Pascal's Wager

Mr. Mercurial

Joe1919 wrote: »

Pascal states '"your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions." Therefore, this inability can be overcome by diminishing the passions through the practice of belief: "Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you" (wiki)

Perhaps one can brainwash oneself into belief ? Indeed, this would help occupy my mind for the next week and so would make my dying easier.
'Jackpot', I gain on the double (potentially).

But anyhow the point (in gambling terms) is 'if your not in, you cant win', so perhaps any chance is better than non at all, especially if it costs nothing to bet.

Even if one accepted this (it doesn't seem plausible to me, but for the sake of argument suppose that you can make yourself believe something purely for strategic reasons), you still have the problem of the mistaken assumption implicit in the Wager that it's a matter of believing and not believing.

The reality is that there are an infinite number of possible gods which will punish you for not believing in them and an infinite number of possible gods which will punish you for believing in them as a result of the wager.

philologos

Well not an infinite number of gods, but an infinite number of concepts of god / gods. Whether these concepts are true is another matter. If they were all true, I'm sure Joe1919 would pay them all equal attention on his deathbed

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Well not an infinite number of gods, but an infinite number of concepts of god / gods. Whether these concepts are true is another matter. If they were all true, I'm sure Joe1919 would pay them all equal attention on his deathbed

The wiki answer to this is: ......apologists of his wager counter that, of the rival options, only the ones that award infinite happiness affect the Wager's dominance. They claim that neither Odin's nor Kali's finite, semi-blissful promise could contend with the infinite bliss offered by Jesus Christ, so they drop out of consideration.[15] Also, the infinite bliss the rival god offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ's promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah's and Allah's (all three being identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong god is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct god results in punishment (hell)."

Anyhow, I am directing all my prayers to the 'one true God' so this should cover that.

I can see why some people may object to what they see as the crudeness of Pascal. However, in defence of Pascal, I think both gambling and faith have something in common and that is they are both about 'hope'.
To be hopeful of something could be said (e.g Aquinas) to require four conditions: that for what we hope we perceive it to be (1) good, in the (2) future, (3) difficult to obtain and (4) possible to obtain. When something fulfils the first three conditions but not the last (i.e. it is impossible to obtain), then we have despair.
Therefore what distinguishes despair from hope is our perception of the 'possibility' of our obtainment of the 'goods'.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2040.htm

This perception of the 'possibility' is very important. It's what saves us from despair. Is this 'perception of the possibility' based on objective knowledge? I think only partially. This perception of the 'possibility' is also based on our subjective 'feelings', there is an element of irrational optimism or perhaps human 'faith' involved.

So in my view, Pascal was trying to deal with the problem of 'faith' and 'hope' and trying to give a rational answer and reason to having faith in this uncertain life.

philologos

It won't cut it for any monotheism I would suggest. Any prayer to a "one true God" if it is said in vagueness, isn't really all that sincere. If God is going to be in the Judeo-Christian model, and I'd suspect the Islamic model, one who searches heart and mind. He will be able to tell the true intention of your action very clearly. Christianity suggests that everyone comes to the Father through belief in His Son Jesus Christ (John 14:9, 1 John 2:23 amongst numerous other Scriptures).

The problem with Pascals Wager, is that it is hopelessly irrational. It is far better to put your heart and soul into finding out what is true rather than entertaining things on a whim.

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

Lets put this another way. OK, I am 91, born and baptised a Christian (e.g Catholic) but don't really believe. I have never bothered to attend church etc for the last 76 years.
Now I am lying in a hospital bed on my own with only a week to live. A priest happens to be doing his rounds and asks me would I like the last sacraments. So I think to myself, what the heck? What have I to lose by accepting the priests offer? I was a gambler all my life and was never one to refuse a free entry of any type.

Can someone give me a convincing argument as to why this poor wretched 91 year old, who lived a terrible (but sometimes enjoyable) life of sin and debauchery should refuse the priests offer and indeed why I should not make an act of contrition etc. to the 'one true God', whoever he may be?

Because the only honest way of starting that prayer (in such a situation) is:
"To whom it may concern...".

Joe1919 wrote: »

PS The argument about different Gods etc is discussed in the wiki entry. (Argument from inconsistent revelations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

The apologists countering is equally flawed though. First they say ignore the religions that dont offer infinite paradise, as if offering infinite paradise makes a religion more or less likely.Next, while the gods of Islam, Christianity and Judaism may be considered the same god, there is nothing to think that god will let you off for believing in the islam version if the christian version is the right one or vice versa (most christain interpretations say there is no salvation without Jesus as god, so it kind of scuppers the hopes of the Jews and Muslims). The last of the apologists counters is a ridiculous claim that asserts just believing in any god is enough, once you believe. But there is no reason to think, in that case, that believe is needed at all. Not to mention most religion specificly mention that they will punish you for getting it wrong (first commandment of the christian god -Though shalt have no other gods before me)

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

Pascal states '"your inability to believe, because reason compels you to [believe] and yet you cannot, [comes] from your passions." Therefore, this inability can be overcome by diminishing the passions through the practice of belief: "Learn from those who were bound like you. . . . Follow the way by which they began: that is by doing everything as if they believed, by taking holy water, by having Masses said, etc. Naturally, even this will make you believe and will dull you" (wiki)

The thing that prevents people from believing is in how they approach evidence (its certainly what prevents me). Its quite a common tactic for theists apologists to label this as a kind of arrogance or weakness (hence the "passsions"), but in reality, its simply a fact that religion doesn't internally make sense and I cant help recognising that. What you are suggesting is for me to coimpletely ignore my instincts and common sense and just go along with ritual until I have been dulled to the conflicts I see. But without a sensible reason in the first place, there is no point. Pascals wager cant ever overcome that.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Perhaps one can brainwash oneself into belief ? Indeed, this would help occupy my mind for the next week and so would make my dying easier.
'Jackpot', I gain on the double (potentially).

But anyhow the point (in gambling terms) is 'if your not in, you cant win', so perhaps any chance is better than non at all, especially if it costs nothing to bet.

The cost is a life wasted living a lie, probably the biggest cost there can be.

Joe1919

Mark Hamill wrote: »

.....The apologists countering is equally flawed though. First they say ignore the religions that dont offer infinite paradise, as if offering infinite paradise makes a religion more or less likely........

The gambling man thinks of the 'Jackpot'. Why bet on a religion with a low Jackpot. Its better to take both the 'Jackpot' and the 'odds' into consideration. That why its better to ignore religions that dont pay out 'infinite bliss' as their reward (Jackpot).

Joe1919

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The cost is a life wasted living a lie, probably the biggest cost there can be.

I discussed this and agreed with this in a previous post.(#21) However, the person who makes a deathbed conversion has not wasted his life (he may only have a short time left to waste) and many people are easy going about religion anyhow (they go with the flow).

Generally speaking, I dont interpret Pascals Wager as a defence of the 'truth' of religion. I see it as more of an attempted explanation as to why people are scared and bribed into trying to believe that Gods exists by the carrot of ever-lasting bliss (and the stick of hell).

As such, its a double edged sword. On the one hand it tries to make a case for believing in God but on the other hand this case is very in-authentic and is based on 'odds' and hope.

My view is that it has philosophical merit in terms of giving some explanation as to why religion has the grip that it does with some people.

Personally, I commonly witness occasions where some people show great faith and hope. The first is when they go to church. The second is when they queue up at lotto machines twice every week in the 'hope' and belief that their dream may come through. There more to life than rationality or so it seems !

PS This forum is Philosophy and not religion. My interest in this case is in 'why people believe ?'. I am not trying to defend this belief (in God) in terms of 'truth' but in terms of 'motivation'.

Mr. Mercurial

Joe1919 wrote: »

The gambling man thinks of the 'Jackpot'. Why bet on a religion with a low Jackpot. Its better to take both the 'Jackpot' and the 'odds' into consideration. That why its better to ignore religions that dont pay out 'infinite bliss' as their reward (Jackpot).

That still makes the mistake of assuming that there's only one option which offers infinite bliss.

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

The gambling man thinks of the 'Jackpot'. Why bet on a religion with a low Jackpot. Its better to take both the 'Jackpot' and the 'odds' into consideration. That why its better to ignore religions that dont pay out 'infinite bliss' as their reward (Jackpot).

Don't you think that any God would be able to see through your mere seeking for a 'jackpot'?

Black Swan

af_thefragile wrote: »

All that keeps one from believing in God is one's arrogance.

Would you care to support your comment that non-belief in Pascal's god is equivalent to (or suggests) "arrogance?" Citing specific philosophers and their association of non-belief with arrogance would strengthen your position.

powerjuggler

af_thefragile wrote: »

I'ld like to know what you guys think of this of this concept?

Pascal basically says although the existence of God cannot be proven through reason, one must wager to live life as though God exists as if he does exist then you've only gained while if he doesn't exist then you have nothing to lose.
"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager


I believe this is a very reasonable thought to live your life by. If you live believing God exists and if he does exist then you are safe while if he doesn't then you haven't lost anything.
While if you live your life believing God doesn't exist then if there's even a small chance that he does exist, you'ld be in trouble for rejecting him...

What would you say?

If you lived within plato's cave, and lived a truly solitary existence within this cave, then the equation of hedging your bets on god's actuality would be inconsequential, as god would not exist in your mind in any form whatsoever which would negate the initial question and it's ideals in summation.

Joe1919

Jakkass wrote: »

Don't you think that any God would be able to see through your mere seeking for a 'jackpot'?

Mr. Mercurial wrote: »

That still makes the mistake of assuming that there's only one option which offers infinite bliss.

Your are going to have to use a little bit of empathy here. This guy is old and in his hospital bed. He was born and reared a Christian but has severely lapsed. In actual fact, he hardly believes in Christianity at all and would have considered himself to be an atheist.

But still he has learned something in his years. He has learned that he and people in general often make mistakes and in the end, how can we really be 100% sure about anything? For him, the only certainty is death.

So he reckons he has two choices: either to die as an atheist or to die as a Christian. There is no point talking to him about taking up other exotic religions (to him) at this stage because he knows nothing about them and some of these religions involve rituals such as circumcision in order to be accepted. (if he would be accepted)

This guy is also quite ordinary, he is not a writer or famous, so it doesn't matter a heck as far as other people are concerned what way he dies. He has no point to prove. Atheism was not a religion to him, he just simply did not believe.

But now he is old and sceptical and even sceptical about his own scepticism.

So realistically speaking, he feels he has only two choices, to die as an atheist or to die as a Christian. The hospital Chaplain is coming to see him this evening to pray with him. This dying man has only a day or two left. Like Pascal says, he must choose, ('he must wager'). Which should he take? Advise me quickly? Should he refuse the Chaplains offer to pray?

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

The gambling man thinks of the 'Jackpot'. Why bet on a religion with a low Jackpot. Its better to take both the 'Jackpot' and the 'odds' into consideration. That why its better to ignore religions that dont pay out 'infinite bliss' as their reward (Jackpot).

The jackpot offered doesn't effect the probability of it being true though. Choosing only religions with better jackpots, makes Pascals wager an even more selfish, ends-justifies-the-means concept, one which there is no reason to think any god will reward you for entertaining, even if you somehow get the right god.

philologos

Joe1919 wrote: »

So realistically speaking, he feels he has only two choices, to die as an atheist or to die as a Christian. The hospital Chaplain is coming to see him this evening to pray with him. This dying man has only a day or two left. Like Pascal says, he must choose, ('he must wager'). Which should he take? Advise me quickly? Should he refuse the Chaplains offer to pray?

Personally, I'd ask the chaplain to explain the Gospel to me if I was really serious about wanting to be a Christian, and then pray. In Christian terms if you believe in Jesus Christ, and repent of your sins genuinely you will be saved.

The jackpot talk is what really turns me off Pascal's Wager. It seems very ingenuine.

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

I discussed this and agreed with this in a previous post.(#21) However, the person who makes a deathbed conversion has not wasted his life (he may only have a short time left to waste) and many people are easy going about religion anyhow (they go with the flow).

But there is no reason to think god is going to be easy going about religion. In fact many religions suggest he most definitely is not.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Generally speaking, I dont interpret Pascals Wager as a defence of the 'truth' of religion. I see it as more of an attempted explanation as to why people are scared and bribed into trying to believe that Gods exists by the carrot of ever-lasting bliss (and the stick of hell).

Bu the possible truth of the religion is an important aspect when comparing pascals wager to a gambler. Gamblers may bet on something that has a tiny chance of reward, but most would at least want some proof that the reward exists, and that the probability is in terms of getting it. Pascals wager is an even worse wager if you dont even know if there is a reward in the first place.

Joe1919 wrote: »

My view is that it has philosophical merit in terms of giving some explanation as to why religion has the grip that it does with some people.

Really? Very few people believe in terms of Pascals wager (in terms of the reward). Most people believe in terms of the fear of what they get if there is no god, fear of death and nothing beyond it.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Personally, I commonly witness occasions where some people show great faith and hope. The first is when they go to church. The second is when they queue up at lotto machines twice every week in the 'hope' and belief that their dream may come through.

Its been a long time since I've been, but I rarely saw anything more than a slightly bored face at church.

Joe1919 wrote: »

There more to life than rationality or so it seems !

Theres more to more people that rationality.

Joe1919 wrote: »

PS This forum is Philosophy and not religion. My interest in this case is in 'why people believe ?'. I am not trying to defend this belief (in God) in terms of 'truth' but in terms of 'motivation'.

Pasals wager is no use here then. Very few people believe because of pascals wager. It actually goes back to the problem of pascals wager ignoring religions that dont offer infinite paradise. People still believe in them, simply because they offer anything over the fear of dying, thats what drives most religious belief in the western world imo (its not true belief of a religion, how many catholics do you know that actually believe the pope is infallible? )

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Very few people believe in terms of Pascals wager (in terms of the reward). Most people believe in terms of the fear of what they get if there is no god, fear of death and nothing beyond it.

I'm not sure about this. Admittedly, death isn't really what comes into my mind when I think about God. Perhaps there are different shades of belief, but honestly I would believe because I genuinely think it makes a lot more sense than not.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its been a long time since I've been, but I rarely saw anything more than a slightly bored face at church.

I guess it depends on what the church is like

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

Your are going to have to use a little bit of empathy here. This guy is old and in his hospital bed. He was born and reared a Christian but has severely lapsed. In actual fact, he hardly believes in Christianity at all and would have considered himself to be an atheist.

But still he has learned something in his years. He has learned that he and people in general often make mistakes and in the end, how can we really be 100% sure about anything? For him, the only certainty is death.

So he reckons he has two choices: either to die as an atheist or to die as a Christian. There is no point talking to him about taking up other exotic religions (to him) at this stage because he knows nothing about them and some of these religions involve rituals such as circumcision in order to be accepted. (if he would be accepted)

This guy is also quite ordinary, he is not a writer or famous, so it doesn't matter a heck as far as other people are concerned what way he dies. He has no point to prove. Atheism was not a religion to him, he just simply did not believe.

But now he is old and sceptical and even sceptical about his own scepticism.

So realistically speaking, he feels he has only two choices, to die as an atheist or to die as a Christian. The hospital Chaplain is coming to see him this evening to pray with him. This dying man has only a day or two left. Like Pascal says, he must choose, ('he must wager'). Which should he take? Advise me quickly? Should he refuse the Chaplains offer to pray?

It falls to the same flaws as previously described. It assumes that god wont punish him more for believing in the wrong god than believing in no god and it assumes that god will weigh this mans statistically calculated last minute grab for comfort as the same someones else life long belief.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure about this. Admittedly, death isn't really what comes into my mind when I think about God. Perhaps there are different shades of belief, but honestly I would believe because I genuinely think it makes a lot more sense than not.

Sure, not everyone believes like the way I described, but many of the first questions you will get when people learn you are atheist is "what do you think happens when you die". For many people, religion, first and foremost, fulfils a need to have death as not being the end, that something comes after. Many people need something, anything, to help them past the idea of death, hence, while pascals wager ignores them, people still believe in religions that dont offer infinite paradise.

I should add that I'm not talking about the people who believe because they are actually completely convinced (its obvious why they believe ). I'm talking about the people who label themselves as a particular religion (eg catholicism) but dont actually believe all its conditions (eg popes infallibity, immaculate conception, etc), or the people who are brought up to believe but have never questioned why.

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess it depends on what the church is like

True

Joe1919

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The jackpot offered doesn't effect the probability of it being true though. Choosing only religions with better jackpots, makes Pascals wager an even more selfish, ends-justifies-the-means concept, one which there is no reason to think any god will reward you for entertaining, even if you somehow get the right god.

Dont forget to answer my question above..........Should I pray with the Chaplain or not. Advise me please. I must wager!

The expected value is equal to the 'jackpot' multiplied by the probability and hence is directly proportional to the jackpot, as well as to the probability. i.e. There is no point in placing a bet if the payout is low or zero.

As regards selfishness, this as such has nothing to do with odds when betting. But it is relevant to religious belief. However, most religious people I know are concerned about their own personal salvation. Does this make them selfish?
Why does God not remove selfishness from religion altogether by removing the whole idea of 'personal salvation'. This would mean that everyone would be saved, irrespective of how they lived their lives. Hence, Christians would be Christians on the pure basis of pure belief and love of God, without any suspicions that personal salvation or the promise of 'eternal bliss' was the chief motivation of Christian belief.
(Plato has a similar discussion about justice in the Republic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

But I suspect personal salvation is the chief motivater in religion. At least the gambler is more honest in spelling out his motivation.

PS Stanford has a good article on Pascal's Wager that explains the odds and problems.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sure, not everyone believes like the way I described, but many of the first questions you will get when people learn you are atheist is "what do you think happens when you die". For many people, religion, first and foremost, fulfils a need to have death as not being the end, that something comes after. Many people need something, anything, to help them past the idea of death, hence, while pascals wager ignores them, people still believe in religions that dont offer infinite paradise.

I'm going to concede to you that this thinking is prevalent in Christian circles. There's no point in lying to you. Personally, I do believe that Jesus died rise again, and that He did conquer the grave, and that we can do the same if we put our trust in Him. If we don't we will be condemned. However, this doesn't motivate my faith.

Why doesn't it? - Christianity in a persons life is meant to bear fruit, it's meant to change peoples lives. If it doesn't, this life is just a waiting room before getting to heaven. People cling onto their ticket earnestly, hoping to leave as soon as possible. I think this is very demeaning to the current existence and the Gospel actually. I believe that God has put me here for a reason. Therefore I don't hold this mentality.

Pascal's Wager is ingenuine to the core. It's taking a punt rather than taking it seriously. I'm not saying this because I don't agree with deathbed conversions. I think Jesus was quite clear that these are as valid as any other. However, it must be out of a genuine belief. Personally, I think that if people are thinking in the direction of being a Christian they should examine it while they are alive and allow it to influence their lives. Otherwise I'd see it as missing out on God's presence in this world.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I should add that I'm not talking about the people who believe because they are actually completely convinced (its obvious why they believe ). I'm talking about the people who label themselves as a particular religion (eg catholicism) but dont actually believe all its conditions (eg popes infallibity, immaculate conception, etc), or the people who are brought up to believe but have never questioned why.

Fair enough.

recedite

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Perhaps God doesn't exist and in actuality an Alien species is watching earth right now, and will only resurrect humans into immortality that shed such foolish ideals as Angels, Demons, Gods and Ghosts.

Pascals Wager is a little nugget of stupidity that fits nicely into the minds of people that are looking for said stupidity to tell them how to live.

Can't argue with that. The prudent thing to do is to start worshipping the aliens straight away, just in case. Lets call it the Pascal II Wager.

Then when I am 80, will I consider switching to a belief in god ?
Either way offers immortality. Its a 50% chance each way. Why bother switching? God will have to offer something better to persuade me, otherwise the maths just don't add up.

Mark Hamill

Joe1919 wrote: »

Dont forget to answer my question above..........Should I pray with the Chaplain or not. Advise me please. I must wager!

No, it wont make a difference. Its explained a little further down.

Joe1919 wrote: »

The expected value is equal to the 'jackpot' multiplied by the probability and hence is directly proportional to the jackpot, as well as to the probability. i.e. There is no point in placing a bet if the payout is low or zero.

Why not? If the cost is so little, such as a dying mans last prayer, what difference does it make if the cost of gambling is nil?
Besides that still doesn't answer the problem of what if god will punish gambling believers more than non-believers, just for being cheeky and trying to work the system.

Joe1919 wrote: »

As regards selfishness, this as such has nothing to do with odds when betting. But it is relevant to religious belief. However, most religious people I know are concerned about their own personal salvation. Does this make them selfish?
Why does God not remove selfishness from religion altogether by removing the whole idea of 'personal salvation'. This would mean that everyone would be saved, irrespective of how they lived their lives. Hence, Christians would be Christians on the pure basis of pure belief and love of God, without any suspicions that personal salvation or the promise of 'eternal bliss' was the chief motivation of Christian belief.
(Plato has a similar discussion about justice in the Republic)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Bu the thing is, he hasn't. Personal salvation, as an idea, exists and people trying to fool god using Pascals wager are doing it purely out of selfishness. There just is no reason to think that god will look past such unabashed selfishness and reward such people, specially as most (if not all) religion specify distinct and contrary rules you must adhere to, to show that you truely beleive in god.

Joe1919 wrote: »

But I suspect personal salvation is the chief motivater in religion. At least the gambler is more honest in spelling out his motivation.

Prasingin the gambler fo rbeing completely selfish is not really praise, is it? While most theists would admit that personal salvation is important to them, they also follow their religion because they think its the right thing to do. The gambler doesn't seem to care wether its right and wrong, he is just looking at the possible profit.

Joe1919

Judge not, that ye be not judged.'

I think this gambler has a chance and will die happy. The Chaplain brought his bible and read him stories from it. The first was the story of the 'prodigal son', the second was the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard and finally he told him about the thief who was crucified and how Jesus said "Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

The Chaplin also told him about Cardinal Ratzinger (who is now a pope) and how he said that "For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace ........"
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html (paragraph 20)

After hearing all of this, the old gambler is very happy and is going to put all his bets on the Christian God. (as Pascal advices)

philologos

We can all isolate verses, but the bigger picture is that in Judeo-Christianity, God will judge us after death.

Personally I find Pascal's Wager about the most unphilosophical thing I can think of. It's so atypical of the analysis and criticism often applied to the existence we happen to be in that generally comes with philosophy.

ChocolateSauce

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdU

This "Betting on infinity" is a definitive debunking of Pascal's wager. Anyone who sees this and still thinks the wager is worth a thought simply wasn't listening.

Valmont

For those climate change enthusiasts, Pascal's wager has surfaced yet again, in perhaps its most bizarre but equally nonsensical form.

Goduznt Xzst

Valmont wrote: »

For those climate change enthusiasts, Pascal's wager has surfaced yet again, in perhaps its most bizarre but equally nonsensical form.

It is essentially the same scenario as Pascals Wager, with one large difference. Climate change IS happening. There's no argument there. The argument is whether humans are causing it or not.

It would be equivalent to knowing God exists as a FACT, and being posed the choice of choosing ANY religion, or NO religion. If it was known for a fact that a theistic God existed, it would give a lot more creedance to Pascal's Wager.

The scenario posed in that video is accurate. You either choose no action or action in relation to Climate Change, and, as extremes, those are the outcomes (of course it does fail to state that even action A might also lead to the worst case scenario of action

This video would be inaccurate where it to, like Pascal's Wager, state that a particular form of action is required to avert climate change (Pascal's Wager refers only to a particular belief system for salvation). It doesn't. It gives us the real and tangible choice of whether we view Climate Change as natural and don't act to change it, or accept that is anthropogenic and act in whatever manner that is currently prudent to avert it.

Valmont

No, it's just pascal's wager and all of the flaws contained therein. The sugary coating of climate change seems to blinker people into thinking otherwise.

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

You either choose no action or action in relation to Climate change, and, as extremes, those are the outcomes (of course it does fail to state that even action A might also lead to the worst case scenario of action

As I said, Pascal's wager.

As a test, substitute action in relation to climate change with action in relation to potential WMDs in Iraq. You can use that fallacious formula to justify almost anything.

Goduznt Xzst

Valmont wrote: »

As I said, Pascal's wager.

As a test, substitute action in relation to climate change with action in relation to potential WMDs in Iraq. You can use that fallacious formula to justify almost anything.

It's not the same. When dealing with the scenario mentioned in regards to climate change to compare like with like you'd have to begin with a FACT (i.e. the FACT of climate change).

The WMD's in Iraq where never confirmed as fact, and action was taken based on a belief, in much the same way as Pascals Wager.