infinity is not needed in the analysis so it is, at best, a minor assumption. (This really only matters if we consider simultaneously the limit as p, the probability of god, goes to zero, as t -> infinity). So the added "infinity" may be just an way of emphasizing the initial wager's definition of infinite gain.




Next statement
Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss,
and
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.

This could be a very strong assumption, and one that is commonly and rightfully raised. It is one of those to which I was alluding when I said I knew of qustionable assumptions that people had not raised. Luckily, pascal never stated " equal risks" nor is equal is not actual needed in the analysis. So it is an unstated, unwarranted and unused assumption.

Let me note here that this one was, in my view, literally lost in translation. I forgot to mention when I pasted the english version that there are multiple translation issue. Pascal wrote in french and the first of these phrases was written as Voyons : puis qu'il y a pareil hasard de gain et de perte , which does NOT say equal chance of gain or loss, but rather just there is a chance of gain or loss. (if it was saying equal risk it would end with something like "un risque égal de gain et de perte.") You can find the full french version at Pascal's wager French/English . If you look at the french you'll see places where Pascal did use the term "égale" so there were times he wanted to say equal, but others where he chose not to. Pascal used the term equal twice, the translator 6 times.. So the english translator changed things, and I would say the translator added "equal" incorrectly maybe to make the average reader feel they somewhat understand what is going on, or maybe because as a christian the felt they were equal or maybe because they did not quite understand the implications of what seemed like a minor issue -- adding the term "equal". Pascal did NOT assume the odds were equal.

Furthermore, looking at Pascal's arguments it is clear that any finite imbalance in the wager does not matter. That is why I keep talking about a probability p of god existing.. p can be << .5 and the infinite gain still swamps it.




I hope that analysis addressees what you considered unwarranted assumptions. Feel free to ask for clarifications if you did not understand my ramblings.

 

Here's a clarification:

The definition of Fundamentalist agnosticism is "I don't know, and you don't either."

 

There is no hell but that which you make yourself.



p.s. this thread is still going? :glare: ound: