"Pascal's Wager 2.0" -- an interesting read

Most people are familiar with Pascals' Wager. (If you aren't, I've written about it here and here.)


Pascal's basic idea was that it makes sense to believe in God, because if you're right the benefits are eternal and unlimited, while if you're wrong you lose nothing.

(Or very little. Such as listening to a bunch of boring sermons and not eating meat on Fridays.)

Over on the New York Times web site, there's an interesting piece by a philosophy professor, Gary Gutting. In "Pascal's Wager 2.0" he argues that doubting God is a better bet than denying God.

The wager requires a choice between believing and not believing. But there are two ways of not believing. I can either deny that God exists or doubt that God exists. Discussions of the wager usually follow Pascal and lump these two together in the single option of not believing in God.

They don’t distinguish denying from doubting because both are ways of not believing. The argument then is about whether believing is a better option than not believing. My formulation of the argument will focus instead on the choice between denying and doubting God.

Denial of God means that I simply close the door on the hope that there is something beyond the natural world; doubt may keep that door open. I say “may” because doubt can express indifference to what is doubted. I don’t know and I don’t care whether there is an even number of stars or whether there are planets made of purple rock.

Indifferent doubt is the practical equivalent of denial, since both refuse to take a given belief as a viable possibility — neither sees it as what William James called a “live option.” But doubt may also be open to and even desirous of what it doubts. I may doubt that I will ever understand and appreciate Pierre Boulez’s music, but still hope that I someday will.

Well, at first I was pretty much on board with Gutting. But after reading his entire essay, and some of the intelligent reader comments (check out the "reader's picks"), his arguments came to seem weaker to me.

Gutting's distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which seems to basically line up with denying and doubting -- atheists deny, agnostics doubt -- is spurious.

As I've noted many times before on this blog, I don't know any atheist who wouldn't be convinced of God's existence if there was highly persuasive demonstrable evidence of this. Atheists like me aren't 100% sure that God doesn't exist. We're just highly confident, given the lack of positive evidence that God is real.

So I'd say that virtually every atheist is a doubter, not a denier. Meaning, atheists don't deny that there is some possibility that God exists. They simply strongly doubt this is true.

Further, I'd be overjoyed to learn that God is real and I'm going to spend eternity in a really nice heaven. So nice, I won't be bored with it, even if I'm there for forever. 

I'm pretty sure most atheists feel the same way.

Who wouldn't like to be proven wrong about God, if this means both life and the afterlife are going to take on a much more pleasurable appearance? This assumes, of course, that God is a good guy/gal/sexless being. 

If God is a nasty piece of shit who enjoys seeing people suffer -- not a bad hypothesis, actually, given the way the world is -- then it is great news that this God doesn't exist. 

Anyway, give "Pascal's Wager 2.0" a read. Make up your own mind about Gutting's arguments. Then scan the reader's picks comments. New York Times subscribers always leave thoughtful comments that often are better than the piece being commented on.

Here's a few comment samples:

Professor Gutting writes that belief in God's existence enables people to "find a higher meaning and value to their existence by making contact with a beneficent power beyond the natural world." What is his evidence that God is beneficent? He is ignoring the evil in the world. Even if God were beneficent, what is Professor Gutting's evidence that believing in God provides people with a higher meaning and value to their existence? It may for some people, but not for others.

Professor Gutting adds that "we have good reason to expect much greater happiness if there is a beneficent power we could contact." What is his evidence for that? Maybe God's beneficence won't affect me personally. Or maybe it would increase my happiness just a little and not make it "much greater."

Professor Gutting, like all believers, is just making stuff up.

------------------

More nonsense from Gutting.

We should "hope" that there's a god? Why? God, based on man's made-up descriptions of him, is cruel, capricious, arbitrary, violent, and perverse. We should "hope" that there's NO god. And that's before even factoring in the evils of self-interest and self-indulgence inherent in the concept of "heaven" and "god's goodness."

If Gutting wants "meaning," there is plenty of it in the real world; we do not need fantasies and fairy tales to create meaning. People need help and care, communities need development, the natural world needs protection, human relationships need improvement; and the world needs progress and enlightenment. There can be found enough "meaning" in seeking these paths as would fill a million million lifetimes.

Let's just drop the supernatural, superstitious pablum once and for all, and deal with what actually exists in reality: an often terrible, often beautiful, always imperfect world.

------------------

Atheism is not a form of belief. It is the absence of belief. I think it was Sam Harris that said calling atheism a belief is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby. Also, I fail to see how agnosticism is closer to science than atheism. We all acknowledge that there could be a God since the concept is not falsifiable. If simply believing makes it so, than anything I believe in can become real, whether or not it is so. So how is this more like science?

------------------

Aside from the fact that God appears to be a psychotic monster in his disregard for human suffering, the evidence for his existence is entirely apocryphal. This raises several issues. First, who would want to make contact with such a creature? The ways in which he works are supposed to be mysterious, but they're mysterious in the same way that randomness is mysterious. Further, the "evidence" for god appears to come from some misfiring of our human presumption that there is a human-like cause behind all phenomena.

There is no good reason for engaging in any wager about the benefits or even the physical reality of such a being. When there are sightings of Elvis we don't make such wagers. We dismiss the claimants as deluded and get on with our lives.

God belief says nothing about reality, but it says a lot about our psychology. We've only recently evolved from creatures who instinctively revere the alpha male. He's the smartest and the strongest. He doles out rewards for good behavior and punishes transgressors. We're careful not to challenge him, so we abase ourselves before him and tell him that we are unworthy. These tendencies are in our DNA, shared by our ape cousins to this day. They don't have the language to create metaphors and poetry to personify this instinctive imperative, but we do, and we call it God.

It's one thing to lose money on a bad bet. It's quite another to wager your intellectual integrity on a chimp's fantasy.

------------------

I understand from whence cometh Gutting's argument. I long ago gave up on God, but I find value in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha: values for living a worthwhile life, and values that increase my spiritual connection with the universe. People often mistake me for a Christian, but I tell them "No, I'm not. I know too much to believe the fairy tales of that religion; however, I do assess my life by the words of Jesus and Buddha, both of whom tell us to eschew a material-centered life and care for our fellow humans and refrain from activities that might soil our being and reduce our ability to be a good person." I try, not always successfully, to do that.

------------------

Atheism derives from what one knows: One knows that no evidence of God's existence has been found. An atheist does not assert definitively that God does not exist, because to assert it definitively would require a leap of faith. We cannot prove the non-existence of God. But an atheist will not take seriously the possibility that God exists until evidence turns up.

We cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, flying pigs, or the tooth fairy either. Therefore, we should not deny their existence. But that doesn't mean we should be agnostic about them. Agnosticism implies that we take their existence seriously.

 

Comments

[walker]

For an important application of Pascal's wager, see "What's the Worst That Could Happen?" Book and many good YouTube videos, all by a very clever Oregon HS science teacher,

[Brian Hines]

walker, yes, I blogged about what that book said about Pascal's wager. The link is in the second "here" in this post.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2010/05/great-logical-argument-for-not-believing-in-god.html

[777]

-

Other hells actually near you Brian

https://www.google.fr/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ssri%2Bschool%2Bshootings&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=2MsNVvWZEovf8gf1g6HIDw

Shouldn't you -with your talents on keyboard, convince your state Oregon, or your Land or the world
prevent the next co-pilot or president TOTALLY without empathy

777

[Brian Hines]

What are you talking about, 777? You often don't make any sense. You really don't make any sense now.

I've been advocating for gun control legislation for a long time. So don't give me any crap on that front. This is a sad day in Oregon. You shouldn't be using the tragedy to say...

Actually I have no idea what you're saying, or trying to say. So I'd like to suggest that if you can't say something reasonable and compassionate about the killings, don't say anything.

[tucson]

"Pascal's basic idea was that it makes sense to believe in God, because if you're right the benefits are eternal and unlimited, while if you're wrong you lose nothing"

--From the above it would seem that belief is a choice. Speaking personally, I can't force myself to believe that, for example, Jesus is my lord and savior. I could pretend to believe I love Jesus but is that good enough for God, to pretend? And since the Christian God knows what is sincerely in our hearts I can't fake this God out. He knows if I'm a phony believer. So, Pascal's wager does nothing for me. I'm either a believer or I'm not. It's not something I can calculate or strategize to hedge my bet.

Now, if the religion or way to salvation and bliss is entirely dependent on behavior rather than heartfelt belief, then someone might consider hedging their bet by adhering to certain rites and rituals or whatever the particular religion or way of believing in God required. Nothing to lose except the price of adhering to tenets and behaviors which could be especially OK if you enjoy the rites, rituals and/or behaviors.

also: "Gutting's distinction between atheism and agnosticism, which seems to basically line up with denying and doubting -- atheists deny, agnostics doubt -- is spurious."

--This really gets into hair-splitting but there is another type of agnosticism than doubting existence of God rather than denying it altogether. It is simply not knowing. This type of "agnostic", although they may not call themselves anything, just simply says that they don't know enough to deny or doubt. There is no evidence to them of God but there is also no evidence of no God. Nothing for them to go on at all. They just shrug their shoulders.

If you go into a room and there is nothing in it, it would be reasonable to say there is nothing there. But the room we are in is full of phenomena and perceived objects. It appears there is something here. We just don't know what it is.

[777]

I clicked on the link i gave above
and there were almost or over 100 results, even CNN Dr Gupta
ALL advocating that SSRI medications
are or might be responsible
NOT ARMS
but the nastiness about how using them
and 10

This reaction of you equals your "deleting" when I argued against vaccination
on your Salem Blog on yr request
and you could not believe that they create autism much more than when Pasteur started with it
hence you delete

777

[Jim Sutherland]

Brian and Sant Mat Exers and Skeptics, consider your options: choose your own Medicine, or poison.

choose between three theoretic alternatives: Annihilation, Absorption, and The individuality of the soul before and after death. It is to this last belief that we are led by reason; and it is this belief that has constituted the basis of all religions in all the ages of the world.
I choose to believe in the Combination of Allan Kardec's Spiritist Philosophy and Sant Mat.
Following taken from Kardec's book, Heaven and Hell.
"1. It is certain that we live, think, and act; it is no less certain that we shall die. But, on quitting the earth, whither shall we go? What will become of us? Shall we be better off, or shall we be worse off? Shall we continue to exist, or shall we cease to exist? “To be, or not to be,” is the alternative presented to us; it will be for always, or not at all; it will be everything, or nothing; we shall live on eternally, or we shall cease to live, once and forever. The alternative is well worth the consideration.
Every one feels the need of living, of loving, of being happy. Announce, to one who believes himself to be at the point of death, that his life is to be prolonged, that the hour of death is delayed—announce to him, moreover, that he is going to be happier than he has ever been—and his heart will beat high with joy and hope. But to what end does the human heart thus instinctively aspire after happiness, if a breath suffices to scatter its aspirations?
Can anything be more agonizing that the idea that we are doomed to utter and absolute destruction, that our dearest affections, our intelligence, our knowledge so laboriously acquired, are all to be dissolved, thrown away, and lost forever? Why should we strive to become wiser or better? Why should we lay any restraint on our passions? Why should we weary ourselves with effort and study, if our exertions are to bear no fruit? If, erelong, perhaps tomorrow, all that we have done is to be of no further use to us? Were such really our doom, the lot of mankind would be a thousand times worse than that of the brutes; for the brute lives thoroughly in the present, in the gratification of its bodily appetites, with no torturing anxiety, no tormenting aspiration, to impair its enjoyment of the passing hour. But a secret and invincible intuition tells us that such cannot be our destiny.
2. The belief in annihilation necessarily leads a man to concentrate all his thoughts on his present life; for what, in fact, could be more illogical than to trouble ourselves about a future which we do not believe will have any existence? And as he whose attention is thus exclusively directed to his present life naturally places his own interest above that of others, this belief is the most powerful stimulant to selfishness, and he who holds it is perfectly consistent with himself in saying: “Let us get the greatest possible amount of enjoyment out of this world while we are in it; let us secure all the pleasures which the present can offer, seeing that, after death, everything will be over with us; and let us hasten to make sure of our own enjoyment, for we know not how long our life may last.” Such as one is, moreover, equally consistent in arriving at this further conclusion—most dangerous to the well being of society—“Let us make sure of our enjoyment, no matter by what means; let our motto be: ‘Each for himself;’ the good things of life are the prize of the most adroit.”
If some few are restrained, by respect for public opinion, from carrying out this program to its full extent, what restraint is there for those who stand in no such awe of their neighbors? Who regard human law as a tyranny that is exercised only over those who are sufficiently wanting in cleverness to bring themselves within its reach, and who consequently apply all their ingenuity to evading alike its requirements and its penalties? If any doctrine merits the qualifications of pernicious and anti-social, it is assuredly that of annihilation, because it destroys the sentiments of solidarity and fraternity, sole basis of the social relations.
3. Let us suppose an entire nation to have acquired, in some way or other, the certainty that, at the end of a week, a month, or a year, it will be utterly destroyed, that not a single individual of its people will be left alive, that they will all be utterly annihilated, and that not a trace of their existence will remain; what, in such a case, would be the line of conduct adopted, by the people thus doomed to a certain and foreseen destruction, during the short time which they would still have to exist? Would they labor for their moral improvement, or for their instruction? Would they continue to work for their living? Would they scrupulously respect the rights, the property, and the life, of their neighbors? Would they submit to the laws of their country, or to any ascendancy, even to that parental authority, the most legitimate of all? Would they recognize the existence of any duty? Assuredly not. Well, —the social ruin which we have imagined, by the way of illustration, as overtaking an entire nation, is being effected, individually, from day to day, by the doctrine of annihilation. If the practical
consequences of this doctrine are not so disastrous to society as they might be, it is because, in the first place, there is, among the greater number of those whose vanity is flattered by the title of “free-thinker,” more of braggadocio than of absolute unbelief, more doubt than conviction, and more dread of annihilation than they care to show; and, in the second place, because those who really believe in annihilation are a very small minority, and are consequently influenced, in spite of themselves, by the contrary opinion, and held in check by the resistant forces of society and of the State: but, should absolute disbelief in a future existence ever be arrived at by the majority of mankind, the dissolution of society would necessarily follow. The propagation of the doctrine of annihilation would lead, inevitably, to this result.2
But whatever may be the consequences of the doctrine of annihilation, if that doctrine were true, it would have to be accepted; for, if annihilation were our destiny, neither opposing systems of philosophy, nor the moral and social ills that would result from our knowledge that such a destiny was awaiting us, could prevent our being annihilated. And it is useless to attempt to disguise from ourselves that skepticism, doubt, indifference, are gaining ground every day, notwithstanding the efforts of the various religious bodies to the contrary. But if the religious systems of the day are powerless against skepticism, it is because they lack the weapons necessary for combating the enemy; so that, if their teaching were allowed to remain in a state of immobility, they would, erelong, be inevitably worsted in the struggle. What is lacking to those systems—in this age of positivism, when men demand to understand before believing—is the confirmation of their doctrines by facts and by their concordance with the discoveries of Positive Science. If theoretic systems say white where facts say black, we must choose between an enlightened appreciation of evidence and a blind acceptance of arbitrary statements.
4. It is in this state of things that the phenomena of Spiritism are spontaneously developed in the order of Providence, and oppose a barrier against the invasion of skepticism, not only by argument, or by the prospect of the dangers which it reveals, but also by the production of physical facts which render the existence of the soul, and the reality of a future life, both palpable and visible.
Each human being is, undoubtedly, free to believe anything, or to believe nothing; but those who employ the ascendancy of their knowledge and position in propagating, among the masses, and especially among the rising generation, the negation of a future life, are sowing broadcast the seeds of social confusion and dissolution, and are incurring a heavy responsibility by doing so.
5. There is another doctrine that repudiates the qualification of “Materialist,” because it admits the existence of a principle distinct from matter; we allude to that which asserts that each individual soul is to be absorbed in the Universal Whole. According to this doctrine, each human being assimilates, at birth, a particle of this principle, which constitutes his soul and gives him life, intelligence and sentiment. At death, this soul returns to the common source, and is merged in infinity as a drop of water is merged in the ocean.
This doctrine is, undoubtedly, an advance upon that of pure and simple Materialism, inasmuch as it admits something more than matter; but its consequences are precisely the same. Whether a man, after death, is dissolved into nothingness, or plunged into a general reservoir, is all one, as far as he himself is concerned; "..................

Brian, If Ishwar Puri is correct about our Astral Body living 1-3 thousand years, depending on Karma, and our Causal body living another million years or more, then to me, Sach Khand most likely happens on other less dense, higher Spiritual plants that Earth, and if we do have to reincarnate, it will be on higher Spiritual Planets as taught by Khrishna in The Bhagavad Gita. It all lines up perfectly. You can have your individuality, and KEEP it, not loosing all the positive things and knowledge you have done in this life and past lives.

Don't give up, and throw out the baby with the bad karma bath water.

[tucson]

Jim provided a quote from Kardec:

"Can anything be more agonizing that the idea that we are doomed to utter and absolute destruction, that our dearest affections, our intelligence, our knowledge so laboriously acquired, are all to be dissolved, thrown away, and lost forever?"

--This of course is the motivation for much religious/spiritual belief. Even if the religion is irrational and without tangible, objective, empirical evidence of its veracity, people still choose to believe in order to assuage their fears which can amount to terror, even panic, in realizing their eventual eternal annihilation.

Kardec says: "Why should we strive to become wiser or better? Why should we lay any restraint on our passions? Why should we weary ourselves with effort and study, if our exertions are to bear no fruit? If, erelong, perhaps tomorrow, all that we have done is to be of no further use to us?"

--Certainty of annihilation does not mean that a person will succumb to moral depravity or give up striving and living. We are here now and we do have this life to live however long it will last. Some people may not believe in a spiritual or eternal meaning to life but they do manage to find meaning in the here and now via their vocations, pursuits and relationships which can provide enjoyment and/or benefit to others even if they know one day they may be really, really old and definitely really, really dead.

Most people, believers in God or not, also find that behaving justly towards others makes for a better life for themselves than being ruthless, selfish and unkind. Religion does not necessarily confer good character and being without it does not necessitate a descent into barbarity and a meaningless life. Good, ethical values can be taught as a functional way of life in lieu of religion or superstition.

Kardec writes: "There is another doctrine that repudiates the qualification of “Materialist,” because it admits the existence of a principle distinct from matter; we allude to that which asserts that each individual soul is to be absorbed in the Universal Whole. According to this doctrine, each human being assimilates, at birth, a particle of this principle, which constitutes his soul and gives him life, intelligence and sentiment. At death, this soul returns to the common source, and is merged in infinity as a drop of water is merged in the ocean. barbarity and a meaningless life."

--He is assuming that the "soul" is not already absorbed into the "Universal Whole". It may be that our sense of "I-ness" is merely a temporary condition, an illusion of our minds, but that our underlying essence was prior to, during, and after our present existence always absorbed in the Universal Whole.