New thought about Pascal's Wager

[SinaloaPaisa]

If you say so. Perhaps I misunderstood the point you wanted to make.

You did want to make a point, didn't you?


I just responded to the post you made... which was anything but "absolute broad stroking".

But, ok. It could happen. I still think it would be highly unlikely that someone could change their "true belief" based on pure participation in something that you do not have a "true belief" in to start with... but again: if you say so.

You you agree with me?!? Lmao What are you even arguing.

So what? The same would be true for a "true unbelief" then. If someone - for whatever broad reasons - had to live their life as an atheist, perhaps, in some situations, it would be possible that he became a "true atheist".

What would that have to do with Pascal's wager?

Sure he could become a true atheist. What does it have to do with Pascal's Wager? Lets recap, people that it is not logical because people can not fake or truly change their beliefs. Which we already determined was possible.

Weeeeellll.... there are some people - a few perhaps, very few - who think that what is true does matter, at least a little.

But I wouldn't want to discourage you from believing otherwise... no matter how crazy or unusual that may seem.

But it doesn't in the context we are talking about. Just because someone thinks something doesn't make it so.

I don't think that is a very good way to live your life in a society filled with other human beings... well, expect if you happen to live in a surrounding where human interactions are irrelevant and your needs are taken care of by well-meaning people who make sure you take your medicin regularly.

Yes, again I agree. This is how a change of beliefs usually happens.

But as I tried to explain: this is true for every kind of belief.

And that would mean that it leaves us in exactly the same position as before in regard to Pascal's wager: it doesn't tell you what is true.

So your whole point was to make the observation that people can change their beliefs?`

Pascal's Wager is not about what is true or not true. Pascal's Wager is about assessing the options and picking the best one given the possibility of outcomes for each option.

My whole point was to show how the one of the main counter arguments for Pascals Wager was invalid. i.e. The counter that one can not fake belief or change their belief. Which as we have determined is not true.

 

[Freodin]

You you agree with me?!? Lmao What are you even arguing.

Here, I am not arguing anything. I am trying to understand what your position is, and where it is going to lead us.

Sure he could become a true atheist. What does it have to do with Pascal's Wager? Lets recap, people that it is not logical because people can not fake or truly change their beliefs. Which we already determined was possible.

This is an incorrect interpretation of people's objection to Pascal's Wager. I will come back to that.

But it doesn't in the context we are talking about. Just because someone thinks something doesn't make it so.

Pascal's Wager is not about what is true or not true. Pascal's Wager is about assessing the options and picking the best one given the possibility of outcomes for each option.

I am confused.
You say that, in our context, it doesn't matter what is true. And in the next sentence you say that people's opinions do not determine what is true... which would mean it does matter what is true, not what people think is true.

So what is it? Does truth matter when "assessing the options and picking the best one given the possibility of outcomes for each option"... or does it not?
How would you "assess" anything, if truth didn't matter?

My whole point was to show how the one of the main counter arguments for Pascals Wager was invalid. i.e. The counter that one can not fake belief or change their belief. Which as we have determined is not true.

As I said above, that is an incorrect interpretation of this "main counter argument".

P W states, simplified: Belief is better than unbelief, because you might be rewarded/punished for belief/unbelief, but not vice versa.

The objection that you try to show as "invalid" here now points out that, while it may be correct that belief is the better option, it doesn't do anything to enable belief.
Someone who doesn't believe would have to "fake" it... which wouldn't cast a good light at the deity who accepted that... or hope for the (unlikely?) chance that such a fake belief would lead to true belief, somehow.

This isn't "picking the best option, given the possibility of outcomes" at all... this is wishful thinking!


As I see it, this "just go along with religion... and perhaps you might like it and find 'true faith'" argumentation is just a way for believers not to have to deal with questions. Who cares if the fake believer finds faith, or even gets it right? The important part is that he doesn't disturb the believers with his doubts, isn't it?

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Here, I am not arguing anything. I am trying to understand what your position is, and where it is going to lead us.



This is an incorrect interpretation of people's objection to Pascal's Wager. I will come back to that.



I am confused.
You say that, in our context, it doesn't matter what is true. And in the next sentence you say that people's opinions do not determine what is true... which would mean it does matter what is true, not what people think is true.

I have no clue how you come to that assertion.

So what is it? Does truth matter when "assessing the options and picking the best one given the possibility of outcomes for each option"... or does it not?
How would you "assess" anything, if truth didn't matter?

We have no way of knowing what is true and what is not true in regards to Pascals Wager. Pascals Wager is totally on the basis of not knowing the truth. Hypotheticals. It is looking at the possible outcomes and determining which one is most desirable / less risk. If we knew the truth then there would be nothing to Wager.

As I said above, that is an incorrect interpretation of this "main counter argument".

Which as I pointed out above you are incorrect.

P W states, simplified: Belief is better than unbelief, because you might be rewarded/punished for belief/unbelief, but not vice versa.

The objection that you try to show as "invalid" here now points out that, while it may be correct that belief is the better option, it doesn't do anything to enable belief.
Someone who doesn't believe would have to "fake" it... which wouldn't cast a good light at the deity who accepted that... or hope for the (unlikely?) chance that such a fake belief would lead to true belief, somehow.

Belief alone won't do anything to enable belief. Sure. No one is saying that. What I am saying is one can develop true belief.

This isn't "picking the best option, given the possibility of outcomes" at all... this is wishful thinking!

You have to pick the best option first before you get to the wishful thinking.

This is 1) Pick the best option and 2) Try to form true belief

Anything else is irrelevant to the point of Pascals Wager.

As I see it, this "just go along with religion... and perhaps you might like it and find 'true faith'" argumentation is just a way for believers not to have to deal with questions. Who cares if the fake believer finds faith, or even gets it right? The important part is that he doesn't disturb the believers with his doubts, isn't it?

And the way you see it is incorrect.

It is a way of hedging your bets and seeking the best possible out come for one's self.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Freodin]

I have no clue how you come to that assertion.




We have no way of knowing what is true and what is not true in regards to Pascals Wager. Pascals Wager is totally on the basis of not knowing the truth. Hypotheticals. It is looking at the possible outcomes and determining which one is most desirable / less risk. If we knew the truth then there would be nothing to Wager.






Which as I pointed out above you are incorrect.



Belief alone won't do anything to enable belief. Sure. No one is saying that. What I am saying is one can develop true belief.




You have to pick the best option first before you get to the wishful thinking.

This is 1) Pick the best option and 2) Try to form true belief

Well, that is exactly what wishful thinking is: pick what you believe is best and believe that it is true.

Anything else is irrelevant to the point of Pascals Wager.




And the way you see it is incorrect.

It is a way of hedging your bets and seeking the best possible out come for one's self.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If we do not have a way to find out what is true, there is no way to "pick the best option". You have no way to know what IS the best option. All you have left is the option that you wish is the best... wishful thinking.

It invalidates the whole wager.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Well, that is exactly what wishful thinking is: pick what you believe is best and believe that it is true.

The probability of x does nothing to counter the fact that x is the best option and is obtainable.

If we do not have a way to find out what is true, there is no way to "pick the best option". You have no way to know what IS the best option. All you have left is the option that you wish is the best... wishful thinking.

It invalidates the whole wager.

Incorrect.

Pascals Wager operates under a comparison of two outcomes. Assuming one of them is true and the other not.

Option 1 - Atheist / No Christian God

You die and thats it. You go back to how you were before you were born. No conscious. No reward, no punishment.

Option 2 - Christian / Is Christian God

You die and are send to heaven or hell. Rewards and potentially the worst punishment.

There is no "option that you wish is the best". One can clearly see in the above illustration that option 2 is the best.

The only wishing one is doing is wishing they can develop true belief.

 

[Freodin]

The probability of x does nothing to counter the fact that x is the best option and is obtainable.

"The fact"... that would be something that is true, correct? But you claim that you don't know what is true in this context.

Incorrect.

Pascals Wager operates under a comparison of two outcomes. Assuming one of them is true and the other not.

Assuming that one of them is true, and the other is false.

Assuming that something is true based on the desirablity of the outcome... that is wishful thinking!

Option 1 - Atheist / No Christian God

You die and thats it. You go back to how you were before you were born. No conscious. No reward, no punishment.

Option 2 - Christian / Is Christian God

You die and are send to heaven or hell. Rewards and potentially the worst punishment.

There is no "option that you wish is the best". One can clearly see in the above illustration that option 2 is the best.

"If you are a Christian, you go to Heaven."
Is that something that you know to be true, or something that you wish to be true?

You have already stated that you think knowledge of truth is not applicable in this context... so the choice of options is already wishful thinking.

The only wishing one is doing is wishing they can develop true belief.

Limiting the wager to these two options, without the possibility to know if that is true... that is wishful thinking.

But now we have come into the second major objection to Pascal's Wager: the (arbitrary) limitation of the options. That isn't even what we were discussing before.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The probability of x does nothing to counter the fact that x is the best option and is obtainable.




Incorrect.

Pascals Wager operates under a comparison of two outcomes. Assuming one of them is true and the other not.

Option 1 - Atheist / No Christian God

You die and thats it. You go back to how you were before you were born. No conscious. No reward, no punishment.

Option 2 - Christian / Is Christian God

You die and are send to heaven or hell. Rewards and potentially the worst punishment.

There is no "option that you wish is the best". One can clearly see in the above illustration that option 2 is the best.

The only wishing one is doing is wishing they can develop true belief.

What about option 3 or 4 or 5 ... ?

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

"The fact"... that would be something that is true, correct? But you claim that you don't know what is true in this context.

No you are confused. The fact is that there are two possible outcomes. Which is true. I have never seen a Pascals Wager involving more than 2 options at one time. Which one is better under the assumption we are unsure which of the two out comes is true. Pascals Wager is hypothetical you realize right?

Assuming that one of them is true, and the other is false.

Assuming that something is true based on the desirablity of the outcome... that is wishful thinking!

That does nothing to counter Pascals Wager. Wishful thinking or not.

"If you are a Christian, you go to Heaven."
Is that something that you know to be true, or something that you wish to be true?

That is what the Bible states. Whether its true to not is irrelevant to Pascals Wager. Personally, I wish it were true. Living forever in heaven sounds nice.

You have already stated that you think knowledge of truth is not applicable in this context... so the choice of options is already wishful thinking.

Limiting the wager to these two options, without the possibility to know if that is true... that is wishful thinking.

Again wishful thinking does nothing to counter Pascals Wager.

But now we have come into the second major objection to Pascal's Wager: the (arbitrary) limitation of the options. That isn't even what we were discussing before.

You need to take that up with Pascal himself. His wager, i.e. Pascal's Wager revolves around two options. Now you are totally free to pick and choose which options you want to measure.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

What about option 3 or 4 or 5 ... ?

What about them? You are free to make a Pascals Wager using any options you desire.

 

[Freodin]

No you are confused. The fact is that there are two possible outcomes. Which is true. I have never seen a Pascals Wager involving more than 2 options at one time. Which one is better under the assumption we are unsure which of the two out comes is true. Pascals Wager is hypothetical you realize right?

The fact that there are two hypothetical options in a hypothetical wager. You cannot get more factual than that.

Excuse me while I go and laugh a little.

That does nothing to counter Pascals Wager. Wishful thinking or not.




That is what the Bible states. Whether its true to not is irrelevant to Pascals Wager. Personally, I wish it were true. Living forever in heaven sounds nice.



Again wishful thinking does nothing to counter Pascals Wager.

I don't know what you think it would mean to "counter" Pascal's Wager.

What these objections manage to achive though is: they show that Pascal's Wager is irrelevant in the real world.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

The fact that there are two hypothetical options in a hypothetical wager. You cannot get more factual than that.

Excuse me while I go and laugh a little.

It is a given Pascal's Wager is hypothetical. You are gonna laugh at something we all know from the beginning? You ok buddy?

I don't know what you think it would mean to "counter" Pascal's Wager.

What these objections manage to achive though is: they show that Pascal's Wager is irrelevant in the real world.

To counter Pascal's Wager one would need to show how it is not valid. For example, if it were true one could not fake belief and change to true belief then that would destroy Pascal's Wager.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

To counter Pascal's Wager one would need to show how it is not valid. For example, if it were true one could not fake belief and change to true belief then that would destroy Pascal's Wager.

It's not valid because it's a false dichotomy.

 

[Black Dog]

Sure he could become a true atheist. What does it have to do with Pascal's Wager? Lets recap, people that it is not logical because people can not fake or truly change their beliefs. Which we already determined was possible.

But the person has to have a reason to do so. AFAIK, you can't just tell yourself "I now believe in Santa Claus", and you believe in Santa. So if nothing comes along that convinces an atheist to believe, then they can't truly change their beliefs.

 

[Black Dog]

Pascals Wager operates under a comparison of two outcomes. Assuming one of them is true and the other not.

Option 1 - Atheist / No Christian God

You die and thats it. You go back to how you were before you were born. No conscious. No reward, no punishment.

Option 2 - Christian / Is Christian God

You die and are send to heaven or hell. Rewards and potentially the worst punishment.

There is no "option that you wish is the best". One can clearly see in the above illustration that option 2 is the best.

The only wishing one is doing is wishing they can develop true belief.

The problem is, Pascal doesn't consider of the third option: There is a different God. Think of it as a sporting event, Pascal has covered Team A wins, and he's covered Team B wins, but he hasn't covered a "tie" in a sporting event. Under that option, it's probably best not to have chosen a God, because monotheistic Gods tend to get downright vengeful when someone worships the wrong God.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

It's not valid because it's a false dichotomy.

Prove how it invalids Pascals Wager.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

But the person has to have a reason to do so. AFAIK, you can't just tell yourself "I now believe in Santa Claus", and you believe in Santa. So if nothing comes along that convinces an atheist to believe, then they can't truly change their beliefs.

Sure. No one is disputing one needs a reason.

Whats your point?

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

The problem is, Pascal doesn't consider of the third option: There is a different God. Think of it as a sporting event, Pascal has covered Team A wins, and he's covered Team B wins, but he hasn't covered a "tie" in a sporting event. Under that option, it's probably best not to have chosen a God, because monotheistic Gods tend to get downright vengeful when someone worships the wrong God.

It is not meant to.

However, you can also you the 3rd option.

After determining Christianity is the better option than Atheism you are more than welcome to do Christianity vs (insert any other religion or God you like).

 

[Black Dog]

It is not meant to.

In addition you can also you the 3rd option.

After determining Christianity is the better option than Atheism you are more than welcome to to Christianity vs (insert any other religion or God you like).

I understand it's not meant to include a third option. But the basis of the wager is how best to save your soul from eternal damnation, so to exclude one of the possibilities was short sighted of Pascal.

What if the God that really exists is non-Christian, hates anyone that worships the "false God of Christianity", and will torture Christians for all eternity. In other words, he is similar to Yahweh that way. But this God that really exists thinks Atheism is awesome, and insists that Atheists get everything and anything their little hearts desire. So believing in Christianity carries harsh penalties, but being an Atheist garnishes great rewards.

 

[Black Dog]

Sure. No one is disputing one needs a reason.

Whats your point?

LOL, that was it. Sorry, I read a bunch of your previous posts, and couldn't see that point raised. My bad.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Prove how it invalids Pascals Wager.

I just did. You might want to look up "false dichotomy".