3

We can never know whether we have accumulated all the knowledge in the world or not. This is a general statement. For example, a powerful counterargument against the contingency argument might exist out there that could fatally cripple its usefulness. Again, a powerful counterargument against Pascal's wager might exist out there: maybe, we still just haven't thought of it yet.

Considering the fact that Pascal's wager is fallible, have any attempts been made to rid Pascal's wager of its fallibility? In other words, can Pascal's wager ever be declared to be incapable of being wrong?

Also, has any capable decision-theorist made endeavours to include this fallibility of Pascal's wager into the decision table and make a more complete statement about the decisions one ought to take? For example, assigning a probability p to the outcome that Pascal's wager is invalid (in some convoluted sense that we haven't thought of yet), and including that as a column in the decision table.

tryingtobeastoic
  • 595
  • 4
  • 15
  • 1
    It's been a while since I watched this, but from memory it's a 2 hour discussion on the robustness of Pascal's wager. [Cosmicskeptic vs Dr Liz O'Connor](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tv4jE2TUEGY&t=1230s&pp=ygUcQ29zbWljIHNrZXB0aWMgcGFzY2FscyB3YWdlcg%3D%3D). – Futilitarian Jun 26 '23 at 14:25
  • P=probability that this argument is correct, taking in to account probability that this argument is correct... *What?* – Scott Rowe Jun 26 '23 at 14:46
  • Is this question about Pascal's wager *qua* Pascal (which starts with the explicit premise that the choice is between Christian God and no god at all and that the chance is "heads or tails", and which is not intended to stand alone but is part of a ~300 page defense of Christian thought), or Pascal's wager as it is commonly presented (a stand-alone reason why one should believe that Christian God exists)? – g s Jun 26 '23 at 14:49
  • @gs Neither. It is about the steel-manned version of Pascal's wager (however you may want to steelman it). – tryingtobeastoic Jun 26 '23 at 15:16
  • Then what are the premises and the conclusion? – g s Jun 26 '23 at 15:23
  • Focus @tryingtobeastoic, focus! All over youtube, the answer is. Seek and ye shall find. – Agent Smith Jul 28 '23 at 17:37
  • " the steel-manned version of Pascal's wager" Pascal's Wager is such a defective argument, that the best thing one should do while Steel manning a case for theism, is to throw the Wager overboard entirely. – Dcleve Jul 29 '23 at 01:47

1 Answers1

0

The p that you’re referring to is either 0 or 1. An argument is either invalid or valid. It makes no sense to talk about the probability of validity of an argument.

In this case, the argument is simply invalid. The simple, most direct response to Pascal’s wager is to simply imagine a God that puts only Christians in hell and everyone else into heaven. Then as per that God, anyone who believes in the Christian god would have an infinite loss, and everyone who doesn’t will have an infinite reward. There is no more evidence for this kind of God to exist than the actual Christian god.

thinkingman
  • 6,354
  • 19
  • 53