4

Formal Version

Does Pascal's Wager refute Apatheism?

Informal Version

If there is at least a non-negligible chance that a deity might exist to whom I could be morally accountable and with whom I might potentially develop an interactive relationship (as opposed to an indifferent deity, like in deism), should I care about the question of this deity's existence and invest time in seriously investigating the topic? In other words, does this imply that I should not be apathetic regarding the existence of such a deity?

NOTE: I was inspired to ask this question by this answer.

Improve this question
9
  • 2
    Why ask the question when the arguments are already laid out in the Wiki article you've linked?
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 31 at 6:10
  • 5
    No, it does not even try. One of the tenets of apatheism is that the chance of a deity that 'cares' enough to produce Pascal's payoff table is negligible. Whatever one thinks about that tenet, offering Pascal's wager as a counterargument plainly begs the question. Generally, one should not be receptive to any argument that starts by simply denying a premise they hold. Pascal's wager is directed at those who are uncertain about existence of a deity with reward/punishment intentions, not those who already ruled it out as fanciful. To sway the latter, one has to undermine their premise first.
    – Conifold
    Commented Oct 31 at 10:53
  • 1
    The first link lists all the main counter arguments .
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 31 at 12:04
  • 1
    Agreed, but it lists all the arguments you need to answer the question.
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Oct 31 at 13:16
  • 1
    Do you not know enough to care or do you not care enough to know? ;-)
    – Peter - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Nov 1 at 8:56

7 Answers 7

Reset to default
8

The broadest possible interpretation of apatheism is to not care about the existence of any possible deity in any possible world. I don't think this would be a particularly strong position (unless one has apathy generally).

Stronger interpretations of apatheism, in my opinion, would be:

  • Apathy towards the existence of certain gods, e.g. a deistic god that created the universe but doesn't otherwise intervene with it nor interact with us (and likely wouldn't be concerned about the doings of humans).

  • Apathy towards the existence of gods given the world we're living in, which is one where no god seems to be trying to communicate with humanity (or at least they aren't trying very hard or they're very bad at it). As such, we might infer that no deity exists that wants humans to do things for them for some reward, and deities that remain are likely indifferent towards humans and can't be appeased through our actions (or we have no way to know what would appease them), thus they aren't worth concerning ourselves over.

    This is very loosely stated, and people may vary on whether or how much they've investigated existing god beliefs (and found them to be lacking) before coming to the conclusion that no god seems to trying to communicate with humanity.

Pascal's Wager doesn't relate to these two cases (and therefore doesn't refute them), but rather it relates to the specific possibility where there would be consequences to disbelief, and where we could take some actions to affect those consequences.

We could say that Pascal's Wager runs somewhat parallel to apatheism. If you think there is plausibly consequences to disbelief given the world we're living in, you might be more drawn to Pascal's Wager. If you don't, you may be more apathetic.

Although it's also worth noting that you can't refute apathy, because that's an attitude or feeling, not a claim. But one could potentially refute the claims the apathy is based on (if any).

* Although beliefs inform actions and actions have consequences. So even if I don't think the existence or non-existence of a god would have any impact on my life (given the world we're living in), other people's belief in gods certainly impacts my life and the lives of others, in that it affects how those people treat those around them, which laws they support, etc.

There are 2 separate questions in whether one cares about the existence of a god (as per the above), and whether one cares about the existence of god beliefs, and about people acting on those beliefs.

Improve this answer
12
  • 2
    In other words, if there are good reasons to take Pascal's wager seriously, then there are good reasons to not be apathetic. Thus, what could potentially refute apatheism is not Pascal's wager per se, but any conceivable good reasons there might be (if any) that support Pascal's wager. So the obvious next question is: are there any good reasons to take Pascal's wager seriously?
    – user80226
    Commented Oct 31 at 4:10
  • 1
    @user80226 There has been plenty of criticism of Pascal's wager, although each individual would need to consider that criticism for themselves, to figure out where they land with regard to that.
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Oct 31 at 5:05
  • 1
    @user80226 no, there aren't.
    – Daniel B
    Commented Oct 31 at 11:35
  • I guess we should focus on what to do about god beliefs then, and be apathetic only if they have no effect on us.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Nov 1 at 13:12
  • @user80226 the reason to take Pascal's wager seriously is the wager itself--if there's any possibility that Christianity is true, then you are forced to take seriously that possibility, since the stakes are so high. To say "I don't care" is absurd and obviously untrue. To say "no" is both more reasonable and more honest. To say "I'm not sure one way or the other" is fair, but the importance of the question means that if that's your position, and you are concerned even a little bit about self-interest, you ought to investigate further.
    – Dark Malthorp
    Commented Nov 25 at 16:59
12

No, because Pascal's Wager when taken to it's logical conclusion must also include gods which punish you for believing in religions or worshipping gods at all. If we have to take seriously the idea that God might throw you in hell for not being a Christian, for example, we must also take seriously the idea that God might throw you in hell for being a Christian.

For every god you can imagine, who would punish this and reward that, you must be able to imagine another god who's would punish that and reward this. Apathy towards claims of deities, in a world where all such claims are unprovable, remains a viable option.

Improve this answer
17
  • 2
    That symmetry argument is nice.
    – Peter - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Nov 1 at 8:55
  • 1
    I don't think this works at all. If there is a good chance that I'll end up in hell for accepting doctrine A, and also a good chance that I'll end up in hell for rejecting doctrine A, that's all the more reason not to be apathetic and to try and figure out which one is true.
    – Winston Ewert
    Commented Nov 1 at 15:16
  • 5
    @WinstonEwert No, it still works, because it's equally plausible (which is to say: not at all, because there's zero evidence for supernatural beings) that a deity would throw you in hell just for taking the question that seriously. E.g. some doctrine that says "blessed are thee who live their life in deeds and good works, and cursed are thee who concern themselves only with selfish pursuit of eternal reward"
    – Andrew Faulkner
    Commented Nov 1 at 16:17
  • @WinstonEwert before you realize that no religions have a lick of evidence for them, sure. Do a bit of investigation, realize they're all talking crap, and then move on with your life. I did include the caveat in my post, "in a world where all such claims are unprovable"
    – TKoL
    Commented Nov 1 at 17:41
  • 1
    @nick012000 God definitely punishes you for believing. The only sure protection from apostasy is to have never believed in the first place.
    – candied_orange
    Commented Nov 3 at 6:17
6

If you think there is a 'non-negligable chance' that a deity exists, then yes, you should investigate Pascal's Wager. The more so since his Pensées are eminently readable and thoroughly enjoyable. The book has far more to offer than his infamous wager.

Should you wager? Interestingly, Pascal advises you not to wager. The true course is not to wager at all [Pensées 233]. But then he changes the rule and muses: if you must wager, what should you choose?

Note also that Pascal's calculus is complicated by the inclusion of infinities. It is not clear what the weight on the scale is of an infinitesimal low chance of Heaven being real and the infinite reward that befalls you were you granted to stay in Heaven... French mathematician Laplace argued in a similar way but had the benefit of being born after Newton's and Leibniz's work on infinitesimal calculus. Pascal, who was a mathematician himself, died well before this.

Finally, Pascal proves [Pensées, 387] that it is not certain that all is uncertain, a doctrine which has been variously dismissed by philosophers as unhelpful.

Improve this answer
5

Absolutely not. For the wager to be convincing, one must already accept its terms. If someone doesn't, then it's word salad: "if you believed as I do you would believe as I do, so why don't you believe as I do?"

Trivial counter argument: it is equally likely that God is breeding for rationality, and will favor / reward those who are clever enough to admit they have no clue whether a God exists or what it wants. Or is furious at all the people directing prayers to it rather than solving their own problems.

Pascal's assumptions about the benefits and risks of each option are simply a restatement of the assertion that his religion has a carrot and a stick attached to it, not to mention a trumpet. He's entitled to believe that, but it is unconvincing to anyone else unless they already agree.

Improve this answer
5
  • What's the trumpet reference?
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 31 at 14:24
  • @rushi: Proselytizing, including browbeating those who already believe. There are religions which do not feel compelled to do this; unfortunately Pascal's is not one of those or he wouldn't have wasted his time on trying to construct a convincing argument.
    – keshlam
    Commented Oct 31 at 16:48
  • Ok yes... a peculiarly Christian problem. Though to be fair there are fringes in other religions as well... Dunno if you've ever been buttonholed by a Hare Krishna sadhu trying to sell you a Bhagavad Gita... Funnily, spread the gospel originally meant Spread the good news. But over time it came to mean Ram it down the throat
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 31 at 16:54
  • 1
    I have come to the conclusion that Christianity never recovered from the PTSD it acquired in its infancy. Or at least that is true of the American fundamentalist version, which tends to be loudest. I believe I understand how it got that way, but... Shrug. Off topic.
    – keshlam
    Commented Oct 31 at 17:14
  • 1
    Christianity is a freak amongst world religions in a number of respects (a) expulsion of the Jews in 70 AD (b) the massacres of the heterodox variants like gnostics c. 250AD culminating in the Nicene declaration (c) the Protestant 'Reformation'. (a) settled Christianity as a 'foreigner' Pauline faith not the more Jewish 'Petrine', still less the original 'Christ-ian' (b) was the big PTSD (c) made Christianity the progenitor of secularism — see Tom Holland for the plus and Brad Gregory for minus of Reformation→Modernity long-straight line
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 31 at 17:39
4

Does Pascal's Wager refute Apatheism?

@Conifold's answer:

No, it does not even try. One of the tenets of apatheism is that the chance of a deity that 'cares' enough to produce Pascal's payoff table is negligible. Whatever one thinks about that tenet, offering Pascal's wager as a counterargument plainly begs the question. Generally, one should not be receptive to any argument that starts by simply denying a premise they hold. Pascal's wager is directed at those who are uncertain about existence of a deity with reward/punishment intentions, not those who already ruled it out as fanciful. To sway the latter, one has to undermine their premise first. –

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    Or not try to sway them in the first place; both easier and more respectful. Remember that in a modern literate society odds are that we have heard all these arguments before and found them unconvincing.
    – keshlam
    Commented Oct 31 at 19:51
2

Pascal's wager has an unstated initial condition; thus most debates about how to use it don't work right.

The initial condition is we have reduced the number of plausible God-sets to 1. If that number is greater than 1, Pascal's wager cannot be applied.

If you're looking at either the Mormon God-set or no God at all; Pascal's wager looks like cold logic.

If you're looking at either the Hindu God-set or no God at all; Pascal's wager doesn't say much because the Hindu God-set doesn't care.

If you're looking at deism, Pascal's wager might make you a deist but the logic involved is questionable and the support is just too weak to get the conclusion from here. This is the immediate answer to your question; Pascal's wager is not very useful for Apatheism. You haven't done enough work for the initial condition of Pascal's wager to really apply.

If you've constructed a number of hypothetical God-sets you're doing it wrong and I call occam's razor on it. At least some evidence for the God-set must exist. The evidence for Mormonism is pretty bad and elsewhere I have torn it apart but that's still more evidence than exists for the class of God-sets typically used as counterexamples to Pascal's wager; the worst of these I shall not name here because it is an infohazard.

If you try to use Pascal's wager as a wedge between the Mormon God-set and the Hindu God-set you're doing it wrong; there's no way that can work but I can't pinpoint the exact reason why this doesn't work.

When you have gathered the religions you know of and the evidence for each and charted the weight of the evidence for each and you are looking at the condition of a single one has more net weight of evidence for it than all the others combined; then Pascal's wager is functional. Not before.

Improve this answer
5
  • Pls give a short definition of 'God-set'
    – Rushi
    Commented Nov 1 at 18:36
  • @Rushi: Some religions have more than one God. You might write Pantheon but that's the D&D usage of it rather than the actual Greek meaning of the word.
    – Joshua
    Commented Nov 1 at 19:04
  • "Pascal's wager has an unstated initial condition; thus most debates about how to use it don't work right. The initial condition is we have reduced the number of plausible God-sets to 1." Nah, you just need to increase the number of rows and columns in the ttableto include all the different gods of the different religions you're considering. Then you go along and compute the reward/punishment matrix for each combination of "what happens if you believe in religion X when religion Y is true".
    – nick012000
    Commented Nov 2 at 8:03
  • @nick012000: I would disagree that's a sensible extension. If I fill the table from the religions I know of I get a large number of infinite loss entries.
    – Joshua
    Commented Nov 2 at 14:58
  • @Joshua Yep, then you go through and start working out the rewards for them. Christianity wins because you go to heaven if you're a good Christian if Judaism or Islam are true but not the reverse, while Buddhism and atheism are uniformly negative for everybody if either are true (either infinite suffering or ceasing to exist), and most pagan religions aren't much better.
    – nick012000
    Commented Nov 2 at 22:25
1

No. Simply imagine a god who exists that punishes you for putting time into the question of whether god exists or does not. Then, not only would you be rightfully apathetic, but you’d also be winning that wager.

Improve this answer
1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .