Talk:Pascal's wager

Documentary film - title needed

Hi. Do you guys know any documentary video in which the Pascal's Wager is used (i.e. written in a 2x2 table)? I remember I've seen one, but I can't recall its title. I believe it was sort of 'proofs that God exists' video. Great thanks in advance. Cheers.--83.12.91.242 (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also a Pascal's Wager about Global Warming

Look here at 03:50 and you'll see the global warming version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg He wrote a book about it.

	Counteraction taken	Counteraction not taken
Global warming is false	Economic harm	:)
Global warming is true	:)	Massive global disaster

Problem here is that you cannot quantify the two negative outcomes, and therefore cannot say which would be the greater. 'Massive' is a weasel word. --Anteaus (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There is another factor that comes into play. If we reduce coal usage, the emission of mercury vapor goes down, the emission of uranium and thorium compounds into the environment stops. If we stop mining for petrol, the environment is less polluted. Less spills into the grounds. Less spills into the oceans. Less hydrocarbon evaporation into the air. The economy can be reshaped into something else. Our health is not so easy to fix. Vmelkon (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Constant framing of climate change as if no natural climate change ever existed is evidently wrong. The ice ages suggest we always had climate change on earth. We should use the term man-made or anthropogenic climate change to make it clear this is a separate factor.

It is not a valid application of Pascal's wager. You would need 'Global warming is true but not man-made substantially so counteraction taken/not taken makes next to zero difference', which leaves the whole binary dichotomy in ruins. 109.78.68.120 (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Argument of Assumptions

This section of the article is a mess and needs a lot of clean up. It appears to be an explanation of why Pascal's Wager is invalid based on the fact that the Wager is a false dichotomy, so I don't know if it's original research or not. I've tried adding as many relevant sources as I could find but I think only 3 are reliable.Jdbtwo (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

When I google for "pascal's wager false dilemma" I get 118000 results, so there is a lot of material out there. But, I can't find a specific source that covers all aspects of the section, only sources that partially cover the section. I really need some help in doing research for these sources because I cannot believe that such a fundamental flaw has not been fully covered in some book or other reliable source. If only the author of the section would help.Jdbtwo (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, this section is OR, SYN or both. ( as well as being flawed ) But, it can be saved :) First "It holds that time spent during life is either precious (and thus can be wasted) or is not, due to an afterlife (though time still can be viewed as wasted)." has to go since that isn't supported by any of the sources. Secondly, "This argument holds that three general assumptions exist." needs to be changed to "This argument takes as an example that two types of gods exist". Thirdly "Worship" and "Abstain" need to be replaced by "Believe" and "Disbelieve" to be consistent with the sources. Fourthly, in the "Malevolent God" table, the "Worship False God" row has got to go to be consistent with the sources. Fifthly, "(Statistically unlikely to choose "correctly")" in the "Worship False God" table has got to go as it's flawed and makes a hidden assumption that a malevolent god would grant belief with infinite gain when the only two types of malevolent gods mentioned in the sources relevant to this section are those who condemn everyone or those that condemn randomly. In other words, it's trying to make a connection with the Argument from inconsistent revelations where no such connection exists. Also, "This criticism is aimed solely toward the logic of worship for the purpose of salvation, which Pascal is not referring to. It does not address worship for the purpose of comfort or peace during life." needs to go since it is superfluous and is not supported by any of the sources. Furthermore, all references to "Time Spent Worshiping" or "Time Wasted" etc. need to be deleted as these are not supported by the sources. Lastly, the explanations/summaries under each table need to be rewritten.

After all this, I think that the section will be a suitable summary of the sources under the trivially deducible fact that the Wager is a False Dilemma without introducing any new non-obvious conclusions ( NOR ).Jdbtwo (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I independently came to the conclusion that it is OR, and, given that it was lacking in citations, removed the section. I didn't think to check the talk page first, and so I apologise for being abrupt and uncommunicative. Anyway, you obviously agree that the section as it was, was almost entirely unsuitable for the article so I won't revert my edit. If you/anyone wishes to save and rewrite bits of the section it is always available in the page history. Ypna (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this section. :) I also came to the conclusion that no amount of re-writing could preserve the section's essential points without still being OR. I've left a note on your talk page. :) Regards, Jdbtwo (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

New paraphrase for lead

64.53.252.50 has proposed the following new paraphrase for the lead.

Simply put; If one bets that God does exist, and he does, you win "everything", and if you lose - you lose nothing. If one bets that God does not exist, and you win, you win nothing, and if he does - you lose "everything".

While I agree that it is simpler, is it too simple? There are some subtleties in Pascal's formulation that get lost and it may be minimizing the burdens of belief. I'm also not happy about using hyphens as connectors. Also, if this new paraphrase is accepted,should the existing summarization be dropped? Other views?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think both have a place. An introduction for the general audience followed immediately by increasing levels of detail driving at a broader and more subtle understanding of the concept. My text can be polished, but it is a common enough construction and does provide an accessible and accurate outline.64.53.252.50 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Polished it a touch and reintroduced.64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@64.53.252.50: Perhaps not succinct enough? Let me pull in the previous sentence along with your proposal.

It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. The wager in its most succinct form, is as follows: "If one bets that God does exist, and he does, you win "everything", to lose - you lose nothing. Should one bet that God does not exist - and win, you win nothing, but to lose? You lose "everything".

How about the following instead?

It proposes a bet on the existence of God. If you bet God exists and you win, you receive an infinite payoff, eternal happy life; if you lose, you lose nothing. If you bet God does not exist and you win, you win nothing; if you lose, you receive eternal misery.

I think I have the grammar and parallel construction correct. It glosses over the subtleties of the "finite" costs of belief or "finite" pleasures of non-belief, but expresses the gist of the wager in simple language.

And the summary from Pascal does not mention damnation or hell, but does use the word "misery".  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're going in the right direction. It's the one sentence intended to convey the gist of the idea to the lowest common denominator and broadest readership. Done right it should intrigue many to drill deeper.172.58.137.173 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not foolish enough to consider one response as consensus. I think I'd still prefer to have the original state of the article, before these recent attempts at improvement. Oversimplification does not represent Pascal or Wikipedia very well.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, on 22 January 2017, the IP split the first paragraph of the lead, and inserted new text (as above) at the end of the new first paragraph. The new text is not satisfactory for a couple of reasons. First, per WP:LEAD, text in the lead is a summary of sourced material in the rest of the article—that means, no new stuff in the lead. Second, the new text is not as clear as its author may hope, and it jars with the existing text. I think the original lead is better. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia correctly simplifies many subtle concepts for the general audience before delving into the details. Articles in this class, such as on Lewis's Trilemma, Gödel's ontological proof or St. Anselm's Ontological Argument (which is itself reduced using a similar phrasing, "in its most succinct form, is as follows: "God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived.") all use similar constructions to introduce the concept. A bit more polished prose might help to overcome the concern. I'll try shortly to smooth out the linearity in the prose. 64.53.252.50 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Gave it a try, I also may propose changing the preface from, "in its most succinct form" to "in its most elementary form". 64.53.252.50 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@64.53.252.50: My reading of the developing consensus here was that your additions are not seen as improvements. I don't think MaterialScientist was out of line when they reverted back to a version that some editors had expressed a preference for. You are the only one who seems to be in favor of the change. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I second the sentiments of jmcgnh here. The reversion by MaterialScientist was a better reflection of the consensus. I also oppose the proposed change, on the grounds that it is both less clear and more rhetorically inflected than the pre-existing phrasing. Peter Folsaph (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

MaterialScientist was quite clear on the reason for his mass revert, " I noticed that you removed some content from Pascal's Wager without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content." Having contributed to Wikipedia since prior to 9/11 I've seen MS before, he does literally tens of thousands of vandalism reverts almost at at time and he does on occasion make this error. His comment left on my talk page makes it clear that his issue was not content but his concerns regarding edit summaries.64.53.252.50 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I was saying that the reversion (regardless of its motivation) was a better reflection of consensus than your edit. Peter Folsaph (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

How would you propose communicating the base idea to the wider audience in keeping with the style of articles in this class, as noted above? jmcgnh wrote a draft at '09:39, 25 January 2017', it was that draft I had tried to rework. My prose might be stilted, but that's the general 101 level intro frequently used.64.53.252.50 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

As jmcgnh pointed out just prior to my response, reversion to the original phrasing is more in keeping with the consensus of the above conversation; you are still the only editor pushing for a rework. Peter Folsaph (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there is no opposition to making the concept accessible to the broader audience, but my phrasing does not appear to get a lot of cheers. Rather than sandbox the article, I've taken it out to rework. I'll also let this percolate for awhile and may not readdress it before the northern summer.64.53.252.50 (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you lose, you lose nothing

This article omits one important critique: the cost of belief. Pascal's wager assumes that believing costs us little or nothing, so that the potential costs of non-belief always outweigh. But for many people, belief is very costly. Those churches which stress the cost of non-belief (i.e. which teach hellfire) are precisely the ones where adherence makes a major adverse impact on people's lives. These churches demand giving large proportions of your income, and of your time. They demand not just an ethical life (which is not really a "cost") but submission to an authoritarian system that imposes all kinds of other rules like the whole system of purity culture, which are cultural norms rather than ethics (though these churches merge ethics and cultural preferences under a single concept of "sin"). For LGTB people, belief in this kind of religion means a complete abrogation of their own personality. For a woman who has been raped and is considering abortion, Pascal's wager may mean balancing the fear of hell against the thought of spending the rest of her life as the single mother of a child she might always subconsiously hate. There is a whole branch of psychiatry dedicated to religious trauma syndrome, the psychological cost incurred by people damaged by authoritarian religion.

But even in liberal theologies where the cost of believing is low (and the cost of not believing is also low because they don't teach hell), there is still the cost that you would be living an illusion. Because if there is no god, there is a richness in finding a place in the universe that reflects this reality; forcing oneself to be religous means missing out on that. People who are genuinely religious won't see that as a cost, but anyone who is only playing the religious card because of the wager may well look back on a wasted life.

I notice this was discussed further up this page ten years ago, but then forgotten. The parallel article in the German Wikipedia has a long section on this. Unfortunately, that part of the German article is completely unsourced, otherwise I would have been bold and translated/paraphrased it for a new section here. But I find it very hard to believe that in the current New Atheism debate this question hasn't been thoroughly thematized. It would be super if someone can find the sources to allow this to be added. Doric Loon (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)