The Wager Of Atheos (Response To Pascal's Wager)

[Rounin]

I thought of this argument around 7 years ago, and it's similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations .

 

The Wager of Atheos

 

Blaise Pascal once argued that it would be rational to try to convince oneself to belive in God, because there would be an "infinitely happy life to gain" if it's true, "and what you stake is finite". In other words, even in the absence of evidence, one should try to believe just in case it's true.

 

This is a doubtful proposition. Suppose that the following, although it's pure speculation, by pure chance happens to be true:

 

Suppose that somewhere there's a supernatural being; a god.

 

This being has no religion to worship it, no worshippers and no holy scriptures. Perhaps it doesn't want to be worshipped. Perhaps it knows of all the existing religions that have or have had all these things, and still can't agree on central facts, or bring all people over to their side. Clearly, it might be thinking, having a religion is the mark of a false god, and doesn't work.

 

Furthermore, the being takes a keen interest in mankind, and intends to do the following: Atheists, agnostics and others who refuse to follow the false religions will be granted an everlasting blissful life. Those who follow religion will be sent to an outer darkness or a furnace of fire to either be destroyed or suffer forever or someting similarly vague and grim.

 

In some cases, the god dreamed up in this thought experiment seems unethical or bizarre. After all, what would a god that required us to not follow religion be like? Would it require us to work only on saturdays and sundays, to eat only pork and shellfish, or to always steal and lie, and what's the likelyhood of such a bizarre being existing? At the same time, vast numbers of people currently believe in a god that supposedly appeared suddenly, then withdrew to communicate only through vague signs and cryptic old books, requires blind faith of his followers and threatens people with eternal suffering if they don't obey. This is also unethical and bizarre, and people believe in it all the same.

 

Just as Pascal claimed that believing in religion was the safer option, we could claim that it's safer to not do so. If you follow a religion you don't believe in just in case, you also take the unsafe option of ignoring an infinite number of other potential gods, most of which noone has even thought of. Better reasons are needed, such as believing the religion to be true, or agreeing with its ethics.

 

[Rounin]

Well, will you look at that! Someone else has developed another similar idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_God_Challenge

[LogicalFallacy]

Some big names in that article too! You might be able to add to their works

 

It is definitely an interesting thought experiment.

 

Back to Pascal, the major problem with his wager is that its a false dichotomy. He sets up either there is God or there isn't. You have a 50/50 chance, why not take the God exists chance as nothing is lost if you die and he doesn't exist.

 

However, there is more than one religion, and even within Christianity there are numerous mutually exclusive sects. Therefore the wager is not 50/50 its like 10000:1

 

Hope you don't pick a) the wrong religion, and b ) the wrong sect in the religion.

[rjn]

It's not like Pascal didn't suffer from a very strong pro-Catholic bias. Sure, I'm open to the possibility of there might being something beyond the measurable, physical world, and we can call that something "God" for lack of a better word, but there's quite a stretch going from that to "My interpretation of [bULLSHIT] is true and if you disagree you're going to be punished for ALL ETERNITY!". 

[Rounin]

Bias certainly seems to be at the heart of it. Understandable, of course, seeing as the same bias exists today.

[Voice]

Pascal? Wo.

 

I find this interesting from his wikipedia page:

He was the son of a tax collector. He invented calculating machines.

Pascal was an important mathematician, helping create two major new areas of research: he wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of 16, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. Following Galileo Galilei and Torricelli, in 1646, he rebutted Aristotle's followers who insisted that nature abhors a vacuum. Pascal's results caused many disputes before being accepted.

Followed by cited papers on obscure sub-doctrines of Catholicism (I think)

 

Yikes!

This presumptuous Atheos argument can't possibly come from this man unless he wrote it drunk and then forgot?

[Rounin]

How odd; I wrote a reply to this, but it disappeared.

 

Pascal wrote an argument called Pascal's wager.

This argument is a modification of Pascal's argument, which leads to a completely opposite conclusion from the one Pascal came to.

The aim is to shows Pascal's reasoning to be flawed, as the same argument can support two completely opposing positions.