Since we didn't manage to get to Pascal's Wager in tutorial on Friday, I thought it might be a good idea to get some discussion about it going here.
To summarize, the 'Pascal's Wager' argument goes as follows:
1. Either God exists or does not exist.
2. You can either wager for God's existence, or wager against it.
3. If you wager for God's existence, and God exists, then you gain infinite happiness.
4. In any other outcome, your gain or loss is only finite.
5. So, you should wager for God's existence. (Since rationality requires choosing the possibility of infinite gain to any finite possibility)
One of the key assumptions in Pascal's argument that Brad highlighted in lecture is the idea that one can voluntarily form beliefs. That is, believing in something is basically a matter of having a strong enough will to believe. This strikes some people as odd. Some people have objected that it is not at all obvious that we can simply choose to have any beliefs we want. Do you grant Pascal the assumption that forming beliefs is a matter of willing?
There are other ways one could object to Pascal. To what extent, for example, does the argument depend on an assumption about the likelihood of God's existence? If the probability is thought to be really really small, would it still be rational to wager on God? Does it even make sense to talk about the probability of God's existence?
You contract a fatal disease and there was one operation that could save your life. Would you undergo it?
ReplyDeleteYOU CHOOSE TO UNDERGO OPERATION
If the operation succeeds, your disease disappears.
If the operation fails, you suffer minor side-effects.
YOU CHOOSE NOT TO UNDERGO OPERATION
The disease will eventually kill you but you do not have to suffer the minor side effects.
Like Pascal's Wager, a rational person would choose to undergo operation because the benefits outweigh the costs. However, what if you were told that the chances of the operation being a success is less than 1% ? Would it seem rational to undergo operation?
However, Pascal's Wager involves something more than life or death. It is eternal life or eternal damnation. Assume the probability of God's existence is low; less than 1%. Wouldn't it be still rational to bet on God existing? The scale of benefits to costs is still one-sided.
Assume the 99% - side of God not existing prevails. You still only lose the time you spend worshipping. Is worldly happiness so pleasurable that the prize of eternal happiness should not be wagered for at all? Is it still worth it to risk having to suffer eternally though the chances are slim? After all, the risk (though small) of eternal damnation is still possible.
^Because the ultimate prize is infinite (and the ultimate punishment is infinite), probability should be out of the question.
ReplyDeleteRobin, you've come up with a very good parallel case to help us think about the logic of Pascal's argument. You're right to focus on the question of the probability that we assign to the existence of God, and whether or not that should even matter.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear what others' intuitions are on this.
It all depends on the amount of faith you have in God's existence.
ReplyDeleteTo me, God doesn't exist; there is 0% chance of infinite happiness therefore it is indeed a complete waste of my time to devote myself to a religion.
It's just so difficult to believe that God exists. I have heard many Christians say something along the lines of "everything happens because God wills it" which to me sounds like no matter what I do I can't change the outcome. So if this God exists and he wanted me to go to hell since my birth, then oh well there's nothing I can do about it. And if he wanted me to go to heaven then either I will be allowed to go to heaven by being a moral person without becoming religious or I WILL eventually become religious because that's how God planned it.