Pascal’s wager, universalism and atheism
In popular level discussions on Pascal’s Wager, many people find the standard atheist response persuasive. To give some context, I’ll briefly summarize the wager and the response.
Pascal suggested that if Christianity was true, one had everything to gain if one believed it, and everything to lose if one did not. If it was not true, he argued, one had little (or nothing) to gain by not believing it, and virtue and the attendent happiness to gain by believing it. So he argued, out of self-interest, we should wager on its truth.
The standard atheist response is to point out that someone could make the same argument for a few other religions, notably Islam.
But I don’t find this persuasive, for one main reason: it still does not raise the value of betting on atheism. Even if you had two options which equally predict damnation for rejecting them, you still have nothing to gain by picking neither. You just ensure you have no chance of avoiding hell and gaining heaven.
And the same point would seem to apply to any philosophy or religion which teaches that no matter what you do, life will turn out great in the end, or at least that there is no possibility of ending up in a place like hell. (I’m thinking of various forms of universalism or annihilationism). Why would one bet on an option which, if wrong, has infinitely negative consequences, and if correct, would end up making your bet irrelevant anyway?
Another response to Pascal has been that he suggests we should abandon our duty to seek the truth for the sake of pragmatism. As far as I understand him, however, he is actually making a different argument. He is arguing that we should put our effort into trying to get ourselves to believe Christianity, so that later he will suggest to someone who has trouble believing that they do the kind of things Christians do, because then belief (he believes) will inevitably follow. This is a sensible policy, as it just builds on the nature of human beings: our plausibility structures are affected by what we do and what our environment is like.
And I think this would apply to atheism and all worldviews which imply a universal destination (i.e., that everyone ends up in the same place no matter what they do). Why, out of pure self-interest, would you not spend your energy trying to at least make absolutely sure none of the alternatives like traditional Christianity or Islam, which believe hell, are true [edited typo here–AF], and that you therefore have nothing to worry about? If there is any doubt at all that they might after all be correct, wouldn’t we, again out of self-interest, be obligated to come some kind of resolved conclusion about such matters?
And if William James is correct and we have to make our decision based on inconclusive evidence, why would we not bet on at least one of those hell-affirming variants?
City of God 
Nice post Andrew.
I think another objection Athiests make is as follows;
“If you accept God based on this sort of wager, surely He would know your intentions, and refuse you salvation because you don’t really believe, you’re just trying to make sure you’re covered in the event that He is real.”
I think that would be a variation on the second objection I mentioned, so I think Pascal’s response would be something like “I’m not giving this as an argument why this is true, but an argument why you should to try get yourself to believe it on the supposition that the evidence looks inconclusive either way.”
I’m almost certain he would say that if you followed his advice, you would eventually get at least tacit (i.e. unconscious) justification for your belief in Christianity, if not explicit justification.
In other words, the whole point of wager is to get yourself to the point where you believe for the right reasons.
it still does not raise the value of betting on atheism
Pascal’s Wager is badly flawed; as an example, I’ll show how easy it is to “raise the value of betting on atheism” using a similar wager.
Suppose a god exists, and this god prizes atheism above all else. Atheists get to this god’s version of heaven, and everyone else gets hell.
There. Now it’s better to be an atheist.
I hope you’re not convinced. But that’s also why atheists aren’t convinced by wagers for other religions. You can make up absolutely anything and plug it in, because Pascal’s Wager is just generating arbitrary “information.” It’s worthless, because it can be used to argue for or against absolutely any belief.
If you want an example where an atheist is better off than a Christian using “real” religions: if Jews are right, Christians are guilty of idolatry, while atheists are not (Idolatry is prohibited by one of the seven laws given to Noah).
Also, a comment on your implication here:
And I think this would apply to atheism and all worldviews which imply a universal destination (i.e., that everyone ends up in the same place no matter what they do).
Atheism says NOTHING AT ALL about a universal destination, or that everyone ends up in the same place no matter what they do.
It is SO HARD to get theists to understand that GODS IMPLY NOTHING PER SE.
Atheists do not believe in gods, period.
This says nothing about a possible afterlife (some atheists in India believe in reincarnation; as long as their beliefs don’t entail gods, they are still atheists).
This also says nothing about morality, prohibited foods, politics, or anything else. Any assumptions you make are just that — assumptions.
But too many theists fall into the trap of:
1) my god is responsible for X
2) that person does not believe in my god
3) therefor, that person does not believe X
or, even worse
3) therefor, I can convince that person that my god exists by showing X
Consider someone who is convinced that elves make rainbows. If you say you don’t believe in elves, is it valid for that person to assume that you do not believe rainbows exist? Of course not.
But I see theists doing this with gods constantly.
Brian:
I think your counter-example is unsuccessful because it falls into the category of what William James would call “not a live option.” There is no actual religion which believes this; it only exists as a hypothetical counter-example. There is no positive reason to even consider believing in such a religion. So it does not practically speaking raise the value of betting on atheism.
If your reply is going to be that you do not consider Christianity or Islam to be live options, then this post was not directed to you. It was directed towards those people who are not absolutely certain of their disbelief in traditional Christianity or Islam (or any other actual religion which believes in hell).
For the purpose of the above post, I was speaking of Western secular atheism, which certainly has a view on the afterlife (i.e., it does not exist, we are strictly material beings who cease to exist entirely at death), not atheisms of the Buddhistic or Hinduistic variety, though insofar as they undergird annihilationist or universalistic conceptions of our ultimate destination, the same points would apply.
Judaism’s concept of idolatry is more sophisticated than you are suggesting; they would consider modern atheists to be idolaters.
I think your counter-example is unsuccessful because it falls into the category of what William James would call “not a live option.” There is no actual religion which believes this; it only exists as a hypothetical counter-example.
I don’t see how that’s relevant at all. If I convince some people of it, does that make it magically viable somehow? If Christianity never made it off the ground, would that mean it couldn’t be true?
By the way, there IS an actual (if joke) religion that believes this; the Invisible Pink Unicorn from alt.atheism
There is no positive reason to even consider believing in such a religion.
Why? Because other people don’t already believe it?
Why is that even relevant? Is it impossible for one person to be correct?
You’re just adding arbitrary restrictions to keep Pascal’s Wager afloat.
For the purpose of the above post, I was speaking of Western secular atheism, which certainly has a view on the afterlife
No, it doesn’t. That’s another assumption you are making that is not required by atheism.
Judaism’s concept of idolatry is more sophisticated than you are suggesting; they would consider modern atheists to be idolaters.
I see a lot of atheist Jews who disagree with you.
Sorry, you seem to be making all kinds of arbitrary assumptions and conditions that basically amount to “Now, supposing all my assumptions and beliefs are true…” without addressing any arguments in opposition. You don’t respond to arguments, you just try to make them invalid.
That’s no argument. That’s as worthless as Pascal’s Wager.
Brian,
I’m sorry but this statement is extremely disingenuous. To call someone “Jewish” can indicate either their religious beliefs or their culture or their ethnic heritage. Many ethnic Jews no longer practice the Jewish faith (Judaism) to which Andrew was referring.
“I don’t see how that’s relevant at all. If I convince some people of it, does that make it magically viable somehow? If Christianity never made it off the ground, would that mean it couldn’t be true?
By the way, there IS an actual (if joke) religion that believes this; the Invisible Pink Unicorn from alt.atheism”
Well, given the principle of charity (that we should assume people are rational and truthful until proven otherwise), the fact that someone believes something gives it a very small level of warrant. But not much. My point, though, is that if no one believes it, then it lacks even that small bit of warrant. The fact that no one believes it is not evidence against the claim, though. Just, if there is no positive evidence for it, and some or no negative against it, then we have no reason to believe it. [If you saw my comment in its first edition, I said something different than this. I realized I was not being consistent, so I changed what I said.–A]
“Why? Because other people don’t already believe it?”
Well, that is one reason. Another reason is that there have been no prophets, etc. who have come to us claiming such a religion is true, and certainly none that have various lines of argument to back up their claims as credible. So there really is absolutely no reason to believe it.
“You’re just adding arbitrary restrictions to keep Pascal’s Wager afloat.”
It’s not arbitrary to point out that your counter-example is not a live, or practical, option; it goes to the heart of the wager, which is ultimately about what we should do practically speaking when the evidence is inconclusive to us.
“No, it doesn’t. That’s another assumption you are making that is not required by atheism.”
Can you name one spokesperson for Western secular atheism who believes in the afterlife?
Here’s an affirmation from the second Humanist Manifesto:
“SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the “ghost in the machine” and the “separable soul.” Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.”
“I see a lot of atheist Jews who disagree with you.”
Here are a couple Psalms which evaluate people who say “there is no God”:
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Psalm+10
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Psalm+14
Moreover, this ignores the logic behind the prohibition of idolatry. Idolatry is prohibited because only YHWH deserves worship. But this of course implies YHWH deserves worship. Someone who does not give him worship because they worship a block of wood is not really different from someone who does not give him worship because they (at least claim to) worship nothing.
I should add, biblically speaking, atheism in the sense of “worship of absolutely nothing” does not exist. That’s because worshipping is basically the same as valuing something. In fact etymologically speaking that’s evident, since “worship” comes from “worth-ship”, as in, ascribing worth to something.
Any human being acting for any purpose whatsoever values that purpose he/she is acting for. So, they value at least one thing, and thus in a biblical sense are not “worshipping nothing”. No one can do that.
Well, given the principle of charity (that we should assume people are rational and truthful until proven otherwise), the fact that someone believes something gives it a very small level of warrant. But not much. My point, though, is that if no one believes it, then it lacks even that small bit of warrant.
So what? If Pascal’s Wager is valid reasoning (and it isn’t), that does not enter into it.
Well, that is one reason. Another reason is that there have been no prophets, etc. who have come to us claiming such a religion is true, and certainly none that have various lines of argument to back up their claims as credible.
Well, nothing in Pascal’s Wager about that, either. Again, you’re adding things.
It’s not arbitrary to point out that your counter-example is not a live, or practical, option
Yes, it is. You brought in the “live option” just to counter my claim.
If Pascal’s Wager is valid reasoning, that DOESN’T MATTER. Pascal’s Wager does not draw such a distinction.
The point is that Pascal’s Wager is not valid reasoning.
it goes to the heart of the wager, which is ultimately about what we should do practically speaking when the evidence is inconclusive to us.
But Pascal’s Wager is not valid reasoning. When the evidence is inconclusive, DON’T USE INVALID REASONING TO DRAW A BOGUS CONCLUSION. Pascal’s Wager is NOT valid reasoning.
“No, it doesn’t. That’s another assumption you are making that is not required by atheism.”
Can you name one spokesperson for Western secular atheism who believes in the afterlife?
What is a “spokesperson for Western secular atheism”?
Can you name one aspect of atheism that requires no afterlife? Gods don’t have this for themselves, no matter how much you might want to insist.
It doesn’t even matter if NO atheist believes in an afterlife; that still is not required by atheism. I could claim that no atheists believe the world is flat, but that isn’t a requirement of atheism, either.
Here’s an affirmation from the second Humanist Manifesto:
Irrelevant. Not all atheists subscribe to that, or have even heard of it.
“I see a lot of atheist Jews who disagree with you.”
Here are a couple Psalms which evaluate people who say “there is no God”:
Nothing in there about atheists being idolators.
Moreover, this ignores the logic behind the prohibition of idolatry. Idolatry is prohibited because only YHWH deserves worship. But this of course implies YHWH deserves worship. Someone who does not give him worship because they worship a block of wood is not really different from someone who does not give him worship because they (at least claim to) worship nothing.
Ah, so you can speak for god now, eh?
I should add, biblically speaking, atheism in the sense of “worship of absolutely nothing” does not exist.
And the world is flat, and snakes talk.
If we are talking about atheism in the West then we are almost always talking about a form of exclusive materialism – everything is accounted for in material (physical) terms. If your soul/mind/consciousness or whatever you want to call it is exclusively the result of brain chemistry and if brain function ceases when you die (and by every definition of death that I have read, it has to) then nothing sustains your soul and/or mind. Your material body (which, in this account is all you ever were) goes into the ground and rots or is burned into ash in an oven thus destroying the only apparatus that ever contained or could contain your soul/mind/consciousness. If you are an exclusive materialist who believes that your consciousness or soul survives your death and goes somewhere I would really like to know how you think this happens.
I am sure that there are some non-materialist Western atheists, just as there are some universalist Christians, there are divergent views within every position. The majority account of atheism in the West surely that of exclusive materialism. So sure, I guess that “atheism” could mean anything without a god or gods, but in practice it usually means exclusive materialism in the West, does it not?
If we are talking about atheism in the West then we are almost always talking about a form of exclusive materialism – everything is accounted for in material (physical) terms.
And if we are talking about Christianity in the West then we are almost always talking about round-earthers. But you can find a few exceptions.
If you want to talk about exclusive materialists, why not use the term “exclusive materialists”? Why do people want to deliberately make invalid assumptions and argue straw men? That doesn’t help anything.
I just did use the term “exclusive materialist,” what exactly is your problem?
Because you used it in reply to my statement “Can you name one aspect of atheism that requires no afterlife?”
Atheism says nothing about an afterlife. It doesn’t matter if most (or even all) atheists are exclusive materialists, or have unanimous opinions of an afterlife; atheism STILL says nothing about an afterlife.
It’s quite possible that all Western atheists say the world is round. This does not mean that atheism requires it, or says anything about the shape of the world at all.
Brian,
Let me clarify something which will hopefully help resolve this particular dispute: in my post, and in Pascal’s original argument, we were both addressing atheism-as-it-exists-in-the-Western-world, not atheism-in-all-its-logically-possible-forms. Culturally speaking, as an intellectual movement, Western atheism does not believe in an afterlife. That is an indisputable sociological fact. It was that form of atheism that I meant by “atheism” in my original post, and a I daresay that if you talked about atheism to the average English-speaking Westerner, they would assume that you meant that form of atheism when you said that word, not the logical abstraction you are referring to.
Brian,
An invalid argument is one where a formal logical fallacy is committed in a syllogism. Can you point out where an formal fallacy has occurred in Pascal’s argument?
I’m not actually sure how to respond to your most recent post. You seem to be taking his argument as being an argument for why Christianity is true. It is not, and he never presented it as a reason to believe Christianity is true. I haven’t done that either.
Can you point out where an formal fallacy has occurred in Pascal’s argument?
It sets up a false dichotomy and is an appeal to consequences, for starters. And any argument that can simultaneously be used to argue “X” and “not X” with equal validity has to be invalid on its face, since “X” and “not X” are exclusive.
It is not, and he never presented it as a reason to believe Christianity is true. I haven’t done that either.
Well, you seem to think it’s useful for something, like arguing against atheism based on consequences (e.g. “it still does not raise the value of betting on atheism”). That simply isn’t valid reasoning.
What IS your point in bringing up Pascal’s Wager? Beating horses that were dead back in Voltaire’s time?
“It sets up a false dichotomy and is an appeal to consequences, for starters.”
What’s the false dichotomy?
“Well, you seem to think it’s useful for something, like arguing against atheism based on consequences (e.g. “it still does not raise the value of betting on atheism”).
What IS your point in bringing up Pascal’s Wager?”
As I’ve mentioned several times now, Pascal’s wager is designed to respond to people who don’t know what to believe, who think the only live options are Christianity and atheism and also think that the evidence for either position is equal or inconclusive. These are the conditions Pascal is responding to. It is no critique to take his argument out of context and argue that his single argument does not prove absolutely everything to do with Christianity is true. That was never his point.
His point was to give people motivation to put themselves in situations where they will likely end up believing Christianity is true, and his argument that they should do what he is suggesting is that given the inconclusiveness of the evidence (according to his imaginary interlocutor) for which of the two options is true, it makes more sense to try to get yourself to believe Christianity out of self-interest.
I brought up the argument to respond to responses that have been made to his argument. (And it is not arbitrary to respond to responses in order to defend an argument. That’s just the process of debate. There would be no point to cross-examination if all supplementary defensive arguments were “arbitrary” because they were not present in the opening statement.)
What’s the false dichotomy?
That either a particular god exists, or no gods exist.
As I’ve mentioned several times now, Pascal’s wager is designed to respond to people who don’t know what to believe, who think the only live options are Christianity and atheism and also think that the evidence for either position is equal or inconclusive.
But Pascal’s Wager is invalid reasoning; it doesn’t matter if someone has decided that “the only live options are Christianity and atheism,” that does NOT make Pascal’s Wager valid reasoning in their particular case. It is still invalid reasoning, and such a case only underscores why Pascal’s Wager is invalid.
These are the conditions Pascal is responding to.
And it’s invalid reasoning. You don’t make a false dichotomy into a valid dichotomy by waiving away all the other possibilities — that’s precisely why false dichotomies ARE false. They are ignoring alternatives. Whether these alternatives are being ignored because they are unknown or just a matter of personal preference or any other given excuse, they are still alternatives, just as you invalidly rejected my alternatives on the grounds that not enough people believe in my made-up gods. That doesn’t validly remove them from consideration, so you are still left with a false dichotomy.
His point was to give people motivation to put themselves in situations where they will likely end up believing Christianity is true, and his argument that they should do what he is suggesting is that given the inconclusiveness of the evidence (according to his imaginary interlocutor) for which of the two options is true, it makes more sense to try to get yourself to believe Christianity out of self-interest.
And it’s all completely invalid reasoning. You won’t get closer to the truth by deliberately following invalid reasoning.
Brian,
It is not invalid to assume the truth. If all parties to the discussion agree it is true there are only two live options, it is not invalid to reason from that starting point. Pascal was assuming that agreement, as is explicit in his original argument: he is addressing someone who thinks the evidence is inconclusive, and who thinks the only options are Christianity and Western atheism.
His argument may not be persuasive to someone who does not agree with those starting assumptions, but it is not invalid. Every argument ever made has assumptions that are not argued for within the confines of that argument.
I also did not invalidly reject your alternatives. I gave a valid argument that your alternative was not a live option, and so is not relevant to the pragmatic (!) decision that Pascal’s wager is referring to. No one is going to consider betting their eternal destinies on a joke; they will bet on things they consider possibly true.
It is not invalid to assume the truth. If all parties to the discussion agree it is true there are only two live options, it is not invalid to reason from that starting point.
Wrong.
You don’t understand that you can’t make a false dichotomy valid by using invalid methods.
If two people agreed to eliminate all but two possible alternatives by, say, flipping coins and eliminating an alternative whenever tails is flipped, they can certainly pare the alternatives down to two that way, but they haven’t used valid reasons to get there, so any conclusion they arrive at won’t be valid reasoning.
His argument may not be persuasive to someone who does not agree with those starting assumptions, but it is not invalid.
Sorry, no, it IS invalid. Valid reasoning has to be valid all the way through.
I also did not invalidly reject your alternatives. I gave a valid argument that your alternative was not a live option, and so is not relevant to the pragmatic (!) decision that Pascal’s wager is referring to.
Your argument was not valid; it’s a very well-known fallacy of argumentum ad populum, saying that the popularity of an idea is related to its truth value. That’s invalid reasoning.
You can’t arrive at the truth by using invalid reasoning. Pascal’s Wager won’t get you there, it’s only good for false reassurance of what someone already believes.
“If two people agreed to eliminate all but two possible alternatives by, say, flipping coins and eliminating an alternative whenever tails is flipped, they can certainly pare the alternatives down to two that way, but they haven’t used valid reasons to get there, so any conclusion they arrive at won’t be valid reasoning.”
The only way you can be consistent with your idea of valid reasoning is to never make an assumption. But that’s exactly what a “premise” in any argument is. If two parties to a debate agree that the premises “only Christianity and atheism are live options” and “the evidence for both is inconclusive”, are true, then it is not invalid for those people to reason from those premises without argument for those premises and come to logically valid conclusions from those premises.
“Your argument was not valid; it’s a very well-known fallacy of argumentum ad populum, saying that the popularity of an idea is related to its truth value. That’s invalid reasoning.”
Again, I did not give an argument that said because no one believes something, it must be false. I gave an argument that said, because no one believes something, and no one has given a reason to believe something, it is reasonable not to believe it. In other words: if there is absolutely no evidence for something, it is reasonable not to believe it. That’s perfectly valid.
Sure, if I assume atheism is true, I can conclude that atheism is true. That was easy, just not very useful.
if there is absolutely no evidence for something, it is reasonable not to believe it. That’s perfectly valid.
Works for all gods, not just my examples. But it doesn’t work to make a false dichotomy valid.
If you can validly reach a case where “either A or B must be true” and you can show B is false, you can validly conclude A is true. But you can’t do that if you start with A-Z and invalidly remove C-Z. But once you’re down to just A and B (whether due to personal taste or flipping coins, it makes no difference) you can TRY to apply logic at this stage, but it’s pointless to me.
My problem with Pascal’s wager is that it strikes me as dishonest. That is to say, I think that when we do or do not believe in something, what we believe should be based upon an honest confrontation with what we know and what we have experienced. To ask people to wager on God (out of fear of hell, of all things!), despite whatever experiences or knowledge they have that has led them to not believe in God, strikes me as asking a person to lie. As far as I can tell, we should be putting our wagers and fears aside and doing what we can to live honestly in light of the world as we find it.
I’ll tell you why you should, absolutely now bet on at least one of the Hell-affirming variants–because you might win the bet?
The problem is, if you were to “win,” then the prize is not going to be all that great. You see, if there is Hell, no matter which religions’ version of it were the correct one, there could be no Heaven!
I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–“Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, I’d like to share a point I make in it.
Let’s say you “win” and end up in Heaven trying to sing praises to a God who is, simultaneously, torturing billions of others. How long is it before you would have to begin wondering, “When am I next?” Soon, the joy of Heaven is lost, and replaced by gloom and foreboding! After all, which is more difficult? For God to actively cause such immense pain, or to go back on whatever promises he made to a few others that he would treat them any better? No, such a cruel being would very likely, at some point, grow weary of surrounding himself with such lackies and toss them in the lake of fire as well. In the meantime, Hell would be anything but a place of joy, and therefore, no Heaven at all.
“you can TRY to apply logic at this stage, but it’s pointless to me.”
Which is why I said, several replies ago, that if you are absolutely sure of your disbelief, then this post was not directed towards you. However, the original intent of my post was 1) directed towards people who are not absolutely sure of disbelief, and 2) to show that of the actual live options available (Christianity and Islam and atheism/universalism for short), there is no practical point in betting on atheism/universalism. By eliminating your “joke” option as another live option, we are back to my original argument, which still is valid for those who accept that Islam, Christianity, or variations on atheism/universalism are the only live options.
But again, if for you only atheism is a the only live option, then the post is not directed at you.
Dan:
I think that misunderstands the kind of person Pascal was responding to. Your hypothetical person seems to have more reason to disbelieve God than to believe in him. Pascal’s hypothetical person sees the evidence as inconclusive. We have to keep Pascal’s context in view to understand what he was doing. In the case he was responding to, it’s not dishonest to say to someone “since you think the truth is not evident, act out of self-interest in your pursuit of truth; don’t waste time chasing down possibilities that will be ultimately useless for you if they happen to be true”; it makes eminent sense to me, anyway.
Rick:
Your argument assumes that God is not trustworthy, which is just to assume the Christian view of God is false. In your constructed dilemma, the choice is believing in a deceptive God or believing in no God, in which case you might have a point that there isn’t much to gain in betting on the deceptive God. But that’s not the God Christianity puts forward; for traditional Christianity, hell is evidence of God’s trustworthiness (he promised he would act to judge the earth and set everything to rights, and he will do so), not evidence against it. And that same trustworthiness also grounds the promise that those who make it to heaven will never leave.
Andrew,
I still don’t buy it. If one finds such a situation to be inconclusive then one would be unable to conclude that it is in one’s best interest to go with Pascal on this, as what is or is not in one’s best interest will also be inconclusive. Indeed, one would be unable to determine what is or is not ‘ultimately useless’. Therefore, a person who is actually completely on the line when it comes to reasons to dis/believe in God (which, I think, is an exceedingly rare sort of person… most people at least tip a little more one way than the other) should not draw any conclusions (Pascalian or otherwise).
Dan:”If one finds such a situation to be inconclusive then one would be unable to conclude that it is in one’s best interest to go with Pascal on this, as what is or is not in one’s best interest will also be inconclusive. Indeed, one would be unable to determine what is or is not ‘ultimately useless’.”
Well, I don’t think not knowing whether Christianity or atheism is true (to simplify the issue) makes people unaware that they prefer pleasure to pain. That’s all they need to know to make the bet (along with what Christianity and atheism predict about people’s ultimate destinies, whether they are true or not).
“Therefore, a person who is actually completely on the line when it comes to reasons to dis/believe in God (which, I think, is an exceedingly rare sort of person… most people at least tip a little more one way than the other) should not draw any conclusions (Pascalian or otherwise).”
I think, by extension, this advice would apply to anyone who has less than 100% certainty about their opinion on the issue. Insofar as Pascal’s wager is about getting people to pursue truth in one direction or another, it’s relevant to people who are not certain of where the truth lies, even if they tip one direction or another.
Which is why I said, several replies ago, that if you are absolutely sure of your disbelief, then this post was not directed towards you. However, the original intent of my post was 1) directed towards people who are not absolutely sure of disbelief, and 2) to show that of the actual live options available (Christianity and Islam and atheism/universalism for short), there is no practical point in betting on atheism/universalism.
But that still isn’t valid reasoning. You can’t plug holes in a false dichotomy by ignoring alternatives or ruling them out by some fiat.
But again, if for you only atheism is a the only live option, then the post is not directed at you.
I don’t care if it isn’t directed at me; that doesn’t make invalid logic aimed at someone else valid, either.
“But that still isn’t valid reasoning. You can’t plug holes in a false dichotomy by ignoring alternatives or ruling them out by some fiat.”
I didn’t rule them out. I assumed I was talking with people who have previously concluded they were not real alternatives. That is not invalid, it’s just the premise of the argument.
“I don’t care if it isn’t directed at me; that doesn’t make invalid logic aimed at someone else valid, either.”
Again, this would imply we could never have a premise in any argument; every step in the argument would have to be a conclusion. If people agree with me on something, I don’t have to argue that the thing we agree on is true.
Also, I gave an argument for why the only other alternative you gave was not a live option. That’s not a fiat, that’s a response. You also later agreed that my response to your alternative worked, when you said: “Works for all gods, not just my examples,” unless you think one can be warranted to believe something one has absolutely no reason to believe (which is a contradiction in terms).
I didn’t rule them out. I assumed I was talking with people who have previously concluded they were not real alternatives. That is not invalid, it’s just the premise of the argument.
Well, like my earlier example, you can eliminate alternatives by flipping a coin, but any reasoning applied after that point won’t get you a valid conclusion, so why apply logic too late in the game?
Again, this would imply we could never have a premise in any argument
You can, but you can’t use your premises to build a valid dichotomy.
If people agree with me on something, I don’t have to argue that the thing we agree on is true.
But you can’t validly go on from there and assume all of your premises are the only possible premises that exist.
Also, I gave an argument for why the only other alternative you gave was not a live option.
Which doesn’t make a false dichotomy a valid dichotomy.
Also, if I’m going to go in for Pascal’s Wager, why wouldn’t I go for universalism? Why believe in some system that has people going to hell when an alternative is that absolutely everyone gets to heaven? That outcome is better than Pascal’s Wager vis-a-vis (non-universalist) Christianity or Islam, where some people go to hell, so universalism wins out. The total number of people who get to heaven is the absolute maximum, so the total “happiness factor” is the largest possible. Nobody in heaven has loved ones being tortured forever for holding an erroneous opinion. And I wouldn’t have to worry about any of my friends or relatives being left out. I don’t see how you can avoid betting on universalism; it even works if you stop believing in it.
“You can, but you can’t use your premises to build a valid dichotomy.”
Yes, you can. Valid dichotomies must have premises, for the reason that every argument must have premises. You cannot argue for everything at once. You have to make assumptions.
“But you can’t validly go on from there and assume all of your premises are the only possible premises that exist.”
“There” is precisely the assumption (agreed upon by those I was addressing) that the options I mentioned are the only live options.
“Which doesn’t make a false dichotomy a valid dichotomy.”
Well, if I eliminate the only other putative alternative besides the ones I mentioned, my dichotomy works. And I gave an argument that eliminated that alternative, so my dichotomy works.
“I don’t see how you can avoid betting on universalism; it even works if you stop believing in it.”
That’s precisely why there’s no point, in terms of self-interest, in betting on it. It gains you nothing to believe it, at least in comparison to what you lose if you are wrong.
Dan:
Just to add one more thing to my response to you above (if you’re still following this), one could also frame the whole wager in terms of “desire for heaven” rather than “fear of hell”. The same things would follow, I think.
“But you can’t validly go on from there and assume all of your premises are the only possible premises that exist.”
“There” is precisely the assumption (agreed upon by those I was addressing) that the options I mentioned are the only live options.
That isn’t the same type of assumption. Assuming premise X and Y says nothing, by itself, whether other possible alternatives to X and Y exist or not. That would need an additional assumption.
And didn’t you dismiss Rick’s argument in just that way?
Isn’t his dilemma just as valid, using his assumptions? He can use assumptions that any gods that exist are deceivers, and conclude that atheism is the way to go.
“I don’t see how you can avoid betting on universalism; it even works if you stop believing in it.”
That’s precisely why there’s no point, in terms of self-interest, in betting on it. It gains you nothing to believe it, at least in comparison to what you lose if you are wrong.
Now you’re just going off into an “avoiding the wrong hell” argument. Again, Pascal’s Wager just creates false information to bet on; bet on the religion that has the worst hell. But that’s still based on a false dichotomy.
“That isn’t the same type of assumption. Assuming premise X and Y says nothing, by itself, whether other possible alternatives to X and Y exist or not. That would need an additional assumption.”
It is that additional assumption that I assumed from the beginning, as I have said several times now (though I construed “possible” in the sense of “live option”, not just “logically coherent option”, like your joke).
“Isn’t his dilemma just as valid, using his assumptions? He can use assumptions that any gods that exist are deceivers, and conclude that atheism is the way to go.”
Yes, his dilemma is valid, using his assumptions. My point is that he’s not even really considering Christianity as a live option. He substitutes the Christian view with a different view altogether. What Rick is really doing is just raising the age-old problem of evil as an objection to the truth of Christianity. To respond to the problem of evil is important, but once one admits it is actually problem, one is outside the parameters of my original post, which was for people who consider Christianity to be a live option (and thus do not think the problem of evil is decisive against Christianity, like Rick implicitly does).
“Now you’re just going off into an “avoiding the wrong hell” argument. Again, Pascal’s Wager just creates false information to bet on; bet on the religion that has the worst hell. But that’s still based on a false dichotomy.”
I’m not “going off” into anything. That IS Pascal’s argument. His wager does not create any information; it just summarizes the live options and points out the value in betting on one rather than the other. Again, if you do not agree to the starting assumptions (which means you think there really is another live option besides hell-affirming and hell-denying religions/philosophies, or you think there is really only one live option, the latter), then the argument will not be persuasive. But that does not make it an invalid argument, granted its own premises.
However, I also gave you a reason why your only other alternative, a joke, was not really a live option, which brings us back to: either you think there are really two live options, in which case I can’t see how my argument is a false dichotomy or unpersuasive, or else you think there is really only one live option, atheism, in which case the post was never intended for someone with your beliefs (and nor was Pascal’s original argument).
My point is that he’s not even really considering Christianity as a live option.
Yeah. So?
His wager does not create any information; it just summarizes the live options and points out the value in betting on one rather than the other.
It’s still a false dichotomy, because it is ignoring the possibility that all of the “live options” are wrong and another, unconsidered option is correct.
If you’re willing to assume that only two options X and Y can be correct, why not cut out the middleman and just assume X is correct?
I’ll tell you why — by setting up a straw man situation where X and Y are presented as the only “live options,” and then knocking down Y, it looks like X is being arrived at through reason. But it isn’t.
“Yeah. So?”
So he is not within the parameters of those I was originally addressing.
“It’s still a false dichotomy, because it is ignoring the possibility that all of the “live options” are wrong and another, unconsidered option is correct.”
No, it’s not ignoring the logical possibility they are all wrong. It is assuming we don’t know for sure what is right or wrong, and suggesting a course of action based on that ignorance. And obviously we can’t bet on an option we don’t even know about, since by definition we don’t know about it in order to wager on it.
“If you’re willing to assume that only two options X and Y can be correct, why not cut out the middleman and just assume X is correct?”
My argument assumes the context of people who think X or Y could be correct, but do not think the correctness of either one is obvious. Obviously, in THAT context, stipulating that X is correct would be unpersuasive to those involved in that discussion. There would be no point in that.
No, it’s not ignoring the logical possibility they are all wrong. It is assuming we don’t know for sure what is right or wrong, and suggesting a course of action based on that ignorance.
But it’s discounting all the other possibilities and building a false dichotomy.
“If you’re willing to assume that only two options X and Y can be correct, why not cut out the middleman and just assume X is correct?”
My argument assumes the context of people who think X or Y could be correct, but do not think the correctness of either one is obvious. Obviously, in THAT context, stipulating that X is correct would be unpersuasive to those involved in that discussion. There would be no point in that.
But you’re trying to persuade people using invalid reasoning.
“But it’s discounting all the other possibilities and building a false dichotomy.”
What other possibilities? Besides the joke?
“But you’re trying to persuade people using invalid reasoning.”
It’s not invalid to reason from agreed premises to a conclusion. That’s all I was doing.
“But it’s discounting all the other possibilities and building a false dichotomy.”
What other possibilities? Besides the joke?
All sorts of religions, INCLUDING the joke ones, because you can’t dismiss other possibilities out-of-hand by fiat.
It’s not invalid to reason from agreed premises to a conclusion. That’s all I was doing.
But from a logical point of view, it’s no different than starting with “assuming X is true, X is true.” Pascal’s Wager adds nothing.
“All sorts of religions, INCLUDING the joke ones, because you can’t dismiss other possibilities out-of-hand by fiat.”
Jokes, if they are jokes, are known to be false. No reasonable person will bet on things they know to be false.
What other religions? I guess we could throw in Zoroastrianism as a religion that believes in hell. So what? That does not increase the value of betting on a form of atheism that says we all cease to exist at death, or at the various forms of universalism that appear inside of and outside of Christianity.
The structure of my argument is really impossible to avoid, because when it comes to hell there are only two alternatives: either you believe there are two possible eternal destinations for people (one bad and one good), or you don’t (only one for everyone). You either believe hell exists, or you don’t. Even if you could give a hundred more examples of the first or second alternatives, it would still not raise the value of betting on any in the second category, in which modern Western atheism does fit, as a cultural movement.
“But from a logical point of view, it’s no different than starting with “assuming X is true, X is true.” Pascal’s Wager adds nothing.”
That’s correct. A circular argument is logically valid. It’s just unpersuasive, since we’re assuming a context where people think Y is also a possibility. In that context, where we have not stipulated the only possible answer, the wager does add something.
Jokes, if they are jokes, are known to be false.
Wrong. Jokes have an unknown truth value. You can’t simply state that a joke religion is false; after all, an omnipotent god could create the true religion through a joke.
The structure of my argument is really impossible to avoid, because when it comes to hell there are only two alternatives: either you believe there are two possible eternal destinations for people (one bad and one good), or you don’t (only one for everyone).
That’s completely wrong. It’s certainly possible that there are more than two eternal destinations.
You either believe hell exists, or you don’t.
Wrong, since there are any number of “hells”. You can’t use an umbrella term and pretend the hell from Christian mythology is the same hell as Norse mythology.
Even if you could give a hundred more examples of the first or second alternatives, it would still not raise the value of betting on any in the second category, in which modern Western atheism does fit, as a cultural movement.
I keep telling you, atheism says nothing about an afterlife.
In that context, where we have not stipulated the only possible answer, the wager does add something.
Only invalid reasoning.
“Wrong. Jokes have an unknown truth value. You can’t simply state that a joke religion is false; after all, an omnipotent god could create the true religion through a joke.”
I refuse to debate about whether jokes are meant to be taken seriously.
The bare logical possibility of something is absolutely not a reason to believe in that something.
“That’s completely wrong. It’s certainly possible that there are more than two eternal destinations.
Wrong, since there are any number of “hells”. You can’t use an umbrella term and pretend the hell from Christian mythology is the same hell as Norse mythology.”
That’s not relevant. Unless there are live options (not jokes) which condemn people to hell for not believing atheism or universalism (I know of none, and certainly none that anyone in the Western, english-speaking (and blog reading) world would be aware of or consider seriously), there is still no gain in believing atheism or universalism, even if the hell-affirming views have a thousand variants. It’s still a better bet to wager on one of the thousand.
“I keep telling you, atheism says nothing about an afterlife.”
You’re living in a dream-world if you think modern Western atheism says nothing about an afterlife. Read any history textbook. I’m not talking to logical abstractions, I’m talking to real people who exist in history, and in the Western world the VAST majority of atheists (especially the kind that read Christian posts about apologetics) deny the existence of any afterlife.
“Only invalid reasoning.”
Find me a logic textbook that says reasoning from agreed-upon premises to conclusions is invalid reasoning.
It is dishonest to try to “get yourself to believe” something because of some consequence of holding that belief.
I refuse to debate about whether jokes are meant to be taken seriously.
It doesn’t matter how they’re meant. You can’t say a statement made has a joke MUST be false.
The bare logical possibility of something is absolutely not a reason to believe in that something.
That’s not what I’m saying. It’s poking a fatal hole in a false dichotomy. It doesn’t matter if it’s far-fetched.
That’s not relevant. Unless there are live options (not jokes) which condemn people to hell for not believing atheism or universalism (I know of none, and certainly none that anyone in the Western, english-speaking (and blog reading) world would be aware of or consider seriously),
What has that got to do with deciding about reality? There is NO REASON AT ALL to limit the possibilities to just what you consider the Western, English-speaking world. None AT ALL. In fact, by adding explicit requirements, you are just admitting you are deliberately IGNORING other possible outcomes that aren’t “Western” or “English-speaking” or “blog-reading.”
there is still no gain in believing atheism or universalism, even if the hell-affirming views have a thousand variants. It’s still a better bet to wager on one of the thousand.
No, it isn’t. Betting using invalid logic isn’t “better.”
You’re living in a dream-world if you think modern Western atheism says nothing about an afterlife.
No, I’m living in the real world. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, period.
Read any history textbook. I’m not talking to logical abstractions, I’m talking to real people who exist in history, and in the Western world the VAST majority of atheists (especially the kind that read Christian posts about apologetics) deny the existence of any afterlife.
And the VAST majority believe the earth is round. This does not mean atheism says the earth is round.
Scary reasoner:
Would you care to explain how it is dishonest?
Brian:
I’m sorry, but I’m not going around the merry-go-round with you one more time on the same issues. Feel free to continue commenting at this blog, but I’m not going to respond on this particular post until you start actually listening to my responses.
Feel free to continue commenting at this blog, but I’m not going to respond on this particular post until you start actually listening to my responses.
I’d say exactly the same thing about you. You keep insisting that atheism says something about an afterlife (which it doesn’t), that, somehow, eliminating alternatives arbitrarily can create a valid dichotomy out of a false dichotomy (it can’t), and that any proposal suggested as a joke can’t ever possibly end up being true (it can).
The majority account of atheism in North America surely is materialist and therefore not compatible with an type of afterlife. If we have to take into account the full range of views that can be expressed under the name atheism, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we’ll have to consider every view that might style itself Christianity. There are of course those claiming the name Christian that don’t believe Jesus ever existed (google Tom Harpur) or that have doubts about there being any kind of God, there are universalist Christians, there are Christians that believe that the Bible is 100% literally true and those that think it’s just a nice story, some Christians think you should listen to the Pope, others think he’s the anti-Christ. If we are to have a meaningful discussion though there has to be some consideration of what most people mean when they use a particular term to characterize themselves. This is not an argument from popularity, i.e.: that the majority is correct (it may not be in either case), it’s just that we need to consider what is, in practice, true about most Western atheists.
You will of course note that I haven’t said much about Pascal himself in this whole thread, I’ve not given that much thought to Pascal ever, but I do have a stance on bullshit, and I call bullshit on your refusal to admit that most Western atheism consists in exclusive materialism. Look, most of Italy’s Christians would likely be Roman Catholic and when referring to that group en masse, most people would get what is being communicated by either term. Since you have refused to get what is being said and have instead tried to press your pedantic point about what the word could possibly mean I even went to the trouble in my above comments of typing out “exclusive materialism” for your sake.
The majority account of atheism in North America surely is materialist and therefore not compatible with an type of afterlife.
Most atheists in North America probably are materialists; most probably think the earth is spherical, too.
This does not mean atheism says anything about materialism, or an afterlife, or the shape of the earth.
Materialism also does not, per se, rule out every single type of afterlife. Tipler’s Omega Point appears to be an afterlife consistent with materialism.
If we have to take into account the full range of views that can be expressed under the name atheism, then sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and we’ll have to consider every view that might style itself Christianity.
Sure, there’s plenty of those.
If we are to have a meaningful discussion though there has to be some consideration of what most people mean when they use a particular term to characterize themselves.
Which is why it’s important not to make unwarranted assumptions, even ones that are very common. You CAN find flat-earthers or atheists who believe in reincarnation if you look hard enough.
This is not an argument from popularity, i.e.: that the majority is correct (it may not be in either case), it’s just that we need to consider what is, in practice, true about most Western atheists.
When it comes to formal reasoning, like refuting Pascal’s Wager, no, you can’t. You’re making all kinds of hidden assumptions when you do that, and you can’t if you’re trying to reason correctly.
I call bullshit on your refusal to admit that most Western atheism consists in exclusive materialism.
You can’t appear to read. I agree that most western atheists probably are materialists. This is not a tenet of atheism, it’s just something many atheists happen to agree on, like the shape of the earth.
Look, most of Italy’s Christians would likely be Roman Catholic and when referring to that group en masse, most people would get what is being communicated by either term.
And trying to make a formal argument that depended on every single Italian Christian being Catholic would collapse as soon as a non-Catholic Italian Christian was produced.
Since you have refused to get what is being said and have instead tried to press your pedantic point about what the word could possibly mean I even went to the trouble in my above comments of typing out “exclusive materialism” for your sake.
You refuse to understand simple concepts. Atheism says nothing about an afterlife or materialism, period. It only indicates a non-belief in gods.
It really IS important to know what you’re talking about, and way too many people want to attach all kinds of things to “atheism,” not just materialism or a lack of an afterlife, but lack of morals, communist, dishonest, etc. I no more allow the “atheist=materialist” or “atheist=no afterlife” canard than I do the “atheist=immoral” or “atheist=communist” canard.
Strangely, I get Brian’s point.
Flip side of the coin: I might believe in a God, but it doesn’t follow that there must also an afterlife.
Though the two concepts are often found together, and that in many people’s view one depends on the other, it does not follow that the latter must be true by virtue of the prior.
I’m not really sure how it’s helping the discussion, regardless.
Still, I don’t think any self respecting Atheist in the Western tradition of Atheism (which is what the Wager is targeting, according to Andrew) would say there is any kind of afterlife (especially in the “consciousness continued” sort of way).
The theoretical point that Atheists can believe in an afterlife seems more a moving target/strawman to men, given the initial argument (and it’s intended audience) regardless of whether it’s “conceivable.” Anything’s conceivable.
I agree that belief in a god does not require a belief in an afterlife.
I don’t agree that atheists (of any stripe) are targets of Pascal’s Wager, though. I’d say the Wager is aimed at keeping lukewarm Christians from becoming atheists by the usual method of imaginary threats (i.e. hell).
That’s why the wager is presented as if Christianity and atheism are the only two alternatives — a lasping Christian might think like that, but atheists tend to bring up other religions, which screws up the wager. Even Homer Simpson understood: “And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we’re just making God madder and madder!”