Fun with Pascal's Wager

[Posner]

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... %27s_wager

One of Pascal's wager's most obvious flaws is that it groups believing in God together and doesn't take into account that there are different religions. So let's cover our ass. Let's figure out which religion offers the biggest downside for not following it and the biggest upside to following it. Any religion that believe's in re-incarnation is out- you get another chance to try again in the next life. Mormonism has a great upside- you get your own planet. But the downside is not terrifying enough. The terrestrial kingdom is for good people who didn't follow Mormonism, and all in all sounds like a pleasant place. The Telestial kingdom is for murderers and other assholes (which has it's own disincentive in the real world) and you go through a finite 1000 year suffering, then end up in somewhere that sounds better than Purgatory at least. Catholicism offers the same old infinite reward. Purgatory is a nice middle ground because you can work your way up, but you can't have any mortal sins still on your soul when you die, and rejected Jesus is a mortal sin. Catholics came formulated much of the general Christian view of Hell, but lately it has been described more as the abscence of God than eternal suffering. All in all, that doesn't sound quite as bad. The mainline Protestant relgions sound similar. but there are fewer procedures for getting into heaven, you have to accept Jesus as your savior, not commit too many drinking/dancing sins and not be a general asshole. Judaism isn't all that terribly clear what happens in the afterlife at all, but their punishment, Sheol, sounds more like a miserable Greek afterlife Hades type place than eternal torment. Islam also has a sharp dicotomy- great paradise, awful Hell.

So what are we to do if we want to hedge Pacal's wager? I think the smart move might be to walk the thin Catholic/Protestant line- accept Jesus as your savior, don't drink, don't curse, don't dance, hate homosexuals, refuse a woman's right to choose etc. Keep kosher and halal just in case. Confess your sins to a priest to get rid of the heavy mortal sins, but try not to pay too much deference to the Church Heirarchy otherwise (they might be the antichrist). You are taking a chance with Islam being the ONE TRUE RELGION, but you might still find a way to be allright with Mainstream Protestanism and Catholicism. I'd love to hear everyone's else's weasley scheme, extra credit for a religion that has the fewest restrictions on fun things in life. And remember to have fun, after all we are playing a roleplaying game with imaginary friends.

[Mayabird]

You didn't list a single non-monotheistic religion, and there are a lot more of those (and heck, there are other monotheistic religions as well). Somewhere I read an estimate that humans have worshipped about 80,000 definite deities, not counting the untold number of saints, spirits, minor divine beings, and dead ancestors. If every single one of them had an equal chance of being real then you're much better off kissing up to the other 79,999 than to just one out of 80,000. A lot of the others aren't mutually exclusive, either.

So if you'll excuse me, I have some burnt offerings to make to some sun gods before I get Ganesh some candy.

[Pulp Hero]

Besides, isn't God more concerned with inward belief than outward actions, and if you believe because "Just in case", isn't it a case of being selfish rather than truly believing in God?

That bit always bothered me about Pascal's Wager.

[Posner]

You didn't list a single non-monotheistic religion, and there are a lot more of those (and heck, there are other monotheistic religions as well). Somewhere I read an estimate that humans have worshipped about 80,000 definite deities, not counting the untold number of saints, spirits, minor divine beings, and dead ancestors. If every single one of them had an equal chance of being real then you're much better off kissing up to the other 79,999 than to just one out of 80,000. A lot of the others aren't mutually exclusive, either.

So if you'll excuse me, I have some burnt offerings to make to some sun gods before I get Ganesh some candy.

I wanted to stick to the biggest religions and besides, I knew I couldn't be exhaustive anyway. And with Hinduism and Buddhism you get another shot at the prize with reincarnaion- you are bound to get it right eventually. Unless humans go extinct before it is all over. It reminds me of the last short story in Chuck Palachunik's book Haunted where a probe discovers that heaven is under a lot of atmosphere cover on Venus. You get reincarnated until you get to heaven, so the human race has the bright idea to kill everyone in order to bum rush heaven.

P.S. you are right about all deities having the exact same probability of being real. I should have specified religions with more than 5 million or so adherent.

[Drooling Iguana]

[General Zod]

Besides, isn't God more concerned with inward belief than outward actions

Depends on what flavor of Christianity you subscribe to.

[Posner]

Add Sikhism to the reincarnation list. I gotta tell you, these religions just don't have the eternal suffering hook to reel you in.

[Samuel]

Add Sikhism to the reincarnation list. I gotta tell you, these religions just don't have the eternal suffering hook to reel you in.

I'm pretty sure most people consider that a downside.

[Posner]

Add Sikhism to the reincarnation list. I gotta tell you, these religions just don't have the eternal suffering hook to reel you in.

I'm pretty sure most people consider that a downside.

I like to think of it as extortion. If you aren't threatening me with eternal misery then I am just not interested.

Oh and for hard core Calvinists, the elect are already chosen. Being chosen for redemption usually has the side effect of being virtuous etc., but being virtuous is no guarantee of being one of the elected, but then again, not being virtuous doesn't make being one of the elect impossible. Might as well keep on going with that paint thinner habit in that case.

[Akkleptos]

When it comes to Pascal's Wager, this guy apparently has it all figured out.

Salvation, here we come!

[defanatic]

Remember, maybe a deity that hasn't even been thought of yet could be the right one.

Not sure what that implies. I guess you just have to eat green jelly on the 8th day of every month just in case that is what god or gods want.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Remember, maybe a deity that hasn't even been thought of yet could be the right one.

Not sure what that implies. I guess you just have to eat green jelly on the 8th day of every month just in case that is what god or gods want.

Infidel! The Faithful know this should be the 9th day of the month.

[Posner]

Remember, maybe a deity that hasn't even been thought of yet could be the right one.

Not sure what that implies. I guess you just have to eat green jelly on the 8th day of every month just in case that is what god or gods want.

Infidel! The Faithful know this should be the 9th day of the month.

Don't mind him. Really, his jelly religion is one of peace- he just doesn't realize it, like abortion clinic bombers, Al Qaeda and West Bank settlers. He'll come around. In the mean time, we must respect his outlook on the nature of reality.

[Akkleptos]

By the way, wasn't Pascal's Wager meant to be some sort of philosophical joke? Since belief cannot be forced (I can't choose to just "turn on" belief in something I'm not convinced of), it would mean only feigning belief. Wouldn't an all-knowing god call you on it anyway?

Besides, what kind of god would that be that cares more about whether you believe in him or not rather than if you're good to others, live a decent life, help the helpless, etc.? That's just unbecoming of an all-mighty divine being, in my opinion.

Video: What happens when an atheist finally meets god.

[Posner]

By the way, wasn't Pascal's Wager meant to be some sort of philosophical joke? Since belief cannot be forced (I can't choose to just "turn on" belief in something I'm not convinced of), it would mean only feigning belief. Wouldn't an all-knowing god call you on it anyway?

Besides, what kind of god would that be that cares more about whether you believe in him or not rather than if you're good to others, live a decent life, help the helpless, etc.? That's just unbecoming of an all-mighty divine being, in my opinion.

Video: What happens when an atheist finally meets god.

Thanks for the video. Yeah Pascal's Wager has a laundry list of problems, but I thought Pascal at least took it seriously.

[General Zod]

Besides, what kind of god would that be that cares more about whether you believe in him or not rather than if you're good to others, live a decent life, help the helpless, etc.? That's just unbecoming of an all-mighty divine being, in my opinion.

The same type of God that would give people a sex drive and then proceed to tell them that anything sexual they might want to do is dirty and wrong. But he'll forgive you for it if you're married.

[OsirisLord]

I'm going to go with Zoroastrianism. It's a monotheistic religion, which has a definite afterlife, so it should fit the bill. Their belief is that all your deeds in life are weighed and judged. If the good outweigh the bad you go to the good afterlife, if the bad outweigh the good you go to the bad afterlife, and there's some kind of middle ground for those that manage to perfectly even out.
This means that it's possible to not follow Zoroastrianism, because this religion actual tries to strain away from the absolutes that cripple Islam and Christianity, and still get into the good afterlife. Also if your good a beautiful maiden walks you to the afterlife, and if your bad and ugly hag pushes off to Hell.
Think of it this way. If for every bad deed you do two good deeds your guaranteed a spot in Heaven, and you don't even have to believe in the religion.

[Samuel]

I'm going to go with Zoroastrianism. It's a monotheistic religion, which has a definite afterlife, so it should fit the bill. Their belief is that all your deeds in life are weighed and judged. If the good outweigh the bad you go to the good afterlife, if the bad outweigh the good you go to the bad afterlife, and there's some kind of middle ground for those that manage to perfectly even out.
This means that it's possible to not follow Zoroastrianism, because this religion actual tries to strain away from the absolutes that cripple Islam and Christianity, and still get into the good afterlife. Also if your good a beautiful maiden walks you to the afterlife, and if your bad and ugly hag pushes off to Hell.
Think of it this way. If for every bad deed you do two good deeds your guaranteed a spot in Heaven, and you don't even have to believe in the religion.

So after the genocide we pet puppies? Do they use a utilitarian scale, intention scale or divine commandments scale?

Lets not forget there are religions that don't have hell. I

[OsirisLord]

So after the genocide we pet puppies? Do they use a utilitarian scale, intention scale or divine commandments scale?

Lets not forget there are religions that don't have hell. I

I'm not entirely sure how it works. The religion's founding theme is the balance of good and evil, so I assume the scale is utilitarian. Good deeds would be ones that benefit the largest possible amount of people or are selfless, were as evil deeds would be ones that harm people or are selfish. If we committed genocide, I'm amusing that petting puppies wouldn't be enough to balance that out.

However no where I found mention that you have to belief in the god Ahura Mazda to be granted access to Heaven. However actively fighting to destroy the religion is evil, since like all other religions Zoroanstrianism does style itself as the One TruthTM.

[Posner]

I'm going to go with Zoroastrianism. It's a monotheistic religion, which has a definite afterlife, so it should fit the bill. Their belief is that all your deeds in life are weighed and judged. If the good outweigh the bad you go to the good afterlife, if the bad outweigh the good you go to the bad afterlife, and there's some kind of middle ground for those that manage to perfectly even out.
This means that it's possible to not follow Zoroastrianism, because this religion actual tries to strain away from the absolutes that cripple Islam and Christianity, and still get into the good afterlife. Also if your good a beautiful maiden walks you to the afterlife, and if your bad and ugly hag pushes off to Hell.
Think of it this way. If for every bad deed you do two good deeds your guaranteed a spot in Heaven, and you don't even have to believe in the religion.

If you wanted to hedge the Wager, Zoroastrianism as you describe it is not the way to go. It is an acceptable outcome if it is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. You are better off going with more coercive Christianity or Islam where you have to believe in the tenents in order to avoid Hell.

[Akkleptos]

If you wanted to hedge the Wager, Zoroastrianism as you describe it is not the way to go. It is an acceptable outcome if it is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. You are better off going with more coercive Christianity or Islam where you have to believe in the tenents in order to avoid Hell.

Isn't that sort of the gist of it? How does anyone know what the ONE TRUE RELIGION™ is? I mean, it's not like -insert favourite Christianity flavour here- is the only religion that portrays itself as the one true ticket out of eternal damnation.

[General Zod]

If you wanted to hedge the Wager, Zoroastrianism as you describe it is not the way to go. It is an acceptable outcome if it is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. You are better off going with more coercive Christianity or Islam where you have to believe in the tenents in order to avoid Hell.

Isn't that sort of the gist of it? How does anyone know what the ONE TRUE RELIGION™ is? I mean, it's not like -insert favourite Christianity flavour here- is the only religion that portrays itself as the one true ticket out of eternal damnation.

Not really. Pascal's wager was basically a way of saying "Yeah, I know the facts say otherwise but I'm too much of a coward to straight out say that God probably doesn't exist."

[Akkleptos]

@Zod
Yeah, that.

[verbose]That's the point. I've heard this thing used far too often by rational people who are otherwise impaired by religion; to cope with their reason telling them that they have no evidence of a god or gods whatsoever, just so that they won't be left out of the æternal choir.[/verbose]