A less selfish Pascal's wager

[hackenslash]

Again, my intention is to address this thread at length and with rigour, but for now, I have just one question for JAC:

Do you really believe that 'objective morality' exists, and that it is predicated upon the whim of a single entity?

My objection to this is clear. Unless the entity you are talking about is the universe, in which case we can dismiss the entire concept of objective morality, because the universe doesn't give a crap about how we behave, then any morality based on the whim of a single entity, divine or not, is necessarily subjective. Again, this is definitional. It doesn't matter whether or not you think that this entity is in some way special. If morality is rooted in the opinion of what one entity thinks is right, then it isn't objective, and that's even before we get into Euthypro's dilemma.

Actually, that brings me to a corrollary question:

If you think that morality comes from your imaginary friend, and you believed that said imaginary friend had commanded you to commit an act that you found morally reprehensible, such as sacrificing one of your children, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, would you do it?

It seems to me that if whatever your answer to this question, you can't win, and that's not because it's like asking you if you have stopped beating your wife, but because the answer will either demonstrate that you have no morality, or that your morality is superior to that of your magic man.

[bandit4god]

So Pascal's wager is pretty much 'you might as well believe in god because if he exists then your going to heaven for believing' right?

Pascal's wager says something quite different.


1.  Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:

                            God exists   God does not exist
Wager for God                 ∞            f1
Wager against God         f2            f3

2.  Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.
3.  Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).
4.  Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
5.  Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

What "wagering for God" means has been a subject of considerable debate for a few centuries, and Pascal addresses it directly by saying, in effect, "this is too important to scoff at, so I'd suggest you give your all to diligently figure it out."

[Asmodean]

Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

[bandit4god]

Which of the thousands of gods should one then bet on though?

It still comes down to that, does it not?

Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

[Asmodean]

Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Actually, I opt not to wager at all since such a wager is useless to me within the scope of my plans.

[bandit4god]

Pascal's Wager is valuable as a launching point to one aggressively seeking out an answer this very question.

Concerning those who throw up their hands as you've done in your above point and seek no further, Pascal shares some strong words in Pensee' 194:  "This carelessness in a matter which concerns themselves, their eternity, their all, moves me more to anger than pity; it astonishes and shocks me; it is to me monstrous."

Actually, I opt not to wager at all since such a wager is useless to me within the scope of my plans.

It's as though you're having a conversation with ol' BP himself!  From Pensee' 223:
"'...God is, or He is not.' But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. 'No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.'

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then?"

Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

[Asmodean]

Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

[BullyforBronto]

Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

Indeed.
Banditforgod, if your god exists, don't you think he's kind of an asshole for condemning countless unbelievers to eternal damnation? I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure we'd have a good time talking philosophy over a beer or two. But, at the end of the day, I'm burning in hell (being cut off from paradise, or whatever...) according to you (or your god).
Do you really want to hang out with a dude for all eternity that would do such a thing? If I am on the losing side of the wager, I'm thinking my "soul" will be more ethically at ease hanging with Satan, flying our middle fingers at your egomaniacal god.

[DeterminedJuliet]

When I was a christian, I always thought that if I ended up in hell I'd just pray for God to forgive me/come rescue me from hell.

If I'm conscious enough to suffer, I should be conscious enough to seek forgiveness and what's God going to do? Say "nope! too late! you're dead!" That seems silly.

Course now the whole prospect of hell seems silly.

[Norfolk And Chance]

So Pascal's wager is pretty much 'you might as well believe in god because if he exists then your going to heaven for believing' right?
Well i was thinking surely if you don't believe in God but lead a good life as an atheist (helping people, giving to charity ECT..) AND you die and God does exist if he is all loving and forgiving as Christians believe SURELY he would allow you into heaven?

For example an Atheist and a Christian both die and meet God ( I'm an Atheist so this is purely hypothetical). Both have been Good all their lives, Yet the Atheist has been Good because he helped fellow human beings and for the good of humanity rather than the Christian who may of just thought 'if i do good things then i will be allowed into heaven when i die'

I know several people who don't particularly like me being an atheist and always seem to revert to the old 'well at least I'm not going to hell' comeback in arguments but put this way surely the atheist is the better person? The atheist did the good things without expecting a reward, he expected that once he died he would simply decompose and be recycled.

So surely those who live their lives by pascals wager should reconsider, and not do good things out of what is ultimately selfishness and in fact think:

If I do good without religion and there is in fact a God when I die, surely doing these good things completely selflessly would in fact be as good (or better) than doing them in the name of the Church?

Basically if there were a God, he'd let you into heaven even if you hadn't believed in him but had lived a good life. Atheists have no worries either way.

I long ago concluded exactly this. 

[The Magic Pudding]

Ahhh, Pascal again.
I love Pascal's stuff.
And Pascall's wrapper, such wisdom.

[Asmodean]

Wh..! 

It's PUDDING! He's BACK! 

[Tank]

Wh..! 

It's PUDDING! He's BACK! 

Yaaaaaaa! Woot!!

[OldGit]

Greetings, Oh Puddingy One.

[Davin]

Is it not clear that each person must wager his/her life for or against God existing?

Nope. You can also just not give a fuck.

EDIT: Should probably provide a bit more of a comment...

One can look at it this way: If gods exist and you bet against it, in the afterlife you go to their respective versions of hell OR you just don't get an afterlife.

If you end up in a hell, well woo-hoo! You are dead, yet you still exist. Nice. Then you can start making the best out of your stay there... Research into permanently destroying "souls"... MUST be money and glory in that. If you end up with no afterlife at all, then what does it matter?

If you bet for gods' existence and they do not exist, you may potentially spend a large portion of your life trying to get approval of something that isn't there. Time you could probably better spend elsewhere, I might add.

If you bet on gods and there are such either you bet one the wrong one and are probably back to scenario one or the right one in which case... What? Paradise? How do you know that it actually IS better than scenario one? Ok, you still wake up dead and that is probably a cool sensation, but what if your happiness requires someone else's suffering..? Some paradise that would be.

One CAN look at it this way, but personally, I dont. Because as I see it, it doesn't matter in any case. I'll deal with the afterlife, whatever shape or form it might take, if (And that is one big mother of an "if") I get there. Simple as that.

I agree with this, especially the not giving a fuck part.