Defense of Pascal's Wager

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 06:20pm

I found this gem when researching on the flawed concept. This person actualy defends Pascals Wager and fails to acknowledge its flaws. The scary thing is he is actualy coheriant and anyone who isn't careful might be tricked by this guy.

http://www.thewhyman.jesusanswers.com/whats_new.html

Anyway, what flaws can you think of in Pascal's Wager? That and comments on the essay by the idiot.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-22 06:36pm

The biggest flaw I can find in Pascal's Wager is that it lumps belief in God into one category. How can you be sure that you've picked the right God to believe in? It's not so simple as "believe in God or burn in hell," since there is no one God to believe in.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-22 06:37pm

The problem with his argument is that he doesn't allow for responses within the context of the problem. In other words, he's arguing that if a person does not believe in something, they can not talk about it in context, so athiests cannot talk about the possibility of alternative gods, even though the context of the discussion is god.

Now I don't believe in Atlantis. Does that mean, in a discussion about mythical continents, I cannot talk about Mu, since I don't believe in either? Of course not, because in the context of the discussion, we are taking their existance for granted. In the same way, we can talk about the concept of alternative gods, even though we do not believe in any of them.

Also, he is using that argument to gloss over the fact that Pascal's Wager remains a false delimma. Regardless about whether atheists are contradicting themselves or not, it still doesn't change the fact that he could be wrong as well. Zarathustra could still be the right god, and both he and the atheist is wrong. So he hasn't actually defended anything, he just tried to distract people away from the fallacy by attempting to point out another fallacy.

I call it the "Hey, lookit that" tactic of debating.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-22 06:41pm

I guess if we were trying to get you to play the lottery. And you said "I don't believe any number combo will win, I think it's fixed." and we said, hey, pick these 6 numbers. And you were like, 'why these six numbers?' why not this other set of numbers or this other set?
But earlier you said you didn't think any set would win, so why are you lobbying for some other set? If you think the game is rigged, then simply say "nope, I don't believe your set of numbers will win, nor any other." My set of 6 numbers should rest on their own merit. They should not be compared to another set of numbers that you've already pre-determined cannot win.

I call false dilemma on this dude!
The lottery will take place, and some numbers will come out, whether they be a result of collating all the known sets of numbers and choosing one set which noone has or a random system.
An afterlife has no such certainty of what may happen.

1. YOU: "I don't think any set of 6 numbers will result in me winning this lottery."

6 numbers WILL be drawn, even if they're fiddled with in order to make you lose. Noone would say "i believe no 6 numbers will be drawn" in a 6 number lottery.

But even if that were true, the odds are still better to wager on the God of the Bible.

I dont really think i need to explain what's wrong there.

If you make no wager what-so-ever, then you automatically lose. However, if you at least wager on one god then you have a chance. And you can increase those odds by going with the God of the Bible since He is recognized by the big 3 religions in the world. Billions of people. This is one case where you can appeal to the masses.

I tell you what...this guy has me absolutely convinced.ABSOLUTELY.
Popular does not mean good necessarily, often it just means more violent, or assimilative, or elitist.

and the guy goes on, but personally i prefer having the pound i would have spent on the ticket to buy something useful to me and others. In this case, the pound is your life.

But they are not. They're betting on some 'opposite day' god, that has a twisted sense of humor. "I'll reward those that disbelieve in all gods, and punish those that have chosen incorrectly.. MU-HU-HA-HA!"

Considering how unfair everyone's life seems to be, it's (probably) more likely a guy like this is behind the scenes than someone who says he can do anything, but then limits himself to everything.

So I say the odds of inaction are not as good as the odds of choosing the best God for the job.

and i say i am divinely inspired and that Gozer (the god from ghostbusters) is far better for the purposes of betting, it has appeared in a major motion picture!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 06:45pm

Idiot wrote:Most atheists love to point out that Pascal's wager is flawed.

But, I think they are overlooking something, or worse, being intellectually dishonest in their approach to looking at the wager. Also, when I debunk the fact that it is flawed, then the normal cop-out is to move the goal posts by saying something to the effect of: "Gee, do you really think God would want people to believe in him out of fear of going to hell?" or "Do you think God wants us to gamble on the best religion?" Which is a whole other issue. The point with the wager is that sometimes you have to overcome intellectual barriers that keep people from looking farther into the idea that God exists.

Certainly no one should believe in God so as to obtain a form of fire insurance. But like I alluded to above, the wager opens the mind to accept the fact that belief in God is just as logical, if not more logical than non-belief, or even disbelief.

Monstrous non-sequitur: he claims that simply by positing God's existence and nonexistence as the two horns of the false dilemma, Pascal has magically made them "just as logical" as each other.

Idiot wrote:The reason most atheists point to, in order to dismiss the wager, is they claim there are more than just two choices. (a.k.a. False dilemma). But what they are doing is sort of sneaky and subtle, but it is there none-the-less. They are pretending to view the wager as if they are a theist. But they are not. They are borrowing our theistic paradigm, in order to dismiss the analogy.

because if you are an atheist, then it is silly to say "how do I know if God is the right one, what if zeus is right, or what if the pink fairy god is the right one.." because you lack belief in all of them, why would you suddenly pretend to believe in the plausability of many just because someone mentions one of them?

This is a clever rhetorical trick, but it is still a fallacy. One must not necessarily acknowledge the existence of a concept in order to discuss it for the purposes of a thought experiment, any more than Schrodinger's cat really exists. In this case, the atheist points out that if we throw logic to the winds and treat the concept of a God as plausible, then all gods simultaneously become just as plausible as one another, hence it is a false dilemma. At no point is it agreed that the notion of a God is not, in fact, illogical.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 06:48pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Also, he is using that argument to gloss over the fact that Pascal's Wager remains a false delimma. Regardless about whether atheists are contradicting themselves or not, it still doesn't change the fact that he could be wrong as well. Zarathustra could still be the right god, and both he and the atheist is wrong. So he hasn't actually defended anything, he just tried to distract people away from the fallacy by attempting to point out another fallacy.

The other fallacy he has pointed out is not a fallacy at all. One can discuss the flaws of a false dilemma without necessarily acknowledging that both horns of the false dilemma are equally valid. If I say "in your career, you must choose between being an airline pilot and a James Bond supervillain", you have two optional responses. You can say that there's no such thing as a James Bond supervillain hence it is a stupid choice, or you can say that it's a false dilemma. Both responses are valid, and neither response is a fallacy. The "false dilemma" response does NOT acknowledge the plausibility of James Bond supervillains!

I call it the "Hey, lookit that" tactic of debating.

It's worse than that. It's a huge leap in logic, to conclude that by discussing a false dilemma we must automatically be lending equal credence to both propositions contained in it.

I don't know why Alyeska found this guy to be even remotely persuasive; anyone with functioning brain cells should be able to see through his idiocy without prompting.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-04-22 06:50pm

Durran Korr wrote:The biggest flaw I can find in Pascal's Wager is that it lumps belief in God into one category. How can you be sure that you've picked the right God to believe in? It's not so simple as "believe in God or burn in hell," since there is no one God to believe in.

Right. Given that most religions consider it much worse to be worshipping 'false gods' than being godless, Pascal's Wager would indicate that on average the atheist is in fact in a better position than the theist, even assuming there is some sort of God.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-22 06:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:The other fallacy he has pointed out is not a fallacy at all. One can discuss the flaws of a false dilemma without necessarily acknowledging that both horns of the false dilemma are equally valid. If I say "in your career, you must choose between being an airline pilot and a James Bond supervillain", you have two optional responses. You can say that there's no such thing as a James Bond supervillain hence it is a stupid choice, or you can say that it's a false dilemma. Both responses are valid, and neither response is a fallacy. The "false dilemma" response does NOT acknowledge the plausibility of James Bond supervillains!

Well, I did say that it wasn't a fallacy, for the same reason you did, but I was just saying that he was trying to shift the attention away from his fallacy by attempting to accuse opposition of a fallacy themselves.

Incidently, in the choice between airline pilot and Supervillain, the choice is obvious. It's obvious that the James Bond supervillain is the best vocation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 07:07pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:Incidently, in the choice between airline pilot and Supervillain, the choice is obvious. It's obvious that the James Bond supervillain is the best vocation.

False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-22 07:10pm

False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs

To bring other, even worse evils, into the discussion is a false dillemma!!! lol

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-22 07:15pm

Hell, you can even fight them on their own turf, and point out we can rate which gods are more plausible than others. For example, a Potes requires only the power of intangibility with interaction, whereas the Christian God violates dozens of laws.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-22 07:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs

I'd rather die in my hidden volcano fortress after taking the world hostage with a giant laser but was foiled in the last 15 seconds as my busty femme fatale double crosses me to the handsome British agent than be a ultra-wealthy CEO. Besides, the two aren't mutually exclusive, look at Bill Gates.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » 2003-04-22 07:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Incidently, in the choice between airline pilot and Supervillain, the choice is obvious. It's obvious that the James Bond supervillain is the best vocation.
False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs

Except Scorpio :^)

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-22 07:33pm

Jonathan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Incidently, in the choice between airline pilot and Supervillain, the choice is obvious. It's obvious that the James Bond supervillain is the best vocation.
False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs
Except Scorpio :^)

I was thinking about saying Trevelyan, as he died on top of his lair, but it was too nitpicky even for me.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-22 07:36pm

Jonathan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:Incidently, in the choice between airline pilot and Supervillain, the choice is obvious. It's obvious that the James Bond supervillain is the best vocation.
False dilemma, since the third choice of "corporate CEO who retires and lives the rest of his life on the golden parachute" is much better. James Bond supervillains, after all, invariably perish in their hidden lairs
Except Scorpio :^)

INDIAN MINISTER (after SCORPIO destroys a bridge): Maybe the bridge just collapsed on its own ...
BRITISH MINISTER: We can't take that chance.
INDIAN: You always say that! I want to take a chance!

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 07:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't know why Alyeska found this guy to be even remotely persuasive; anyone with functioning brain cells should be able to see through his idiocy without prompting.

I don't find him persuasive, but the way he packages the messages means others might be tricked.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 07:51pm

Anyway, Pascal designed an extremely flawed wager. Not only did he fail to acknowledge certain things, he built the thing under a flawed concept from the start.

Pascal states that belief in god when god does not exist is breaking even. That is a out and out lie. If god didn't exist then that person wasted their entire life attempting to pursue something. They handicapped themselves. The other mistake is saying that if an Atheist is right, that it is breaking even. Again this is completely wrong. If the Atheist is right, they have won because they had a free mind and didn't waste their lives devoting themselves to a false belief. Last of all Pascal makes the statement that if an Atheist is wrong, they loose. The only way to truly loose is if the Atheist goes to hell. In this case Pascal states that no mater how you live your life, you go to heaven if you believe in God and go to hell if you don't. This is the classic example of Gondi going to hell and Hitler going to Heaven for a last minute conversion.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-22 07:51pm

Alyeska wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't know why Alyeska found this guy to be even remotely persuasive; anyone with functioning brain cells should be able to see through his idiocy without prompting.
I don't find him persuasive, but the way he packages the messages means others might be tricked.

Sorry, I should have used the term "eloquent" rather than "persuasive". His arguments seemed almost childishly stupid to me. I suspect that the kind of people who would be taken in by his argument would be too stupid to understand the concept of a false dilemma fallacy anyway.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 07:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I don't know why Alyeska found this guy to be even remotely persuasive; anyone with functioning brain cells should be able to see through his idiocy without prompting.
I don't find him persuasive, but the way he packages the messages means others might be tricked.
Sorry, I should have used the term "eloquent" rather than "persuasive". His arguments seemed almost childishly stupid to me. I suspect that the kind of people who would be taken in by his argument would be too stupid to understand the concept of a false dilemma fallacy anyway.

They might understand it if it was explained to them. The problem is a lot of people have a basic understanding of what doesn't work, but because they aren't educated about falacies they can't always pin it down and identify it. Hell, I never even had any definition of falacy in any of my schooling. It wasn't until SB and SD that I saw real definitions of falacy and the multiple examples. Sure I knew what it meant in general, but I didn't know how pervasive it was. This is with my being in my senior year of college that I have yet to see any formal education on the premise. Think about how handicapped normal people are. Its not so much as stupidity as ignorance because of denied education.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-04-22 08:54pm

Huh. No education in fallacies? I've had it in two classes already, Ethics and Fundamentals of Speech.

And the God of Pascal's Wager isn't a good God anyway. The belief does become merely a (within the context of the Wager) rational, logical idea rather than the faith that is required by religion. *shrug* He can say it's a false dilemma all he wants, but theologians and philosophers alike disagree with him.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-04-22 08:59pm

The Dark wrote:Huh. No education in fallacies? I've had it in two classes already, Ethics and Fundamentals of Speech.

And the God of Pascal's Wager isn't a good God anyway. The belief does become merely a (within the context of the Wager) rational, logical idea rather than the faith that is required by religion. *shrug* He can say it's a false dilemma all he wants, but theologians and philosophers alike disagree with him.

I took Ethics, Speech, and a Philosphy. No formal education on falalcies.