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

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.johnnyb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Tajimas D et al.: Clearly you have too high opinion of your own abilities as a reasoner. Most atheists do.
I shall henceforth choose to believe—because, as well all know, beliefs are things that people choose,
And so your response is something you choose to believe? "You are nothing but a pack of neurons", you don't actually choose anything. 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. Therefore if naturalism is true, your illusion of mind cuts its own throat.
and the Lord would approve of people believing in him merely as a way of hedging their bets—in all of the religions in the world.
Gee, not really - I see you don't know anything of the Lord. Bet hedging "faith" is is rewarded by losing the bet. "Until you have given yourself to him you will not have a real self." You will always be incomplete... and lonely.
Of course, I shall also have to ignore the fact that they are mutually incompatible.
Unless you concede that you must also ignore all the conflicting and self-contradicting "scientific" theories as well when deciding - based on your logic of bet hedging rather than on evidence and logic - which one is most likely true. Add in all the conflicting philosophies. Atheism is just another zero evidence based and illogical construct, like so many other incompatible ideologies. So apply your logic to all theories whatsoever or not at all. Thus, as we know, clearly some scientific theories are much more viable than others. And clearly some are much closer to the truth than others. Therefore, based on your logic, the same must apply to religions as well. So, one must be true or at least much nearer the truth than all the other incompatible ones. George Washington said in his farewell address:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Disdain of all religion is the realm of fools and madmen.Borne_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Tribune7:
If truth is subjective and there is no ultimate purpose why expend energy to debate?
Opposite point of Echinda's: How in the world does truth become objective when moored to God — but otherwise remain "subjective"? I think that's giving truth some rather short shrift. As an atheist, I feel that truth, morality, beauty, etc are "necessary beings", not contingent on any of us, or on any possible being. If an all-powerful being that had existed until now disappeared today, truth would still exist (unless that being's disappearance somehow resulted in the disappearance of everything else, of course). If I discovered that I was the handiwork of an advanced civilization, that might give me a serious psychological "whoa" moment, but it wouldn't give me meaning where there was none before. My family and friend and species and planet (and Internet debates!) are plenty to provide the meaning I need. (Nor would I find it rational to wonder how to do exactly whatever this civilization expected of me, thus fulfilling my "true" purpose in life.)Lenoxus_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Echinda, "Please give me a single example of an objective truth." "a thing is" do you deny this?lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

Pascal’s wager??? Seriously?
Yeah, I've never found Pascal's Wager to be very convincing either, and I'm a Christian! Still, I think this thread can serve a useful purpose. I'll challenge all believers here: Which argument in favor of the existence of god would you use on an atheist? Imagine you are speaking with a hardcore materialist evolutionist, sired by Richard Dawkins, who has been exposed from age 0 to nothing but OTOOS, back issues of Free Inquiry, and PZ's random biological, erm, "emissions" *eyeroll*. I would tend to avoid things like the trilemma or biblical prophecy---evolutionists will just seize on some trivial discrepancy and never see the big picture. Rather, I would try to build a case based on the originality of Jesus' thought. Can anyone imagine something as radical as the Sermon on the Mount being written by a "normal" human in Jesus' time?herb_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

For that matter, as you seem to know what it is, what is "the ultimate purpose" too?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee (#9) asked: "How would I apply this to the atheist who died while still an atheist?" How would you apply it to the much larger number of "righteous pagans" who died having never heard of God (through no fault of their own)? Are they all consigned to eternal fire because of an accident of history or geography? That hardly seems fair.PaulBurnett_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Tribune7
If truth is subjective and there is no ultimate purpose why expend energy to debate?
Please give me a single example of an objective truth.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

I just can't agree to burning in Hell for daring to think in a way I find logical. If I was created on a time stream then all that's contained in me isn't my responsibility. If god truly poses this ultimatum and people truly are as innocent and unknowing as they seem to be, yet god is throwing people into hell, then it's my moral obligation to destroy him to protect the innocent, or suffer forever in the attempt. How could I live with myself if god is torturing all these people and I'm sitting in heaven? I believe there was a god or gods that started all things but the afterlife can't be as black and white as heaven or hell described in the bible.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

I ask atheists: Why do you bother arguing? That never made sense to me either. If truth is subjective and there is no ultimate purpose why expend energy to debate?tribune7_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

I have often remarked tha the most interesting thing about this debate is the behavior of the anti ID people. There is no politeness or good feelings manifest in any of them. They seem to be driven by negative feelings against something with an objective of putting people down or finding a gotcha somewhere. As one commenter said a day or so ago, all they are interested in is poisoning the well. Why do they continue to come here when they show such obvious disdain? That is the interesting question.
I take it that your comment was directed at me. I'm seriously interested in knowing why single out anti-ID people as being not polite. Wasn't it Dembski who compared Jerry Coyne to Herman Munster? Commenter Joseph, the other day, said something about evolutionist morons. I've seen plenty of similar examples from ID people on these very pages. I hope you're not claiming that the ID people are somehow better at taking the high road. Don't you at least find id.com.au's post slightly amusing, especially in the light of what Cornelius has been writing lately? Cornelius has been accusing evolutionsts of using religious assumptions (although any support for his assertions has often been lacking) and here we have an ID person doing precisely the same thing. The conclusion id.com.au reaches is, while deductively true when using said assumptions, hopelessly wrong. Keep adding gods that don't have the same requirements as the god that id.com.au is thinking about and the probability that you will believe in the right one decreases. Heck, a lot of these potential gods will even condemn people to hell for believing in them (Tajimad D's proclamation that "Thus, all gods not yet invented can be disregarded." doesn't cut the mustard). Don't you, also, find it interesting that when an ID supporter writes something that is so obviously wrong, you immediately have to write something complaining about the anti-ID person who points it out.Hoki_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

“I haven’t been here long, and so I’m curious - has there been a case on this blog where someone has reversed their position either for ID or against it - and there’s written evidence?” My answer would be the same as Jerry's. Vividvividbleau_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

"I haven’t been here long, and so I’m curious - has there been a case on this blog where someone has reversed their position either for ID or against it - and there’s written evidence?" My first comment here was almost 4 years ago and started reading the blog here a couple months before that. In that time I have seen two types of people challenge ID and none have ever said they changed their minds. The first seemed to be an honest inquiry into the issues and when their prior beliefs were challenged and they couldn't answer the challenges, they disappeared. In other words they faded but may have a new respect for the issues which they were previously unaware of. Since they never reappeared it is hard to say what happened. But they were not reflexively negative as our current anti ID set of group thinkers. Then there is a second type of challenger who does not budge an inch over time. They are easy to identify because of their attitudes and arguments. When rebuffed on one thing they move on to another but concede nothing. Currently, the site is loaded with these types and they are easy to identify. They all seem to have the same modus operandi. They are generally unpleasant, mocking and negative. There is a third person who says they were lurkers and say they have changed their minds by watching the discussion here but then again it is hard to know the history of any individual. Maybe there are some who have a different perspective on this. I personally look at this site as a way to make cogent arguments about the issues and learn from others including the anti ID people. They often have some relevant issues and we should look at this as a way to learn. Allen MacNeill has been a great source of information and to use Behe's analysis, what is the edge of evolutionary theory. I have zero interest in changing the minds of any anti ID person here. I think it is a waste of time and watch over and over again how some of the pro ID people get baited into long fruitless arguments ostensibly thinking they can change the minds of some anti ID person. I have never seen it happen. Though I will say that Allen MacNeill has made some occasional nice sounds about ID but that hasn't happened too often. But then Allen usually comes back on a negative tack. Allen has to be careful how he treats ID because he would have a lot to lose if he is ever seen as getting to close to us. The real target of the discussions are the lurkers who may be on the fence or are genuinely interested in the truth and logic of the issues. The other target is the other pro ID people as we share our understandings with each other. The anti ID people are useful because their constant tiresome irrelevant arguments are reassuring that they have not got anything and a confidence builder for the pro ID people.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

RE #11: Because physics compels them to.William J. Murray_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Interesting how you say
The only rational position to take is #4
You just assumed that you are correct (and of course, you can't take this as a starting assumption when supporting your point). The position you take (if you accept Pascal's wager), is to believe in God, and either #3 or #4 is true (as you say at the end of that sentance with where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose).PhiJ_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

Pascal's wager highlights that atheism means:- Death is the end and there is no hope. I ask atheists: Why do you bother arguing?mad doc_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT}

Jerry, "Why do they continue to come here when they show such obvious disdain? That is the interesting question." I don't think they all come here from the same motives. Perhaps some of them are insecure in their beliefs and want to see another perspective. Perhaps some of them come here to artificially strengthen their beliefs by knocking the beliefs of those with whom they disagree. I haven't been here long, and so I'm curious - has there been a case on this blog where someone has reversed their position either for ID or against it - and there's written evidence? If so, I would definitely like to know the reasons why. If they came to accept ID, what was it that made them switch, and what attitudes or arguments here were the most pursuasive. If they came to reject ID while previously accepting it, - same questions, but in reverse. Did Pascal's Wager play in their decision?CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, "Maybe he/she/it rewards intellectual honesty, even when mistaken." Yeah, well that's another reason why I reject Pascal's Wager. I depend on what the scriptures state in this matter. According to scripture, rejection of belief in God is not intellectual honesty, but foolishness. There's no wager involved. How would I apply this to the atheist still living? Simply to say that perhaps God ain't done yet. How would I apply this to the atheist who died while still an atheist? Truthfully, I don't know, because God is the real judge of intellectual honesty. I could be mistaken in any guess I could posit. It would seem according to the scripture, that in the atheist's rejection of God, he/she has not been intellectually honest, but that's not my judgment to make. I have to assume then, that with those still living, they are making an honest attempt at intellectually understanding God. We all make mistakes in our assumptions, though.CannuckianYankee_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

It is well known that there is a massive assumption underlying Pascal's wager - that you lose everything if you disbelief and God exists. Maybe he/she/it rewards intellectual honesty, even when mistaken.Mark Frank_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

I've never liked Pascal's Wager, even with this new twist. It seems to me that we ought to present the gospel as true by its merits alone, not as some sort of Russian Roulette game if true and we refuse to believe it. The gospel is more powerful than these kinds of manipulative tricks. I prefer the Trilemma, but it has it's problems too. Clearly there are other options than liar, lunatic or Lord - such as that Jesus never existed. I don't believe that one for a moment, but people have come up with other options that seem reasonable, so the Trilemma falls as well. I don't beleve there's any quick substitute for "working out our salvation with fear and trembling." This allows even the atheist to work out his/her problems with the gospel, and doesn't force him/her into any contrived either/or scheme. The only either/or presentation I think is legitimate is the one the gospel presents in John 3:16. In that one we have to place the element of our own sin within the context of a God who provided a way out of sin's consequence. Neither Pascal's Wager or the Trilemma present this truth, and so are either incomplete, or negated by it. Jesus is not Lord simply because he is neither a lunatic or a liar, and God would still exist despite our belief in or rejection of Him. So the problem with both schemes, is they leave the question up to us, and negate the transcendence of God apart from our belief.CannuckianYankee_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

mereologist, You clearly do not understand the flawless logic of the argument made above w.r.t. the % of believers in the NAS. If 0% of the population believes in something, clearly it cannot be true. Thus, all gods not yet invented can be disregarded. I would appreciate it if you would stop positing new gods, as worshipping all of the many other man-made deities is already started to occupy the greater part of my time.Tajimas D_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

Tajimas, Don't forget that there are possible gods other than the ones worshiped by existing religions. For example, what about the god who rewards people for hopping on one foot in public? Better placate him too, just to be safe.mereologist_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

You make an excellent point, and one which I had not considered heretofore. I shall henceforth choose to believe---because, as well all know, beliefs are things that people choose, and the Lord would approve of people believing in him merely as a way of hedging their bets---in all of the religions in the world. Of course, I shall also have to ignore the fact that they are mutually incompatible. Actually, come to think of it, that last part sounds kinda difficult, so I propose the following method of determining my religion: The largest religious sect in the world is Roman Catholicism, encompassing about 1/6th of the world's population. Ergo, by your logic above, it has the largest chance of being correct---about 17%. I note approvingly that the Catholic Church endorses evolution (as does the National Academy of Science), and that ID must therefore be discarded as heretical.Tajimas D_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I have often remarked tha the most interesting thing about this debate is the behavior of the anti ID people. There is no politeness or good feelings manifest in any of them. They seem to be driven by negative feelings against something with an objective of putting people down or finding a gotcha somewhere. As one commenter said a day or so ago, all they are interested in is poisoning the well. Why do they continue to come here when they show such obvious disdain? That is the interesting question.jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Pascal's wager??? Seriously? You should get together with Cornelius Hunter and have a quick chat about religious assumptions.Hoki_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply