3 ms·

The problem with Pascal's wager logic is you have to change your behavior based on all kinds of crazy low-probability events. You must worship every god, be an

The problem with Pascal's wager logic is you have to change your behavior based on all kinds of crazy low-probability events. You must worship every god, be an AI-doomer, a climate-doomer, a nuclear-doomer. Pascal's wager is generally agreed to be logically unsound, so it's somewhat insane that we've revived it in all these modern contexts. If you believe in it, at least be consistent and sacrifice a goat to Zeus every couple years.

legitster 8mo ago
Yes, and no. I think we actually do this logic a lot in our lives. Do I actually believe whole wheat bread is better for me, or do I just buy it on the chance it is? Do I go with the cheapest toothpaste or spend money on something that might be better? Do I buy an AWD car on the chance I am stuck? Sacrificing a goat, after all, does sound like a lot of work. But maybe I will wear a lucky hat to a baseball game?
conartist6 8mo ago
There has to be infinite torment in play for the wager to apply too! Thus by conclusion you should only give vengeful gods the benefit of the doubt
circuit10 8mo ago
Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0 https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0 I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences
barbs 8mo ago
In this case, it's not exactly like Pascal's wager because there is plenty of scientific evidence of disastrous consequences of not believing in climate change (and preparing accordingly). There's no evidence to suggest that a non-belief in God will send you to hell.
pablomalo 8mo ago
Pascal's wager, as it relates to faith, is based on the premise that there is a lot to win in making the wager --but little to lose. In turn, that second part is grounded in the assumption (right or wrong, I won't judge) that living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ to the individual who so chooses. So it seems a mischaracterization to present the essence of the wager as going out of your way to perform random and costly rites in the hope of lifting any ill omen.
- joquarky 8mo ago
  Exactly. For example, what if making such wagers is key in determining that you belong in "hell" for not being genuine?
- aeternum 8mo ago
  I disagree. If doing thing x brings benefits, then you have reason to do thing x regardless of the wager. Utilitarianism is sufficient. The wager is only interesting on those rites where the expected-value is uncertain or unknowable.
- johsole 8mo ago
  > living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ It does, in this life and the next.

legitster 8mo ago

Yes, and no. I think we actually do this logic a lot in our lives. Do I actually believe whole wheat bread is better for me, or do I just buy it on the chance it is? Do I go with the cheapest toothpaste or spend money on something that might be better? Do I buy an AWD car on the chance I am stuck? Sacrificing a goat, after all, does sound like a lot of work. But maybe I will wear a lucky hat to a baseball game?

conartist6 8mo ago

There has to be infinite torment in play for the wager to apply too! Thus by conclusion you should only give vengeful gods the benefit of the doubt

circuit10 8mo ago

Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0 https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0 I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences

barbs 8mo ago

In this case, it's not exactly like Pascal's wager because there is plenty of scientific evidence of disastrous consequences of not believing in climate change (and preparing accordingly). There's no evidence to suggest that a non-belief in God will send you to hell.

pablomalo 8mo ago

Pascal's wager, as it relates to faith, is based on the premise that there is a lot to win in making the wager --but little to lose. In turn, that second part is grounded in the assumption (right or wrong, I won't judge) that living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ to the individual who so chooses. So it seems a mischaracterization to present the essence of the wager as going out of your way to perform random and costly rites in the hope of lifting any ill omen.

joquarky 8mo ago
Exactly. For example, what if making such wagers is key in determining that you belong in "hell" for not being genuine?
aeternum 8mo ago
I disagree. If doing thing x brings benefits, then you have reason to do thing x regardless of the wager. Utilitarianism is sufficient. The wager is only interesting on those rites where the expected-value is uncertain or unknowable.
johsole 8mo ago
> living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ It does, in this life and the next.