Russian Roulette and Pascal’s Wager

_{Mark

July 2, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

According to Allen McNeil the Gallup poll results for American scientists are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 5%

Guided Evolution = 40%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 55%

For members of the National Academy of Sciences*, the results are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 3%

Guided Evolution = 14%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 83%

*data from the Cornell Evolution Project, http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

So here’s how I read it. One in six of the most accomplished living scientists believe in a living God responsible for the creation of mankind.

Pascal compares the risks of belief and disbelief:

1) If I disbelieve in God and I’m wrong, I lose everything.
2) If I disbelieve in God and I’m right, I gain nothing.
3) If I believe in God and I’m wrong, I lose nothing.
4) If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything.

The only rational position to take is #4 where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is Pascal’s Wager.

Now if we take our odds of God being real from the greatest living scientists we find the odds of God being real are 1 in 6 (17%). So this is essentially like playing Russian Roulette with a 6-shot revolver with one bullet in it. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens you gain nothing but if you pull the trigger and the gun fires you lose your life. Why play that game? Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Comments

Tajimas D @ 5 You said.."If 0% of the population believes in something, clearly it cannot be true. Thus, all gods not yet invented can be disregarded." The problem with the first part of your statement is that it just isn't true. What is true is that 100% of the population freely choose to believe in something. Secondly, belief does not establish the truth of a proposition. So the fact that some choose not to believe in God, doesn't necessarily mean that God doesn't exist. Similarly, the Judeo-Christian God could be true, but not on the basis of whether people believe in Him or not. Rather, if an individual has good reasons to believe God exists, then He may exist. If an individual does not have good reasons for God existing, then he is simply uninformed, or in denial about the good reasons others have for God existing. The fact is, many people do have good reasons to believe the Judeo-Christian God exists, but I have yet to hear of a good reason why God either could not or does not exist. Even if all Bible-bashing was justified, it still wouldn't be evidece that God doesn't exist. And the last part of your statement "thus, all gods not yet invented can be disregarded" is interesting, and easily disregarded. I have no doubt that all man-made deities yet to be invented are all equally dis-regardable. Some atheists believe in Almighty Chance, Undirected Natural Causes... something they claim can accomplish what the theist believes God can or has done. Wow. Chance, Undirected Natural Causes is looking more and more like a man-made god... .....something that most definitely does not belong in a public school science class. In fact, I think it belongs in the Philosophy Department, or perhaps Ancient History Studies. Class dismissed.Bantay_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

lamarck, if "an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings," then "a thing exists" is definitely not an objective truth, since there are plenty of places in the universe where it seems nothing exists.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Actually, it's even worse than that: Choice #4, "If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything," is only true not only if God exists but if God cares whether you believe. How many options are there if the loss/gain calculus includes many other things aside from the (really rather trivial) issue of whether we choose what's behind Curtain #4?David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Echidna, How about being able to respond to a question that a 5 year old might ask? ;)Clive Hayden_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

I believe that Pascal’s wager is a suasive argument for the existence of an unlimited, universal God,
How so? It's an argument for making the safest choice, but it works -- in fact, it's meant to work -- apart from arguments for (or against) God as such.David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Lenoxus
The idea that there’s any possible world in which it is not true strikes me as kind of sick
Yet your "designer" apparently does not think all sorts of things are sick. Like wasps that drill into the heads of their prey to control them. Like bugs that lay eggs in other bugs then eat then from the inside out. Like bugs that not only lay eggs into other bugs but then paralyse them so they have to lie there and feel themselves being eaten from the inside out. Yep, the idea of an objective morality from a "designer" who also makes those kinds of designs is funny. Tell me, if it had of been the Wasps that would be in humanities place do you think that you'd be arguing that sticking your stinger in a grubs brain and controling it was immoral? If that was what you had to do to reproduce?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Borne @ 23 I sense you were almost able to get the joke. My response was supposed to be a poorly argued, idiotic piece of trash; the only person who could be convinced by Pascal's wager is an idiot.Tajimas D_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Borne, That quote from Lewis's They Asked for a Paper is one of my favorites. This is a good one too from his essay De Futilitate: http://books.google.com/books?id=e19zlwlOVwUC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=one+popular+distinction+is+between+what+is+called+scientific+thought+and+other+kinds+of+thought&source=bl&ots=IBddyxo76b&sig=gKdHN3RhkZprc7a8HnbP0HHylYk&hl=en&ei=ZTZOSpuRAoXKtgebg9yzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1Clive Hayden_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

I see. I'm talking about objective truth, not objective as it relates to physical universe objects. "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

I believe that Pascal's wager is a suasive argument for the existence of an unlimited, universal God, but that it is incapable of serving as an argument for Christianity or any other revealed religion which professes to worship an unlimited, universal God. Attacking Pascal's wager by citing verses from the Old Testament is therefore completely missing the point. Even if the arguments against the God of the Old Testament were valid, all that they would accomplish is to eliminate one possible candidate for the universal Deity (Yahweh). I have noticed that some readers on this thread have tried to depict God as an arbitrary, capricious Being, because of certain odd decrees He is alleged to have made. Not so. Some of the decrees may relate to matters where it is impossible to give a reason for one choice over another - e.g. should we all worship together on Friday, Saturday or Sunday? Thus a God who makes ad hoc decrees at certain points in history (e.g. about keeping the Sabbath holy) need not Himself possess any ad hoc or arbitrary essential attributes. That is the difference between God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the latter is essentially limited and defined by an ad hoc set of attributes. Rather than take up too much space on this thread, I shall simply invite readers to click here if they wish to read my own philosophical defense of Pascal's wager, which is a little different from common formulations of the wager. I would also invite readers to click here if they wish to read Professor Peter Kreeft's thoughts on Pascal's wager, which are very profound and insightful.vjtorley_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

lamarck, ok, but that doesn't make for "objective" "truths."David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

David, It's impossible for there to be no thing. You're observing things and thinking about things right now.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

For those of you confused, let me clarify. If it's an objective truth that murdering children is wrong, then does the fact that the origin of those truths (i.e. god) can ignore those truths (i.e. instructions to murder children) when it chooses to not worry you as to if that truth is really objective or not? Does that indicate that A) it's not an objective truth. B) god is immoral C) the bible is not true or something else? And anyway it cannot be "an objective truth" as somewhere in the universe there might be a race of aliens that have to rape and murder their children in order to be able to reproduce. I've read weirder sci-fi. It's just the way their species does it and that's how it is and always has been. Does that then make it wrong? Would it be better if their race did not exist then for something they do that you happen to consider objectionable to happen? even if to this race it's perfectly acceptable? And normal? Yes, it's considered wrong to rape and murder children (unless it's a command from a particular god) but that per se does not make it an objective truth.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

The only known objective truth is that “a thing is”.
This is a curious thing to say, and I don't think I've ever heard anybody else make that claim before. In what sense is the statement "a thing is" an objective truth? (NB: I don't believe in objective truth, and I don't think that little semantic games attempting to trap the relativist in self-contradiction are at all helpful. For everybody's sake, but especially for jerry's -- Hi jerry! -- I'll avoiding getting into a long and unrpoductive argument about why.)David Kellogg_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

What does quoting the bible have to do with answering the question about whether or not: “It is always and absolutely wrong to rape and murder children.”? Is an objective truth?
My own, unsolicited answer: well of course it's an objective truth! It's an extremely objective truth! The idea that there's any possible world in which it is not true strikes me as kind of sick. Which is the point I've been going for in what I've been saying. If you asked someone that question — is it always and absolutely wrong to rape and murder children? — how would you feel if the answer was "Well, that depends. Does God exist?" I for one would be a bit disturbed by such an answer. (Of course, all this is ignoring the sort of crazy "train-tracks situations" philosophers like to dream up, like "What if it were a choice between that and the end of life in the universe, due to some sick interstellar terrorist?" But I think we can safely ignore those sort of "possibilities".)Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Echidna, The only known objective truth is that "a thing is". If you disagree, then say it. If not, then all things aren't subjective.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
I don’t know of many atheists that claim they became an atheist because they found it enjoyble.
Oooh, pick me! If I believed that good people went to heaven when they died, I would feel pretty depressed. Why exactly do we bother saving their lives, then? And if everyone always gets whatever they deserve, though karma or whatever, what's the point of striving for justice? Etc, etc.Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

What does quoting the bible have to do with answering the question about whether or not: “It is always and absolutely wrong to rape and murder children.”? Is an objective truth?William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

My comment was not meant for anyone in particular but was a general assessment of the anti ID people. As I said only one anti ID person who has come here has earned my respect and this person was probably one of the most knowledgeable persons that has commented here. But after 4 years here I have seen the spectrum on how people behave. Generally, the pro ID people are courteous till mocked in some way. Then they respond. There have been a few exceptions and these people get called on it after awhile . Some are always courteous. That is not true of the anti ID people who generally come here with a decidedly negative attitude. You should see how Dr. Dembski has been treated on the internet and by the science community. You rarely see such opprobrium hurled at anyone trying to make a legitimate scientific point. You see similar behavior towards Michael Behe who is always a gentleman. The anti ID community is a sewer pit in their behavior and those who come here must behave at a certain level or else they will be banned. But even then they only feign good manners and see what they can get away with in poor behavior.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Borne:
A bag of meat containing a pack of neurons is merely the accidental product of millions of years of evolutionary accidents caused by non rational processes.
This take on things is more materialistic than my materialism — it actually assumes that if something consists of physical parts, it cannot have any further importance, meaning, or other metaphysical beauties. But take that bag of meat and zap it with a divine spark and voila! It has purpose! If the bag of meat merely takes care of its children bags-of-meat, or creates art for its fellows, or explores its universe, or does any of the myriad other things it can do with its short precious time in the world, its life is hollow and it might as well kill itself. But if it was created by something non-physical — and if that non-physical thing is going to send it to an eternal paradise after it dies — then it's got something to live for, by Jove! Is it really that hard to see why I might contend that a bag of meat is a pretty amazing thing in itself? If you want to argue that it's downright impossible for something merely physical to have free will or love or the like, fine. But I won't buy any argument that a being could have those things, yet still somehow have a meaningless existence. (BTW, I could as easily spend paragraphs deriding the way theism turns us into mere rag-dolls made by God to do his bidding, but I won't, because I don't actually think that's a fair characterization. Hint, hint :D) This essay has some more of the exuberance that inspired my thoughts here.Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Lamark, 1: Give me an example of such. And I'll tell you if I agree it exists or not. 2: Use it in a sentence.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Bourne
How about, “It is always and absolutely wrong to rape and murder children.”
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB) Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT) And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Anyone who claims there are no objective truths or morals is a walking self-contradiction.
So that's your example of a objective moral truth is it? Still, I guess god does not have to follow the objective morals it created right? Oh, hang on, can they still be objective morals if they can be broken and the entity breaking them still considered moral? As presumably you believe that your god is a moral being?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Echidna, You didn't answer my question. I'm going to add another one in too. I'm sure you'd like to take part in this if you could prove me wrong: 1. Does an objective truth exist? Yes no or uncertain is fine. 2. Is "A thing is" an objective truth or not?lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

If 5% of american scientists are YEC where are the peer-reviewed papers regarding YEC?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

I've always found the convenience argument pretty effective; if it is more convenient, comforting and enjoyable to believe in a god and an afterlife, why not do so? If it is not true, there is clearly no penalty in doing so, and as a bonus it helped you to enjoy your life while you are here. Remember, if there is no afterlife, being right about it doesn't matter. That you believed a true thing (or disbelieved a false thing) doesn't get you an award or special recognition. Let's then turn to how people will remember you; you can be a good or a bad person regardless of whether or not you believe in a god; you can be successful and wealthy and leave quite a good estate and happy, well-adjusted offsring either way. If the prospect of a judgemental god bothers you, there are several doctrines that do not believe in such a god or afterlife. So, all things being equal, what is the purpose or point of believing that one will be annihilated upon death, when one could just as easily believe that their existence will cotinue, finding extra comfort and a transcendent (even if imagined) source of equanimity and hope? I don't think physics or chance cares one way or another. Of course, if one enjoys atheism (for whatever reason), then I suppose believing that would be the route ... but I don't know of many atheists that claim they became an atheist because they found it enjoyble.William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Doesn't Pascal's Wager have this whole "grace as fire insuraznce" quality that was criticized by Bonhoeffer? I'm surprised it is still around.Nakashima_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Echidna-Levy:
Please give me a single example of an objective truth.
How about, "It is always and absolutely wrong to rape and murder children."? A moral example. How about, "1+1 = 2"? A mathematical example. Is this objectively true or are there instances in which 1+1 = 65, or ...? Anyone who claims there are no objective truths or morals is a walking self-contradiction. Such a one has yet to take the first steps in true reason. Such a one reasons against his own reason being a reliable witness to reality! "Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age." - M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998) "If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. but if their thoughts -i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." C.S. Lewis, in God in the Dock (p52-53 Answers to Questions on Christianity) "Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought-laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory, in other words, unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it." (p.162) - LEWIS, C. S. They Asked for a Paper. Geoffrey BlesBorne_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Wow! After all of the hullabaloo about no real scientist is a young-earth creationist, we now find that a full 5% of American Scientists are YEC? And 3% of NAS members? This is certainly worth reporting somewhere. Wow! I guess Lewontin was wrong. KF's posts just got one paragraph shorter.Nakashima_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Lamark
“a thing is” do you deny this?
Ah, you want to talk axoims and logic do you? Sorry, I'm not interested in the "truth" of "1+1=2". I thought that "objective truth" on offer here might be a bit more sophisticated then that. You know, like "there is a designer and here are his moral rules for living" Or "the designers plan for humanity is such and such" Or "the designer does not want you eat fish on a friday". If you want to start at "a thing is" then please be my guest. However I must warn you that those who have already done a introductory level philosophy course will find it tedious in the extreme. And I won't be taking part. So, any "objective truth" on offer that a 5 year old could not think of?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

herb (#21) asked: "Can anyone imagine something as radical as the Sermon on the Mount being written by a “normal” human in Jesus’ time?" A majority of New Testament scholars agree the Sermon on the Mount was not "written" at the time but transcribed later (or much later) from oral histories. The primary source is the Gospel of Matthew, but variants appear in the earlier Gospel of Mark, the Gospels of Luke and Thomas - and then there's the hypothetical lost "Q Document."PaulBurnett_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply