Pascal's Wager (Part the third)
Jumile recently blogged about Pascal’s Wager, here and here, and I read the comments on his thread with some interest. It seems the phrasing of the wager caused some confusion. Distinguishing between ‘a god’ and ‘God’ seems to be at the root of it.
I thought I might rewrite the Wager using ‘a deity’ and ‘The Supreme Being’ but being a maths geek I thought a matrix (or spreadsheet!) might be better (and then went silly with Integration). In the table below I’ve illustrated what happens to you after death based on:
| Belief | Supreme Being Exists | Must have Faith? | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atheist | Yes | Yes | Hell |
| Atheist | Yes | No | Heaven |
| Atheist | No | N/A | Nothing |
| Another deity | Yes | Yes | Hell |
| Another deity | Yes | No | Heaven |
| Another deity | No | N/A | Wasted Faith |
| Supreme Being | Yes | Yes | Heaven |
| Supreme Being | Yes | No | Heaven |
| Supreme Being | No | N/A | Wasted Faith |
I actually reworked all the above as equations that I integrated over the P(Supreme Being Exists) from 0 to 1 and I’ll post the work at the bottom of this article purely for mathematical amusement.
I’ve argued before as to the un-likelihood of any actual God sending good people to Hell. In which case True Faith is irrelevant but where True Faith is not required Atheists are better off because the the price for misplaced Atheism has to be less than that of misplaced Belief – they didn’t waste any effort cowtowing to the wrong god. A minor point once you’re dead and in Heaven anyway but it could be quite a price during life.
However the important point is that where True Faith is required things are complicated. On the one hand it depends on how much value an Atheist would give to an afterlife in Heaven versus validating their Atheism. More importantly though it all comes down to whether the person of Faith has the true faith. Even if you only consider the main religions of the world the chance of you being in the right one is no more than 1:5 or so. If you consider the various interpretations of that religion to be important then it’s more like 1:20 or 1:50. If you consider all the deities that have ever been worshipped – and many of them still are worshipped by small numbers of people – then you have a snowball’s chance in hell of finding the right one.
That is to say that when picking apart Pascal’s wager the most important ‘variable’ is whether or not a Deity demands True Faith in him/her/it. If they do then you might as well just pick the one who’s notion of an afterlife you like the most. If you’re in the armed forces I’d go for Odin if I were you!
As the number of potential Supreme Beings rises the value of having faith diminishes and the value of being an Atheist rises – where True Faith is required. Where it is not required the value of faith still diminishes and the value of being an Atheist remains the same.
This leads to an interesting tangent. At some point religions changed. They changed from accepting that other people had other gods and the belief was simply that these were your ‘local’ gods and possibly that yours were better than anyone else’s; and they changed to stating that yours was the only real god and everyone else was simply deluded. And from this we simply conclude that religion is about power and control (and wealth). There is no other reason that I can come up with for why this change would occur. Any argument that the true faith became apparent is fallacious because there is no explanation as to why it didn’t exist beforehand nor any explanation let alone proof of which this true faith is. Christians love to talk about events prior to Christ being the Devil’s handiwork to confuse the believer. This is such unbelievable poppycock as it can be applied just as easily as to their own religion!
Anyway there’s my little exploration of Pascal’s Wager, now here comes the silly maths.
We can make an expected value of ‘belief’ from integrating the outcome values over a probability of the Supreme Being existing from 0 to 1. This is a sum of all possibilities along the P(Supreme Being) spectrum.
For most people V(Hell) and V(Misplaced Belief) will be negative which is why all solutions are additive not subtractive.
For an Atheist where the Supreme Being demands true Faith we can say:
Value = Integral of [ ( P(Supreme Being) * V(Hell) ) + ( P(!Supreme Being) * V(Valid Atheism) ) ]
The result is:
Value = ( V(Hell) + V(Valid Atheism) ) / 2
For an Atheist where true Faith is not required:
Value = Integral of [ ( P(Supreme Being) * V(Heaven) ) + ( P(!Supreme Being) * V(Misplaced Atheism) ) ]
Value = ( V(Heaven) + V(Misplaced Atheism) ) /2
For a Deist where True Faith is required:
Value = Integral of [ ( P(Supreme Being) * V(Heaven) * P(Belief in Correct Deity) ) + ( P(!Supreme Being) * V(Misplaced Belief) ) ]
Value = ( V(Heaven)*P(Velief in Correct Deity) + V(Misplaced Belief) ) / 2
For a Deist where True Faith is not required:
Value = Integral of [ ( P(Supreme Being) * V(Heaven) ) + ( P(!Supreme Being) * V(Misplaced Belief)) ) ]
Value = ( V(Heaven) + V(Misplaced Belief) ) /2
Plug in your own number is you like!
1 Comment to “Pascal's Wager (Part the third)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Jumile, December 13, 2009 @ 2:24 am
My understanding is that the change ‘from’ other gods and ‘to’ one god that you mention lays with Abraham when he/his god decided that polytheism was bad (mmkay) and that there was One True God. The birth of monotheism.
A number of papers I’ve read state this as a natural step in the evolution of religion: nature and weather worship -> polytheism with idols -> monotheism (and then presumably to atheism when we finally have no more gaps in which to push the God of the Gaps). It’s not quite accurate though, as Christianity in all its forms is unarguably polytheistic (the Trinity, the Bible itself, the Popes or local pastor, the saints, angels, crackers and relics, etc), and the same accusation can be levelled at Islam with all that “salla allahu alaihi wa sallam” (but you didn’t hear that from me
).
The problem with the rationale of religious evolution is that although there’s this “one true god” rhetoric scattered throughout the Old Testament (sticking with the middle-eastern stories), this one, true and only god keeps telling everyone that “the other gods” aren’t to be followed, that he’s the only one (really, truly, honestly) and those others… they don’t exist, nope, no sirree. If you get my meaning (the lady doth protest too much, as it were).
Clearly this is a socially inept or OCD god, or man trying to get a message across as if it’s from god. Now what did Mr Occam use to get rid of that beard — I always forget…?