Pascal's Wager

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pascal Revisited.
A post "four horseman" take on the wager.

https://youtu.be/JMjz_V-DmJE?si=eTZ94zyUXPEk1YbO

[Nearly Sane]

It's not really post 4 horsemen. And as is pointed out in the quite nice little video, the argument is misrepresented by Christians in putting it forward. Pascal and Hume, of course, agree here, though the video implies wants as being something chosen which makes no sense.

I've often said on here that the rational attempts to state why someone believes in god, or does not, are post rationalisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not really post 4 horsemen. And as is pointed out in the quite nice little video, the argument is misrepresented by Christians in putting it forward. Pascal and Hume, of course, agree here, though the video implies wants as being something chosen which makes no sense.

I've often said on here that the rational attempts to state why someone believes in god, or does not, are post rationalisation.

I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.

Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.

Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.

The title of the video you linked to - 'Atheists Misunderstand PASCAL'S WAGER (and so do Christians)'

Since the argument is made by Christians initially, they must logically misrepresent it.

[Gordon]

I have no examples of Christians being the source of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can cite this.
I do know from my own reading and from commentators like Michael Ruse is the frequency of philosophical misunderstanding from people like Dawkins and Hitchins.

Atheists who admit to not knowing whether there is a God but acting as though He doesn't exist, something I recall learning from this forum have, it seems to me already entered into some kind of wager.

I'm aware of this argument, but I haven't looked at it in great detail.

However, I am fond of a wager, so I take issue with your assumption here: the first rule of 'wagering' is don't bet unless you think you have at least a chance of of winning. Therefore, betting in favour of there being a 'God' would be a foolish bet to make - in any event, how would the odds be calculated and by whom?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm aware of this argument, but I haven't looked at it in great detail.

However, I am fond of a wager, so I take issue with your assumption here: the first rule of 'wagering' is don't bet unless you think you have at least a chance of of winning. Therefore, betting in favour of there being a 'God' would be a foolish bet to make - in any event, how would the odds be calculated and by whom?

If winning and what you win is important then conversely so is what you have to lose.
If the Christian is right, he gains eternity. If he is wrong? What has he lost? Since he wins exactly what the atheist wins.

The point of the video is rather, how we operate...in other words we are gambling all the time and are ruled by our passions rather than by reason.

[Nearly Sane]

If winning and what you win is important then conversely so is what you have to lose.
If the Christian is right, he gains eternity. If he is wrong? What has he lost? Since he wins exactly what the atheist wins.

The point of the video is rather, how we operate...in other words we are gambling all the time and are ruled by our passions rather than by reason.

And since we can't choose our passions treating it as a rational wager makes no sense  and that's leaving aside tgat probability is a methodological naturalistic concept. All the video actually illustrates is that the idea of choice as it is presented in mainstream Christianity, is meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And since we can't choose our passions treating it as a rational wager makes no sense  and that's leaving aside tgat probability is a methodological naturalistic concept. All the video actually illustrates is that the idea of choice as it is presented in mainstream Christianity, is meaningless.

I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.

IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.

The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.

IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.

The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.

You can't choose your wants ans since the video says it is driven by passion  not reason, it directly implies there isn't choice. It happens because the point about us not being rational is a specific point, and isn't followed through as a general one. It's the old free will argument. You can make a choice but that is the only choice that can be made if reason doesn't drive it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't choose your wants ans since the video says it is driven by passion  not reason, it directly implies there isn't choice. It happens because the point about us not being rational is a specific point, and isn't followed through as a general one. It's the old free will argument. You can make a choice but that is the only choice that can be made if reason doesn't drive it.

No I think the video makes it clear that Pascal's line is that the heart has reason's and makes decisions which incorporate the passions and ego rather than eliminating them deliberately as understood in contemporary understanding of the exercise of reason. The heart therefore is not, according to Pascal's "unreasonable" or I would imagine totally unconscious.

[Nearly Sane]

No I think the video makes it clear that Pascal's line is that the heart has reason's and makes decisions which incorporate the passions and ego rather than eliminating them deliberately as understood in contemporary understanding of the exercise of reason. The heart therefore is not, according to Pascal's "unreasonable" or I would imagine totally unconscious.

  No, Pascal is an arationalist as made clear by the video. He's saying that the decision is not a rational one. When he says 'reason dies not knowing ow' he is precisely stating that the why of the decision is not a conscious one it would appear that you make the same mistake the video says 'atheists' make, even after listening to it.

To try and help you out, listen to the bit describing the wager which is saying that IF YOU WERE rational this is what you would choose, but since as has arrest been put forward we are not rational, then it's irrelevant, other than in showing that we are not rational. That's all the argument does. Ot doesn't give any backing to the choice, since it from the start argues that isn't possible.

[Gordon]

I don't think the video suggests choice is out of the question. It suggests we slowly feel our way through life.

IMO Gordon sticks with the idea that, reasonably, the odds are on his side and thus he makes his choice on that. Pascal makes a case that betting on God is the more reasonable but also that this is an issue of the heart. Something later philosophers might have developed into the notion of the existential issue.

The person at the point of conversion to or rejection of God inevitably is involved at a passionate as well as intellectual level in a whole person experience and presumably this according to Pascal is the human condition.

Perhaps the idea of a 'wager' in this context doesn't make much sense.

When I have a bet I implicitly accept that if it loses I will have lost my stake. However, and unless I just take a wholly uniformed guess, it is possible for me to at least estimate the likelihoods of my bet winning or losing based on information I can freely access. So I might judge that a particular horse has a better chance than its odds suggest, and I bet on it, or I might judge that the favourite in a race is under-priced (isn't quite a good as the odds suggest) and decide to bet against it winning. In either case I will have a defined stake (that I am risking) and that I have at least a basis to estimate the chance of my chosen bet returning a profit or not. I have experience of both winning and losing!

For the life of me I can't imagine what I'd actually stake on 'God' existing, or on what basis I can estimate a basis to bet for or against 'God': there is no form you see. Pascal's Wager is a bet with only one runner - so not a serious basis for a gamble, unlike the 3.15 at Worcester this afternoon where I think the likely favourite (which has won its last three races) is no certainty, so it might pay to oppose it with the top-weight, but I could be wrong - now that is what I call a proper wager.

In my experience wagering on the basis of passion alone - 'I like grey horses', 'I like it's name' or 'I have a feeling God exists' - doesn't take into account any 'form' on which an assessment can be made, and is a guess rather than a gamble.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  No, Pascal is an arationalist as made clear by the video. He's saying that the decision is not a rational one. When he says 'reason dies not knowing ow' he is precisely stating that the why of the decision is not a conscious one it would appear that you make the same mistake the video says 'atheists' make, even after listening to it.

To try and help you out, listen to the bit describing the wager which is saying that IF YOU WERE rational this is what you would choose, but since as has arrest been put forward we are not rational, then it's irrelevant, other than in showing that we are not rational. That's all the argument does. Ot doesn't give any backing to the choice, since it from the start argues that isn't possible.

No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.

It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.

The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.

[Gordon]

No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.

It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.

The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.

If you wager 'from the heart' I'll guarantee that bookies everywhere will roll out the red carpet for you! Plus, if you can still lose when betting on a one-horse-race, then I'd say that isn't a bet worth having.

[Nearly Sane]

No, you are again ignoring Pascal's statement about the heart having reasons and thus you lose accuracy in your argument.

It's perfectly possible to be classically rational in some matters but other matters concern the self, the ego.

The point is though is the classical dispassionate exercise of reason can't definitionally operate since these are issues concerned with what we are.

No, I'm not ignoring it. I'm pointing out that since reason can't know them according to Pascal they cannot be chosen.

No choice is made for purely rational reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps the idea of a 'wager' in this context doesn't make much sense.

When I have a bet I implicitly accept that if it loses I will have lost my stake. However, and unless I just take a wholly uniformed guess, it is possible for me to at least estimate the likelihoods of my bet winning or losing based on information I can freely access. So I might judge that a particular horse has a better chance than its odds suggest, and I bet on it, or I might judge that the favourite in a race is under-priced (isn't quite a good as the odds suggest) and decide to bet against it winning. In either case I will have a defined stake (that I am risking) and that I have at least a basis to estimate the chance of my chosen bet returning a profit or not. I have experience of both winning and losing!

For the life of me I can't imagine what I'd actually stake on 'God' existing, or on what basis I can estimate a basis to bet for or against 'God': there is no form you see. Pascal's Wager is a bet with only one runner - so not a serious basis for a gamble, unlike the 3.15 at Worcester this afternoon where I think the likely favourite (which has won its last three races) is no certainty, so it might pay to oppose it with the top-weight, but I could be wrong - now that is what I call a proper wager.

In my experience wagering on the basis of passion alone - 'I like grey horses', 'I like it's name' or 'I have a feeling God exists' - doesn't take into account any 'form' on which an assessment can be made, and is a guess rather than a gamble.

I think what Pascal had in mind is that the Wager involves the highest of stakes, the self, the whole of a person and nothing but the self with the highest imaginable 'win' with the worst imaginable loss.

In terms of choosing ones stake.It is therefore "All".

That then, is the sense in which it is, as you say, a wager with one runner.

[Gordon]

I think what Pascal had in mind is that the Wager involves the highest of stakes, the self, the whole of a person and nothing but the self with the highest imaginable 'win' with the worst imaginable loss.

In terms of choosing ones stake.It is therefore "All".

That then, is the sense in which it is, as you say, a wager with one runner.

That doesn't work: I'm not staking anything on 'God' existing, or not existing, since not only do I have nothing to stake, there is no 'form' to go in order to make an assessment of a basis for winning or losing the bet, and no stewards to confirm the official result. It doesn't even work as a form of hedging a bet since there is, theoretically, only one runner and even then there is no certainty that the one runner actually exists in the first place and will come under 'starter's orders'.

Even as a thought experiment, I don't think that Pascal's Wager is of any use (aside from its entertainment value.)





 

[Enki]

Just a few thoughts:

1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.

2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.

3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?

4) The last part of the video seems to me to be simply a rehash of the usual Christian  proselytising, with the added exhortation to act as if his particular version of the Christian God was real even though one might have no feelings at all in that particular direction.

5) I notice that the speaker encourages you to involve yourself in the evangelistic 3 2 1 course which seems on the face of it to be a little like the Alpha Courses. Having attended two Alpha Courses and been less than impressed, I think I'll give the whole thing a miss thank you.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Just a few thoughts:

1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.

2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.

3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?

4) The last part of the video seems to me to be simply a rehash of the usual Christian  proselytising, with the added exhortation to act as if his particular version of the Christian God was real even though one might have no feelings at all in that particular direction.

5) I notice that the speaker encourages you to involve yourself in the evangelistic 3 2 1 course which seems on the face of it to be a little like the Alpha Courses. Having attended two Alpha Courses and been less than impressed, I think I'll give the whole thing a miss thank you.

I'm now picturing the 3-2-1 course bring like the TV programme with Ted Rogers with Jesus in place of Dusty Bin. Certainly the logic in the aporiach in the video is a strangulated as the lues on that show. I think it makes a big point about Pascal being an arationalist in this, and then just ignores what that means

[Enki]

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a few thoughts:

1) If we are ruled by our passions then making a rational wager is surely purely secondary to our passions, and Pascal's wager is supposed to appeal to our reason.

But Pascal would argue that the heart,or our passions HAVE their reasons but reasoning there is not dispassionate

2) A case could be made that Pascal's wager appeals to our most selfish desires, according to the video. Is it not true that it suggests that we should bet on a Christian God because this God offers an infinite win? Hence, the idea is surely suggested that this particular form of a Christian God would not reward those who do not believe, only those who do, and therefore we should bet on this God for purely selfish reasons. Other forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism, would not be applicable because they suggest that God treats believers and unbelievers equally. That would negate the whole reason for the wager.

Perhaps the weakest argument since we know fully well what mankind's most selfish desires are and that they amount to satisfaction of the ego, rather than here where the surrender of the ego is required.
It's up to you then to demonstrate how this satisfies the criteria of most selfish desire

3) The video is simply suggesting that it is the Christian God we should bet on. Why should we bet on this particular one, are there not other God alternatives?

Pascal suggests as does the video, that wagering is our modus vivendi. The person who doesn't know for instance whether God exists but acts as though he doesn't is, in fact, wagering and is backing one of the 'runners'. The deist has made the wager that God, having created the universe is now absent. The true agnostic agnostic acts as though they cannot know God.
Pascal, it could be argued is asking us to consider a wager of the highest stakes. One where the potential losses are definitely not zero or minimal.

[Nearly Sane]

But Pascal would argue that the heart,or our passions HAVE their reasons but reasoning there is not dispassionate ...

You have become confused. Pascal uses a metaphor about the heart's reasons, indeed the heart itself is a metaphor in hospital phrase. He is not arguing that the heart does thinking - that's why he is an arationalist not a heartrationalisat.

ETA - just to note that your approach  follows that of the atheists and Christians who are said to be wrong in the video with an epicycle of heartreasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have become confused. Pascal uses a metaphor about the heart's reasons, indeed the heart itself is a metaphor in hospital phrase. He is not arguing that the heart does thinking - that's why he is an arationalist not a heartrationalisat.

ETA - just to note that your approach  follows that of the atheists and Christians who are said to be wrong in the video with an epicycle of heartreasoning.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a decent understanding of what Pascal means by'The heart'. He isn't talking of a muscular pump. Of course you have brought Hume into the picture which would tend to distort things.

[Gordon]

The person who doesn't know for instance whether God exists but acts as though he doesn't is, in fact, wagering and is backing one of the 'runners'.

Just no: such a person, and I am one, would simply conclude that as regards 'God', there is no meaningful bet to be had. A one-horse race without a horse is meaningless for betting purposes.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but you don't seem to have a decent understanding of what Pascal means by'The heart'. He isn't talking of a muscular pump. Of course you have brought Hume into the picture which would tend to distort things.

I know he's not talking about the bodily organ, that's why I said it was  metaphor. That he is using tgat, and reason in this phrase 'heart has its reasons' is the problem you have