Inverse Pascal's wager

[dawiyd]

Assume there are two religions in the world, A and B. A and B cannot be right as the same time (i.e. on rejects the divinity of the other). Both A and B have some form of eternal punishment for non-believers yet a loving God. Members of A and B have proclaimed to have experienced their respective God in various ways.

Which should you choose?

If you decide based solely on appeal to the story, you are making a random descision. Just because the story of A sounds better, or because you identify more with the experiences/suffering in the book, this still doesn't mean you are right.

If you decide based on a sudden feeling of the "divine" then how can you be sure if you are feeling experiences from A's God, B's God, or simply a mind trick.

If you decide based on the population of believers, you are taking a random risk since for ANY religion, at some point the number of believers is small and in the minority.

If you decide based on the historical accuracy or age of the text, realize that the only important parts are if the miracles in question occured, not if the events within the text occured. Just because a book says an invisible UFOs helped the allies in WW2, does not mean it is true.

If you decide based on message/morality, then again you make a random risk, since whatever you conceive as "moral" is not necessarily the moral chosen by the correct God.

If you decide based on some "prophecy" that seems fulfilled by the text of that religion, realize that even though A may have a correct prophecy (assuming it is simply not overwhelmingly vague), B will have one or two correct prophecies just by chance. The recent movie "Omen" was able to successfully interpret several prophecies to fit recent events just for the appeal of the movie. Keep this in mind while evaluating prophecies.

If you decide based on "witnessed" miracles, remember that for nearly all of them you have no direct proof that God A or B was responsible (simply praying for A does not mean A answered).

Now, introduce religions C, D, E, and F. These are incompatible with A and B. Keep goinging until you have a variable representing every belief or religion.

Inverse Pascal's Wager: With the threat of eternal pain for missing the correct religion, is there any reason to engage in a russian-roulette form of blind faith?

 

[Abbadon]

Pascal's wager is really meant as an arguement agaisnt atheism, which at the time and place of it's origins, amounted to argueing for Christianity. It's not an arguement for Christianity.

But I'd say practice a synthesis of A and B. Yes, it'd be contradictory, but any following of an idea that gets big enough becomes contradictory.

 

[moogoob]

What if all faiths are right, but simply say the same thing in many different ways?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

What if all faiths are right, but simply say the same thing in many different ways?

Wow, moogoob has hope.


The answer to all of your proposed situations is the same and can be stated simply.. always do the best you can and try to correct any errors that you find along the way. This is almost the definition of the Holy Spirit (almost).

As to your reverse concern;

Assuming that some threat of pain and death was the apparent issue, then making the best decision would be paramount and trying to make no decision by avoid the threat of being wrong is making a decision of more certainly being wrong by the preachings of ALL of them (higher probability of error by assuming that everyone before you were idiots).

You do the "best you can" by very carefully considering all that you consciously know, spiritual feel (subconscious), instinctively sense, and have time to discover before whatever time limits run out.

But if you do that, then you will actually be following one of those religions already, so what's the issue?

 

[Nightson]

Which should you choose?

None of them.

It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for supposing it to be true.
~ Bertrand Russell

 

[JonF]

Inverse Pascal's Wager: With the threat of eternal pain for missing the correct religion, is there any reason to engage in a russian-roulette form of blind faith?

Let us explore this question. Like Pascal’s wager we can divide all possible choices into a partition but this time there are five possibilities:

A) You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God)
B) You choose a religion and it is false (there is no God)
C) You choose a religion and it is false (there is a God)
D) You don’t choose a religion and there is no God
E) You don’t choose a religion and there is A God.

Now we supposed eternal punishment, so what does this entail for our choices?

A) There is eternal (thus infinite by Pascal’s assessment) reward
B) There is finite reward or punishment depending on circumstances. For the sake of this argument we will assume great punishment (but finite).
C) There is eternal (and thus infinite by Pascal’s assessment) punishment.
D) There is finite gain or punishment depending on the circumstances of your life; for the sake of argument we will assume there is large reward (but finite)
E) You don’t choose a religion and there is a God, this implies eternal punishment (and thus infinite).

Pascal’s wager assumes that each of these possibilities has a finite chance of being actual. Now, again for the sake of argument we will assume that choice #B and #D have a large probability of being actual. While choices #E and #C are vastly more likely than choice #A. Let us now do a cost/benefit analysis of our situation.

I. You can choose a religion and this be left with:
#A: infinite gain, small chance
#B: finite loss, strong chance
#C: infinite loss, medium chance

II. You can choose to not believe in any religion an thus be left with:
#D: finite gain, strong chance.
#E: infinite loss, medium chance.

Clearly if we were just assessing cost and benefit I. is the way to go. Both contain an infinite loss with medium chance, thus the difference between the two is:

I*
#A: infinite gain, small chance
#B: finite loss, strong chance

II*
#D: finite gain, strong chance.

Pascal’s whole point is comparison between the finite and infinite, the finite always will as long as they have a finite chance. Since I* has a chance for infinite gain and only risk finite loss it completely trumps II* which has only finite gain as the logical choice.

So good old Pascal still says we should choose a religion. You gave us a good list of possible criteria to base our choice on. Now of course this list won’t give you knowledge if the choice made is the right one. But if we go by Pascal’s wager choosing is the right course of action.

 

[elman]

Assume there are two religions in the world, A and B. A and B cannot be right as the same time (i.e. on rejects the divinity of the other). Both A and B have some form of eternal punishment for non-believers yet a loving God. Members of A and B have proclaimed to have experienced their respective God in various ways.

Which should you choose?

If you decide based solely on appeal to the story, you are making a random descision. Just because the story of A sounds better, or because you identify more with the experiences/suffering in the book, this still doesn't mean you are right.

If you decide based on a sudden feeling of the "divine" then how can you be sure if you are feeling experiences from A's God, B's God, or simply a mind trick.

If you decide based on the population of believers, you are taking a random risk since for ANY religion, at some point the number of believers is small and in the minority.

If you decide based on the historical accuracy or age of the text, realize that the only important parts are if the miracles in question occured, not if the events within the text occured. Just because a book says an invisible UFOs helped the allies in WW2, does not mean it is true.

If you decide based on message/morality, then again you make a random risk, since whatever you conceive as "moral" is not necessarily the moral chosen by the correct God.

If you decide based on some "prophecy" that seems fulfilled by the text of that religion, realize that even though A may have a correct prophecy (assuming it is simply not overwhelmingly vague), B will have one or two correct prophecies just by chance. The recent movie "Omen" was able to successfully interpret several prophecies to fit recent events just for the appeal of the movie. Keep this in mind while evaluating prophecies.

If you decide based on "witnessed" miracles, remember that for nearly all of them you have no direct proof that God A or B was responsible (simply praying for A does not mean A answered).

Now, introduce religions C, D, E, and F. These are incompatible with A and B. Keep goinging until you have a variable representing every belief or religion.

Inverse Pascal's Wager: With the threat of eternal pain for missing the correct religion, is there any reason to engage in a russian-roulette form of blind faith?

Neither religion is theologically perfect because no man or group of men is theologically perfect. Both are wrong about eternal life in pain. God who is love willl not do that. You said:"If you decide based on message/morality, then again you make a random risk, since whatever you conceive as "moral" is not necessarily the moral chosen by the correct God." We all know what is loving and what is not loving. We can assume we got this informtion from God. Therefore we can base our choice of religions based on the teaching that most conforms to our understanding of what is the most loving way to live. Obviously my analogy fails in that none of us are perfect in our ability to be loving and unloving, or even in knowing in every instance what the loving thing to do is, but in general terms we all understand tortuing babies to hear them scream is not loving so we can understand some of the principles and nature of the God that created us to be loving.

 

[Telephone]

Let us explore this question. Like Pascal’s wager we can divide all possible choices into a partition but this time there are five possibilities:

A) You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God)
B) You choose a religion and it is false (there is no God)
C) You choose a religion and it is false (there is a God)
D) You don’t choose a religion and there is no God

The original wager fails in its attempt to quantize all the possible outcomes, by extending this to five does no better.

What about: You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God) but his nature is deceptive and he tortures you for all time.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god randomly chooses who enters the afterlife.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god chooses who enters the afterlife based on their Dihydrotestosterone plasma levels.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false, there is no god but one evolves in a few billion years and takes no interest in those already in the grave.

Or he does take an interest but rejects those who submit themselves to rules.

Or he does not exist and never exists but man in 4 billion years time develops away to navigate temporal space and returns to this period of time to bring the dead into the future with them where they are repaired and given an infinite or greatly extended life.

Or man achieves his goal of navigating temporal space but uses it only to 'resue' those who did not believe ancient bronze age belief systems where an inerrant reality.

Or we choose religion B and the fact that we chose it mean A becomes the true religion.

Or endless other ideas that have not even occurred to us.

 

[elman]

The original wager fails in its attempt to quantize all the possible outcomes, by extending this to five does no better.

What about: You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God) but his nature is deceptive and he tortures you for all time.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god randomly chooses who enters the afterlife.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god chooses who enters the afterlife based on their Dihydrotestosterone plasma levels.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false, there is no god but one evolves in a few billion years and takes no interest in those already in the grave.

Or he does take an interest but rejects those who submit themselves to rules.

Or he does not exist and never exists but man in 4 billion years time develops away to navigate temporal space and returns to this period of time to bring the dead into the future with them where they are repaired and given an infinite or greatly extended life.

Or man achieves his goal of navigating temporal space but uses it only to 'resue' those who did not believe ancient bronze age belief systems where an inerrant reality.

Or we choose religion B and the fact that we chose it mean A becomes the true religion.

Or endless other ideas that have not even occurred to us.

I think God evolving is a stretch as is man being able to resurect the dead. I chose: "You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes." except I don't think God rewards mistakes, but He does overlook them. I think all religions have mistakes as do all theologies and anti theologies.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

What about: You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God) but his nature is deceptive and he tortures you for all time.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god randomly chooses who enters the afterlife.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god chooses who enters the afterlife based on their Dihydrotestosterone plasma levels.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false, there is no god but one evolves in a few billion years and takes no interest in those already in the grave.

Or he does take an interest but rejects those who submit themselves to rules.

Or he does not exist and never exists but man in 4 billion years time develops away to navigate temporal space and returns to this period of time to bring the dead into the future with them where they are repaired and given an infinite or greatly extended life.

Or man achieves his goal of navigating temporal space but uses it only to 'resue' those who did not believe ancient bronze age belief systems where an inerrant reality.

Or we choose religion B and the fact that we chose it mean A becomes the true religion.

Or endless other ideas that have not even occurred to us.

You disassociated religion from any associated god. This is clearly outside the Pascal concern. But if you want to play that game..

1) You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God) but his nature is deceptive and he tortures you for all time.

A "correct" religion is one that seeks to satisfy its god. Thus if its god was one of deception, then the religion would be one of deception and no choice would alter the god's desire to torture thus choice is irrelevant.

2) You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes.

The religion would preach to always make the greatest mistakes. Thus the greatest mistake would be to choose a religion that ensured no mistakes and thus receive the greatest reward for making the greatest mistake of never making any mistakes.

3) You choose a religion and it is correct but god randomly chooses who enters the afterlife.

The religion teaches to follow randomness and thus make all decisions without regard to pattern or any discernable need. Thus choosing a different religion has an infinite probability but to choose to do so based on the randomness is an attempt to follow a pattern and thus a sin. There is no choice to be made. - choice is irrelevant.

4) You choose a religion and it is correct but god chooses who enters the afterlife based on their Dihydrotestosterone plasma levels.

The religion would be one that ensured its members had the maximum level of Dihydrotestosterone. Adhere to the religion.

5) You choose a religion and it is false, there is no god but one evolves in a few billion years and takes no interest in those already in the grave.

The false religion is therefore irrelevant and thus free of consequence. Choice is irrelevant.

Most of the rest of your creative ideas will all fall into the "choice is irrelevant." category.

Doing the best you can to make a decision is not ignoring the intent in order to attempt to make the decision seem impossible or irrelevant.

Encouraging others to do such is self-defeating because it is being preoccupied with irrelevancy and thus leaving need unattended - Clever way to ensure the starvation of children as the parents wander aimlessly.

elman's choice is very close to correct.

 

[JonF]

The original wager fails in its attempt to quantize all the possible outcomes, by extending this to five does no better.

This wasn’t a discussion on how good pascal’s argument is. Extending it to five categories doesn’t make it any better (and I never claimed it did) but it does address the OP. I don’t personally buy PW. I think the argument is valid provided Pascal’s assumptions, but I don’t think it is relevant since people simply can’t choose what to believe.

What about: You choose a religion and it is correct (this implies there is a God) but his nature is deceptive and he tortures you for all time.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false but god rewards those who make mistakes.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god randomly chooses who enters the afterlife.

Or: You choose a religion and it is correct but god chooses who enters the afterlife based on their Dihydrotestosterone plasma levels.

Or: You choose a religion and it is false, there is no god but one evolves in a few billion years and takes no interest in those already in the grave.

Or he does take an interest but rejects those who submit themselves to rules.

Or he does not exist and never exists but man in 4 billion years time develops away to navigate temporal space and returns to this period of time to bring the dead into the future with them where they are repaired and given an infinite or greatly extended life.

Or man achieves his goal of navigating temporal space but uses it only to 'resue' those who did not believe ancient bronze age belief systems where an inerrant reality.

Or we choose religion B and the fact that we chose it mean A becomes the true religion.

Or endless other ideas that have not even occurred to us.

Pascal’s assumes somethings in his wager. Such as his division being a partition. The OP labeled his post as the inverse of PW so I held Pascal’s assumptions in my analysis; this is why I didn’t go into any discussion about how valid the partition is. But we can easily modify my argument to handle your added possibilities:

A) You choose a religion and it is correct and there is eternal reward for this.
A*) You choose a religion and it is correct and there is eternal loss or no gain for this.
B) You choose a religion and it is false (there is no God).
C) You choose a religion and it is false (there is a God) and there is eternal reward for this.
C*) You choose a religion and it is false (there is a God) and there is eternal loss or no gain for this.
D) You don’t choose a religion and there is no God
E) You don’t choose a religion and there is A God and there is eternal reward for this.
E*) You don’t choose a religion and there is A God there is eternal loss or no gain for this.

As long as we can agree that A is more likely than A* or E is more likely than E* Pascal’s wager will still hold.

 

[Nightson]

Or God could have left absolutely no evidence for himself in the world and only atheists who realize this get to enter heaven and everyone who believed in gods goes to hell. Since everything is theoretically possible, it works with Pascal's wager.

 

[JonF]

see choice E

 

[ReluctantProphet]

E) You don’t choose a religion and there is A God and there is eternal reward for this.

What is a religion but a choice in how to handle reality.

You live by religion, formally known and named or not. There can be no reward for not choosing to handle reality.

 

[Sokratikos]

see choice E

I do not know any scriptures from any religion I know that rewards not choosing it. They all portray kid-with-magnifying-glass gods.

 

[PacificPandeist]

There are also the possibilities that there is a "correct" religion, but the messages sent by God have been misinterpreted or corrupted by all who have received them, thus we are all unaware of the correct faith!!

Now for the mind playing tricks, suppose you believe you have received a message from God and it is possibly a trick from an evil God or even from some evil force acting against a good God, and it is possibly a trick of your mind itself? your best choice, it being your own experience, is to follow the message you personally have received!!

I have had epiphanic moments of pure and of powerful revelation; this has guided me into my own PanDeistic beliefs... illusory, these may be, yet it was I and I alone who felt them, and I and I alone am in the position to decide whether to believe in them!!

My belief in PanDeism has in turn led my to deny that any punishment exists in the afterlife beyond our own experience of the pain we have inflicted on others, which is an interesting dilemma... supposing this as an alternative, that your reward or punishment in the next world may rise or fall on the feelings that you provide to others in this, oughtn't you adhere to the faith that has you do the most to allow other people to maximize their enjoyment of life?

//// Pacific PanDeist

 

[ReluctantProphet]

There are also the possibilities that there is a "correct" religion, but the messages sent by God have been misinterpreted or corrupted by all who have received them, thus we are all unaware of the correct faith!!

This is indeed the case.

Now for the mind playing tricks, suppose you believe you have received a message from God and it is possibly a trick from an evil God or even from some evil force acting against a good God, and it is possibly a trick of your mind itself? your best choice, it being your own experience, is to follow the message you personally have received!!

I would agree as long as you are certain to decide when to follow any "voice" based on the totality of ALL that you think, feel, and can learn and verify. Jesus taught nothing less.

I have had epiphanic moments of pure and of powerful revelation; this has guided me into my own PanDeistic beliefs... illusory, these may be, yet it was I and I alone who felt them, and I and I alone am in the position to decide whether to believe in them!!

With the philosophy that you are expressing here, just keep experiencing the challenges of life and you will learn. But realize that learning in not merely adding to what you have already accepted, but reconsidering such as well with new issues. The "Holy Spirit" is defined as the effort which TRULY (by whatever means) manages to consider all possible concerns and balance them into a direction for anyone's particular situation. Thus making it, by its very definition, the ultimate final voice to be listening to (Christian or not).

oughtn't you adhere to the faith that has you do the most to allow other people to maximize their enjoyment of life?

This is true by default, not decree. It just turns out that if you are indeed doing that which most benefits yourself, then you will be helping others to enjoy their life. But realize, and this is the tricky part, that to enjoy life, you must survive it.

Fortunately joy and survival are closely linked. Those who propose to live in anything less than delight are simply lackng in understanding. Joy is the inner recognition of progress toward what the inner mind has accepted as the proper goals to survive.

You cannot achieve the absolute strongest survival technique and not be enjoying it and also causing others to enjoy and survive, else you have more to learn.

 

[JonF]

What is a religion but a choice in how to handle reality.

You live by religion, formally known and named or not. There can be no reward for not choosing to handle reality.

then you feel choice E is empty, but it still needs to be in our partition for it to be all inclusive.

I do not know any scriptures from any religion I know that rewards not choosing it. They all portray kid-with-magnifying-glass gods.

I think you missed the “n’t” in choice E

 

[ReluctantProphet]

then you feel choice E is empty, but it still needs to be in our partition for it to be all inclusive.

What I meant to say was that choice E is the same as the choice of "not choosing". Thus is not an additional case but merely a case reworded.

 

[PacificPandeist]

What I meant to say was that choice E is the same as the choice of "not choosing". Thus is not an additional case but merely a case reworded.

There is a significant difference in the calculus here... between not choosing a God when there is, in fact, no God (and thus no consequence); and choosing a God when there IS a God who for some reason infinitely rewards NOT choosing a God!!

///Pacific PanDeist