Pascal's wager Flashcards
what is Pascal’s wager and how is it different to other arguments in the course?
Pascal’s wager is not an argument for God.
It presents a valid argument which guides us to what we should rationally ‘wager for’ when faced with a dilemma. This appeals to pragmatism and is yet independent of trying to posit empirical evidence.
what are the three arguments for Pascal’s wager
superdominance
expectation
dominant expectation / generalised expectation
what is the argument from superdominance?
there are four options
1- we can wager for god and god exists, in this case, all we consequently receive is gain e.g. heavens etc…
2- we can wager for God and god doesn’t exist, in this case we consequently do not gain or lose anything
3- we can wager against god and God exist, in this case, we consequently receive loss e.g. perhaps eternal torture
4- we can wager against god and God doesn’t exist, in which case we lose/gain nothing
if god doesn’t exist then wagering for him presents at least as good a result as wagering against him. If god does exist, then wagering for him presents an infinitely better result than wagering against him.
Wagering for God therefore superdominates wagering against God
therefore our rationality tells us to wager for God
criticism
response
what if i stake too much?
- this refers to what if i sacrifice too much living the pious life and it turns out god does not exist? This arguably separates the two outcomes of god not existing with believing in him and it turning out he doesn’t exist as a worst outcome
- this is why we must add the second argument
outline the argument from expectation
Pascal argues that
1- the probability of God’s existence is a half
2-Wagering for god’s existence brings infinite reward
why we must add the second argument - argument from expection - if you are gambling equal chances and equal payoffs, it doesn’t matter which chance you wager for. however, when there is double pay off, you should choose god. This addition of expection: as there is so much more to gain from wagering for god- infintely more in fact, leads us to the conclusion that we should wager for God despite slightly more to lose if it goes the other way. massive salvation or minimal sacrifice living a pious life. we should gamble for reward!
If God’s probability is half and its expectation is higher, we should rationally opt for this!
criticism for argument from expectation into argument from dominant expectation?
- surely we can object to the ‘monstrous premise’-Hacking, that the probability of God’s existence is not half? surely minimal!
However -
1- if the probability is more than 0, even 0.01%, then we should still wager for God’s existence because low probability still yields can still yield infinite rather than finite reward
2- this is because if we wager for God, then the expectation is infinitely postiive despite potential finite sacrifice if God does not exist
3- if we wager against god then we can say the expectation is either infinitely negative or finitely negative - eternal torture if God exists, and a finite status quo if he doesn’t
4 - rationality requires us to perform the act of maximum expected utility
5- there is more expected utility in wagering for God
C- we should wager for God
what is the criticism about the probability of God’s existence?
reply
further FT response
This argument can be criticised as we could say that the possibility of God is 0 - as the concept is self contradictory e.g. the problem of evil
- reply - 1 - clearly its more than 0 even 0.00001% as there is still a debate
2- This wager is only aimed at people who are unsure what they believe to nudge them in the direction of Christian theology - There is a further problem with this however - surely this is only aimed at agnostics with strict 50/50 uncertainties, and given all the arguments for and against out there, this seems rather unlikely
What is Hacking’s criticism
James response
Hacking accepts this argument is valid but unconvincing.
There is still a massive leap for believing that there is a God and belief/ not belief in him brings salvation/damnation.
All three arguments assume this partition
further - Hacking highlights the strange idea of having a decision theory which doesn’t posit emprical evidence. I question whether this is even satisfactory for belief in God?
James - use James’ idea that belief in God should be wagered for regardless of evidence as we should takes leaps of faith not reliant on evidence to not miss out on experience e.g. playing the lottery, believing in God to not miss out on social aspects and ya know - heaven. We should therefore sometimes have beliefs that are not reliant on evidence
what is the JTB criticism and empirical evidence criticism
reply?
further reply from Clifford?
maybe you can have a belief, without evidence but the belief cannot be knowledge - at least according to justified true belief theory. justification, truth and belief are necessary and sufficient.
- Pascal is not aiming to prove knowledge of God.
BUT if it is just a belief is it even worth talking about? Is there a point in having a belief that is not knowledge?
Further: Clifford: belief on insufficient evidence harms society by promoting credulity- fake news speading.
moral consideration!
what is your criticism
I think that where Pascal’s wager goes wrong is justifying wagering for God in appeal to infinity.
I think that either way, we wager for all that exists for us.
If god exists, there is a possibility of infinite, if he doesn’t it is finite. this puts wagering against God at a disadvantage instantly .
So i think a finite and possibility of an infinite experience should be considered on equal par as that is all there is. if God doesn’t exist and you wagered for him, all there is for you is ruined, and if he does exist and you wagered against him, all there is for you is ruined- be these at different degrees - torture vs a life dedicated to something false.
reply - even if this is the case - surely the appeal to not be tortured outweighs the risk for wasting your life with that which could be false?
- the point with this as that probability now plays a part where it didn;t before. before, even with 0.0001% chance of God, you would be encouraged to wager for him in appeal to infinity, without this you could wager against God, despite the appeal to not be tortured outweighing the risk for wasting your life dedicated to a false prophet, if you argue that the probabiltiy for God is low!
The calculation is more fair and dependent on probability of God!
