The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager

[Silmarien]

No, you're on the other side, an adult capable of rationally making decisions, openly using this as a tool to try to convince others. My purpose here is, in part, trying to convince you not to. I think it is a bad thing to do.

That is a character attack and a lie. I have not tried to convince anyone of anything.

You're also now getting kind of defensive, but I make no apologies, I'm not here to butter you up. I'm here to tell you what I think.

Defensive, am I? What's next? Hysterical?

I really am just not interested in playing your games. Go fight with someone else.

 

[variant]

That is a character attack and a lie. I have not tried to convince anyone of anything.

You've been arguing for the wager the whole time.

Defensive, am I? What's next? Hysterical?

I really am just not interested in playing your games. Go fight with someone else.

Yes defensive. You clearly don't like my criticism to the point that you've now accused me of trying to emotionally manipulate you.

I called you "a bit credulous" because you don't see a problem with how metaphysical claims can be made up but not checked. That counts as "gas lighting" apparently.

I've merely criticized your ideas harshly as I see them that way.

 

[Silmarien]

You've been arguing for the wager the whole time.

No, I've been arguing that it's situationally effective, which it is. That doesn't mean that people ought to accept it, but it ought to be recognized that there are situations in which it does work.

Now, if you think that pointing out that a particular piece of logical reasoning can be valid in certain circumstances amounts to trying to use it as a tool to manipulate people, I think you need to reconsider how you think about manipulation. That is far off base.

Yes defensive.

I put a high value on mutual respect in conversation, and trying to hold a conversation with someone engaging in constant abuse can be taxing. Given that you seemed to have genuine issues with coercion, I thought that there was a chance that you might be receptive if I pointed out the manipulative nature of your own behavior. Apparently not, since instead you doubled down on the tricks of the trade--I particularly like how being abusive is part of your self-expression, so your victim ought to simply sit back and accept it. That was quite clever.

Seriously, are we done yet? I really am not interested in going around in circles with you.

 

[variant]

No, I've been arguing that it's situationally effective, which it is. That doesn't mean that people ought to accept it, but it ought to be recognized that there are situations in which it does work.

Now, if you think that pointing out that a particular piece of logical reasoning can be valid in certain circumstances amounts to trying to use it as a tool to manipulate people, I think you need to reconsider how you think about manipulation. That is far off base.

"It's situational effective" is arguing for it's use. I don't think I mis-characterized you there.

I am arguing for not using it, and further, I think that it's general use makes the religion in question look bad (well worse is my view).

I put a high value on mutual respect in conversation, and trying to hold a conversation with someone engaging in constant abuse can be taxing. Given that you seemed to have genuine issues with coercion, I thought that there was a chance that you might be receptive if I pointed out the manipulative nature of your own behavior. Apparently not, since instead you doubled down on the tricks of the trade--I particularly like how being abusive is part of your self-expression, so your victim ought to simply sit back and accept it. That was quite clever.

Well your sudden victim-hood routine isn't especially clever.

I didn't intend to manipulate you, and have not been making any attempt.

My purpose here is responding to your arguments with my own.

I don't see any of what you pointed out as manipulative. A genuine lack of respect for religious ideas should have been very evident from my first post.

If it's all the same to you I am going to continue to lack much respect for such ideas. Heck, I'm going to do it anyway even if it deeply offends you.

Seriously, are we done yet? I really am not interested in going around in circles with you.

You don't have to talk to me or justify yourself to me in any way.

 

[zippy2006]

He wrote stuff down, so yes he is attempting to manipulate everyone he wished to persuade. That's the power of the written word, you don't have to be there.

He and everyone who promotes such thinking is who I am accusing of shoddy emotional manipulation.

You sort of lost the game as soon as you (explicitly) conflated manipulation with persuasion. If rational argumentation is 'emotional manipulation' then Pascal and Silmarien are manipulators of the worst kind.

If, however, we want to look at genuine emotional manipulation, we would do well to mind the person who, instead of responding to arguments in kind, resorts ad nauseum to ad hominem tactics such as spurious accusations of "shoddy emotional manipulation." At best it's empty rhetoric.

 

[variant]

You sort of lost the game as soon as you (explicitly) conflated manipulation with persuasion. If rational argumentation is 'emotional manipulation' then Pascal and Silmarien are manipulators of the worst kind.

Well no, the type of persuasion here is what makes it manipulation.

I think I was pretty darn explicit about that.

If, however, we want to look at genuine emotional manipulation, we would do well to mind the person who, instead of responding to arguments in kind, resorts ad nauseum to ad hominem tactics such as spurious accusations of "shoddy emotional manipulation." At best it's empty rhetoric.

Oh yeah, religion obviously doesn't engage in any of that.

Pascals wager is more of an exclamation point to the type of stuff that religion routinely tells, very small children.

I guess the long history of religious indoctrination of small children, telling them they have to believe or they wont go to heaven, or worse, end up in hell can be swept aside as "empty rhetoric" now cause it's inconvenient.

Apparently only deep respect and bunnies and flowers are the only way to discuss how religion operates in the world.

I guess I can remove from myself the experience of speaking with believers and having them bring up pascals wager, or the fear they have of hell, or desire of heaven and just consider that none of that ever happened.

Yeah, obviously, nothing "shoddy" going on here at all (you should hear what I would call it if given the freedom to use vulgarity).

But no, of course not, it is I the terrible atheist who points out that this is a shoddy batch of emotional manipulation who is the villain of course.

You guys are terrible fun you know that right?

 

[Silmarien]

"It's situational effective" is arguing for it's use. I don't think I mis-characterized you there.

I am arguing for not using it, and further, I think that it's general use makes the religion in question look bad (well worse is my view).

Why should I not use it if it is actually applicable in my situation? It would be illogical to reject sound reasoning, and I see no moral duty to be illogical. Furthermore, if it is in fact applicable to me, that means that it is by definition situationally effective. If it is situational effective, why should I not say so? That would be lying.

You either think that Pascal's Wager is not even situationally effective, in which case you think you know my situation better than I do, or you think that even if it might be situationally effective, I have some sort of moral duty to lie in the service of your personal agenda. Either way, your complaint here is extremely problematic.

I don't see any of what you pointed out as manipulative. A genuine lack of respect for religious ideas should have been very evident from my first post.

Oh, none of this is new to me--you have been abusive, disrespectful, and condescending in previous threads as well. I've been cautious in replying to you in general here, since I expect to be treated terribly for the crime of disagreeing with you. That made your concern about coercion and manipulation surprising.

Mockery is a pretty classic form of intimidation--it's used to keep people silent. Constant resort to abuse and ridicule makes conversation partners less likely to want to engage with what you are actually saying, so you effectively bully them into submission. It's a clearly manipulative way to carry out any sort of conversation.

It is fine to lack respect for a specific position, but I don't see why it would be necessary to express that in the form of verbal abuse. Especially on a forum like this--you're reinforcing negative stereotypes about atheists by behaving like this. In this sort of thread it's almost ironic, since one of the underlying questions is whether atheism is in some way a morally problematic position. Your behavior here would actually suggest that it might be.

If it's all the same to you I am going to continue to lack much respect for such ideas. Heck, I'm going to do it anyway even if it deeply offends you.

Oh, I expected as much. Cheers.

 

[variant]

Why should I not use it if it is actually applicable in my situation? It would be illogical to reject sound reasoning, and I see no moral duty to be illogical. Furthermore, if it is in fact applicable to me, that means that it is by definition situationally effective. If it is situational effective, why should I not say so? That would be lying.

You either think that Pascal's Wager is not even situationally effective, in which case you think you know my situation better than I do, or you think that even if it might be situationally effective, I have some sort of moral duty to lie in the service of your personal agenda. Either way, your complaint here is extremely problematic.

I don't think it's a good reason for you to believe anything.

Oh, none of this is new to me--you have been abusive, disrespectful, and condescending in previous threads as well. I've been cautious in replying to you in general here, since I expect to be treated terribly for the crime of disagreeing with you. That made your concern about coercion and manipulation surprising.

Mockery is a pretty classic form of intimidation--it's used to keep people silent. Constant resort to abuse and ridicule makes conversation partners less likely to want to engage with what you are actually saying, so you effectively bully them into submission. It's a clearly manipulative way to carry out any sort of conversation.

It is fine to lack respect for a specific position, but I don't see why it would be necessary to express that in the form of verbal abuse. Especially on a forum like this--you're reinforcing negative stereotypes about atheists by behaving like this. In this sort of thread it's almost ironic, since one of the underlying questions is whether atheism is in some way a morally problematic position. Your behavior here would actually suggest that it might be.

See, I don't think I've actually treated you all that poorly, so the criticism feels flat.

How exactly do you think I am supposed to respectfully submit the idea that the religion I am criticizing routinely resorts to emotional manipulation?

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think it's a good reason for you to believe anything.

Why not?

See, I don't think I've actually treated you all that poorly, so the criticism feels flat.

How exactly do you think I am supposed to respectfully submit the idea that the religion I am criticizing routinely resorts to emotional manipulation?

Oh, the problem isn't the claim that the religion routinely resorts to emotional manipulation. The complication is that a measured study of the religion would be required to determine what might and might not actually be manipulative, and your disrespect for religious ideas manifests in the sort of mockery that is geared towards making that discussion impossible to have.

So instead we can go around accusing each other of manipulation. That's fun too.

 

[variant]

Why not?

I haven't been clear on this? See the first post I made in this thread.

The only way I could reconcile our positions on the subject is if you somehow rate the possibility that you aren't begin lied to in a different way than I do.

So, why do you think it's likely to be true?

Oh, the problem isn't the claim that the religion routinely resorts to emotional manipulation. The complication is that a measured study of the religion would be required to determine what might and might not actually be manipulative,

You think we need a study rather than a simple examination of the tenants of every major religion?

and your disrespect for religious ideas manifests in the sort of mockery that is geared towards making that discussion impossible to have.

My disrespect for religious ideas manifests in disrespect for religious ideas. I don't exactly see how to fix that.

I apologize if I am making things harder on you personally then. I don't mean my disrespect for religion to be taken as a personal disrespect, just a general frustrating long term relationship with people and how and why they believe what they do.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh yeah, religion obviously doesn't engage in any of that.

That's really all you're looking to do, isn't it? Take pot shots at religion? You're looking for a punching bag, not a discussion forum. This place is meant for rational discourse. (And needless to say, the tu quoque fails in this case.)

 

[variant]

That's really all you're looking to do, isn't it? Take pot shots at religion? You're looking for a punching bag, not a discussion forum. This place is meant for rational discourse. (And needless to say, the tu quoque fails in this case.)

It's not a tu quogue fallacy because I am just pointing out that my claims can't be empty rhetoric if what I am talking about happens all the time with religion.

Descriptions, not pot shots. Descriptions of what in my opinion, religion is like. In this case descriptions of what religious doctrines that pascals wager is based upon and the morality associated with it.

Or, am I only allowed to have opinions that flatter religious thought?

 

[zippy2006]

Descriptions. Of what religion is like. In this case descriptions of what religious doctrines that pascals wager is based upon and the morality associated with it.

Or, am I only allowed to have opinions that flatter religious thought?

Feel free to give a reasonably precise definition of "emotional manipulation" and explain why the Wager succumbs. Until that happens it's just name-calling.

 

[variant]

Feel free to give a reasonably precise definition of "emotional manipulation" and explain why the Wager succumbs. Until that happens it's just name-calling.

I think I have been pretty clear on why I think the idea is emotional manipulation.

 

[zippy2006]

I think I have been pretty clear...

Yes, that is a very common trait in humans.

 

[variant]

Yes, that is a very common trait in humans.

Well I mean I've said quite a bit on the subject already. If you have any problems, comments or questions; feel free to quote me and I will be happy to expand upon them.

 

[zippy2006]

Well I mean I've said quite a bit on the subject already. If you have any problems, comments or questions; feel free to quote me and I will be happy to expand upon them.

You haven't done so in the last couple of pages, but if you aren't willing to (potentially) repeat yourself that's fine with me.

 

[variant]

You haven't done so in the last couple of pages, but if you aren't willing to (potentially) repeat yourself that's fine with me.

Feel free to engage where you think I've gone wrong. I'm not interested in building a long form rationalist argument from scratch here.

My view is that setting metaphysical ideas that we can't demonstrate as a sort of game theory involving the possibility of their promises and punishments shows that those ideas are likely just manipulation, since we can make up any ideas and we can certainly make up ones that could be appealing even if likely false, or horrifying even if likely false.

We might even surmise that human beings, those humans, who are good at manipulation in general might do such a thing in order to manipulate one another.

The emotional aspect comes in where we choose ideas that appeal directly to peoples basic existential horror, and make sure the real answer lies outside their ability to ever answer on good evidence. These ideas would be chosen specifically for this reason, to appeal to peoples deepest emotions, desires, and psychology in the case where Pascals wager is in fact referring to ideas that were generated by humans.

It becomes downright abusive to use this sort of tactic on a small child that can't defend themselves.

Pascal of course doesn't really address WHY the ideas may be set up in this way but it's central to the problem.

If we assume the whole thing is true and God really does cherish belief so much that it would reward us eternally or damn us. Then we're left with a God that is entirely OK using second hand threats and rewards to coerce people into beliefs they would not otherwise believe for good reason.

So, either people are manipulating by toying with our emotions, or God is OK with people using manipulative arguments that toy with our emotions to coerce us into belief.

That second one might get the result you want but it doesn't sound particularly moral to me.

 

[zippy2006]

Feel free to engage where you think I've gone wrong. I'm not interested in building a long form rationalist argument from scratch here.

The problem is that you haven't given an argument at all, you've only asserted an ad hominem. For simplicity's sake I will quote your first four references to manipulation in this thread:

It makes a lot of sense to me that people who make up Gods and want you to believe in them might appeal to your basic fear of your own mortality. Where it doesn't make sense would be for an actual God to try to manipulate you into belief when it has the option of simply demonstrating it's existence. That God is a little sick in my opinion.

The idea of the wager, and any attempt to take it seriously should have us recoiling in disgust from it's framing of the divine as a thinly veiled psychological attempt at emotional manipulation, aimed at control over others.

Part of Christian theology is the manipulative psychological attempt to get you into this sort of benefit-risk assessment in order to convince you, the wager simply highlights this fact.

Its pretty seriously unethical to psychologically manipulate people, with their most basic fears to do as you wish instead of presenting them with good evidence and good reasons.

...Like I said: lots of assertions and nothing even approaching what was suggested in this post. It only gets worse as the thread progresses. Granted, clarity carries with it the the risk of vulnerability. As long as no one knows what you're saying you can't be caught saying anything irrational. The only trouble is that you don't seem to be saying anything at all.

A basic problem that you might see if you did try to give an actual argument is that appealing to fear or danger is not always manipulation. If I make use of Susie's fear of spiders to cause her to do something she would not otherwise do after artificially placing a spider in her environment, that would be fear- and danger-based manipulation. If I tell my son to avoid rattlesnakes because their venom is deadly, the prescription is fear- and danger-based, but it is not manipulation. It is merely a candid argument. Conflating those two possibilities is rather lazy.

 

[variant]

The problem is that you haven't given an argument at all, you've only asserted an ad hominem. For simplicity's sake I will quote your first four references to manipulation in this thread:

...Like I said: lots of assertions and nothing even approaching what was suggested in this post. It only gets worse as the thread progresses. Granted, clarity carries with it the the risk of vulnerability. As long as no one knows what you're saying you can't be caught saying anything irrational. The only trouble is that you don't seem to be saying anything at all.

A basic problem that you might see if you did try to give an actual argument is that appealing to fear or danger is not always manipulation. If I make use of Susie's fear of spiders to cause her to do something she would not otherwise do after artificially placing a spider in her environment, that would be fear- and danger-based manipulation. If I tell my son to avoid rattlesnakes because their venom is deadly, the prescription is fear- and danger-based, but it is not manipulation. It is merely a candid argument. Conflating those two possibilities is rather lazy.

I've edited my last post to contain what I think is a good summary of my position.