It seems quite clear that the probability of a god that matches the god of existing religions is far more likely than a god that is the opposite, therefore they don't cancel out because the expected utilities aren't equal. I have heard the argument that there could be a god that reverses the positions of heaven and hell and therefore the probabilities cancel out, but this doesn't convince me. I'm honestly surprised there isn't much discussion about it in this community considering it theoretically presents the most effective way to be altruistic. I am a utilitarian and I struggle to see why I shouldn't accept Pascal's Wager. Thus, Pascal cannot merely conclude that believing in God (or playing B) is the dominant strategy for humans.Edit: To clarify, when I say "accept Pascal's Wager" I mean accepting the idea that way to do the most (expected) good is to prevent as many people as possible from going to hell, and cause as many as possible to go to heaven, regardless of how likely it is that heaven/hell exists (as long as it's non-zero). Even if Pascal was right in simplifying such conditions and dealing with the issue by applying two players game theory, there are two Nash Equilibria on the table: (B, T) and (N, F). Thus, it is not a thoughtful decision to simply conclude that developing a belief leads to negative returns on earth.Īs arguments stated above suggests, the main flaw of the logic of Pascal’s wager is simplification and ignorance of the complex conditions, variety of choices, and range of repercussions of people’s choices. Similarly, Christians also may be able to live a happy life by the following bible. They practice a life of non-possession, a lot of monks claims that they have found true happiness. Although it may not be a perfect example, I will take Buddhist monks as an example (and I believe this example is good enough because a lot of teachings in the two religions are quite similar, especially when they emphasize humbleness and elimination of greed within themselves). That is, developing a fragile faith and not practicing the words of God could also lead to punishments after death.Īdditionally, practicing religion may not always lead to finite disadvantage even if God does not exist. ![]() According to the bible, the believers must strictly follow His words to enter heaven. Pascal’s logic is also flawed because belief in God does not always guarantee infinite joys and grace. Also, some people practice different religions. Some people simply do not choose to make a decision whether to believe or not to believe in God it does not necessarily mean that they disproved God. The first flaw is that people have more than two choices to make. However, I believe that Pascal’s logic is flawed in a way that it greatly underestimated the complexity of the issue. I thought the application of game theory in an area beyond our world is fascinating. His logic organized in a table would look like something like the following: If a person believes in God and God actually exists, they receive infinite pleasure if a person does not believe in God and God exists, they receive infinite suffering if a person believes in God and God does not exist, then they receive some finite disadvantages for living a very restricted life and if a person does not believe in God and God does not exist, then they receive some finite pleasure for not having restrictions in their life. Then, he draws a table and defines returns that individuals receive for their choices and given conditions. Also, there could be two possible conditions: God exists or does not exist. In Pascal’s wager, he mentions that there are two choices that people can make: to believe in God or do not believe in God. ![]() This idea was developed by the physicist Blaise Pascal in the 1600s, and through this idea, Pascal argues that it is most optimal for people to believe in God. ![]() The article above explains the logic behind one of the most popular applications of game theory: Pascal’s wager.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |