2

The Pascal's Wager has been criticized because presupposes that the only possible god is the Christian god.

Pascal acknowledges the the existence of his god is doubtful. But even if we suppose that the divine existence is indubitable a new problem arises.

Melisandre can say "Worship R'hllor or you will suffer eternally". And she can (reasonably) prove that R'hllor is real.

Now the new problem: is R'hllor saying the truth when he says (by the mouth of Melisandre) that he want be worshiped? Maybe he is a sadistic prankster that punishes his believers.

Surely my objection isn't terribly original, but I have not found anything similar in my (not terribly exhaustive) search.

Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla
  • 129
  • 3
  • 1
    I do think this is interesting in some way I have yet to articulate to myself. But Pascal's wager is, briefly, about consequences and probability, a rationalization for judgments in what appeared to be a pure state of doubt or uncertainty. Your case is more concerned with a Cartesian type of doubt. I'm not sure what you mean by R'hllor being "reasonably" real, but I don't think this matters. I don't see anything in this Cartesian situation that can be judged under probabilistic thinking of the sort Pascal helped originate. – Nelson Alexander Oct 18 '20 at 02:29
  • 1
    The [many gods objection](https://iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/#H3) goes back to Diderot, who pointed out that "*imam could just as well reason the same way*". And an imam would be in a better position than Melisandre, who is a fictional character, and according to whose own religion the Lord of Light is opposed by the Great Other, and is in no position to make unconditional promises or threats (assuming we take the Game of Thrones mythology at face value). – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 02:46
  • @NelsonAlexander, in the GoT-verse Melisandre can *do* real miracles. In our universe, for any supposed god G, the priests of god G only can *say* "the prophets P1,P2,... did miracles". – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 05:43
  • @Conifold, my hypothesis is: *even* in a universe where the god(s) is/are indubitably real... And see my other comment: in our universe the imam can't do miracles. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 05:51
  • 2
    "Miracles" do not make gods "indubitable", what we can do would look like miracles to cavemen. If there are multiple gods the wager makes little sense regardless of what they are saying and whether it's true, since they can not vouch to deliver. On the other hand, if there is one omnipotent god who made that fact indubitable there is no point to wagering, as his existence is a certainty already. This sort of wager only gets off the ground with one omnipotent god as the only option, but whose existence is uncertain. – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 07:17
  • @Conifold, I'm afraid that testing the *omni*potence is impossibe. Testing the existence of some *concrete* god is reasonably possible. My point: testing the sincerity of an almost-surely existent god is impossible. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 09:38
  • @Conifold, forgot Melisandre: even if P(existence of Pascal's god) = 1 - epsilon for some epsilon too small to be represented by some notation in this universe, we, *finite* beings, can't know if the Pascal's god will reward to his believers/worshippers with eternal happiness. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 09:47
  • There is no need, Melisandre's own mythology implies that R'hllor isn't omnipotent. As for sincerity when omnipotence is claimed, wager on sincerity has a different balance of payoffs, not very enticing unless there is strong evidence in sincerity's favor. – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 09:47
  • @Conifold, "... strong evidence in sincerity's favor": exactly my objection. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 09:52
  • What I do not see is what your objection is to? There is no point objecting to something that does not work on its face. – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 09:57
  • @Conifold, we *can* test the *existence* of gods. We *can't* test the *sincerity* of gods. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 10:00
  • Ok, but what is the at least seemingly working wager that you are objecting to? Existence is moot, space aliens can be "gods" for all intents and purposes, and we can test neither omnipotence nor sincerity, according to you. – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 10:08
  • @Conifold, exactly. The god of Pascal can be the evil demon of Descartes. Pascal is considering only *one* random variable (existence), but there is *another*: sincerity. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 10:11
  • Pascal is working from a different context than you. Signs of God's power and benevolence were seen everywhere, other gods or Gods were not taken seriously, and the only plausible alternative was no God(s) at all. There was strong evidence in sincerity's favor (assuming existence) as far as both he and his target audience was concerned, so he did not need to bother with it. – Conifold Oct 18 '20 at 10:22
  • @Conifold, exactly again. Re: "...power and benevolence...", in some chunks of the OT YHWH is hilariously un-omnipotent; in the whole OT YHWH is a narcissistic jerk; and in the Eden lies to Adam. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 10:45
  • This is just Roko's Basilisk, but with a fantasy angle instead of scifi. – Ryan_L Oct 18 '20 at 17:45
  • @Ryan_L, a *real* Roko's Basilisk will "punish" (can a *simulation* be conscious?) only the "infidels" (in a very broad sense). My prankster god will punish his *believers*. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 18 '20 at 18:05
  • 2
    Note that all Melisandre can prove is her pyrokinetic powers. All we have to link this to R'llhor's existence is her word. She has more credibility than a real world prophet, but is not beyond reasonable doubt. – armand Nov 20 '20 at 05:44
  • The entire accumulated evidence of Homo Sapiens' physical senses (including copious data from sophisticated tools of science like radio telescopes and electron microscopes, et al) has never wavered in its inability to locate god. Any god. The characteristic quality of 'eternity' is not simply unknown, it's unknowable. "What happens when you die?" has never been answered. No religion, no seer, no human that ever existed can accurately describe what can only be imagined. There is no afterlife. There is no heaven or hell. There is no god. There is only now. Change my mind... – Uncle Kurt Nov 19 '20 at 14:35
  • 3
    It always confuses me when theist scholars state that God is beyond our understanding and then proceed with describing him in detail. If that contradiction isn't enough to convince you that they are at best speculating then I don't know what will. I'm not against speculation whatsoever, but circular arguments, false dichotomies and question begging, should never serve as proof about anything. The existence of said deity is what needs to be proven, no threat over disbelief should be sufficient to rationally believe in that deity. – Ted Dec 20 '20 at 09:19
  • The question "could gods be lying?" does not seem to be interesting for philosophy. It does not get more interesting by using game of thrones characters. Pascals wager is only about whether to believe in the existence of not of a god. Whether one additionally choses to believe such a god is telling the truth or lying has nothing to do with Pascals wager. It's more similar to a corporation promising immunity against a disease by being vaccinated, but maybe the vaccine is poison. – tkruse Dec 23 '20 at 01:43

2 Answers2

1

Actually this is very old. The Christian Gnostics of a certain stripe suggested that the God we know in Christianity is not the God of the Universe, but only the Demiurge of some lower order of reality, and therefore the only form of eternal life that can be offered by such a God is really a form of limitation and therefore a kind of eternal suffering.

Their argument is basically the argument from evil. Only a God that was flawed or insane would have created material reality, which is at best a confusing delusion, and at worst a trap. So any higher reality offered by such a God probably isn't exactly what He thinks it is.

They aspired to look beyond Him to a higher order of the Real Universe ruled by a more ultimate God sometimes known as the Monad.

(Sometimes they limit this only to all forms of Christianity continuous with Judaism, since they identify the Demiurge with Yahweh in particular, and propose there are messages hidden in the words of Jesus that point to the higher reality, sometimes through the mystery of the Trinity, etc. This explains how these variants remained Christian, preserving Jesus as a Savior figure, and did not become variants of 'Satanism' like others (If God is evil, and Satan is real, then he is your friend.) Since every form of the tradition was ultimately suppressed as a heresy, it is hard to know what parts were actually commonplace, and which ones just happen to be expressed in the remaining traces nobody destroyed.)

More recently we have the Evil God Challenge. The challenge to prove that the philosophical version of God is not just as likely to be ultimately evil (and sometimes therefore also the ultimate liar) as He is to be ultimately good in any way. If he is just as likely, or more likely, to be evil, then all the continuity between actual religious beliefs and most of the theology that borrows from Plato and Aristotle is broken.

hide_in_plain_sight
  • 1,098
  • 3
  • 10
0

I will ignore R'hllor and instead answer for the christian God. I think this probably applies to any God and religion.

An important statement that is repeated often in the Old Testament is to remember what God did to their ancestors (namely, free them from egyptian captivity). This is then used to say that God will also act in this way, good, towards the current people if they listen to what he says.

In other words: Trust God because he was trustworthy in the past.

Another angle:

An insincere God can "punish" you in the afterlife whether or not you obeyed his commands. A sincere God is sincere in that the people who follow him will be blessed in the afterlife.

Thus, in the spirit of Pascals wager, you gain nothing by assuming an insincere God but lose a lot if God is sincere but you are not following his advice. In the spirit of Pascals wager it would be therefore beneficial to assume a sincere God.

kutschkem
  • 2,172
  • 10
  • 17
  • 1
    Yes, Pascal is *implicitly* thinking in the Christian god. But he *explicitly* says: " But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits." – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 20 '20 at 07:35
  • @Martín-BlasPérezPinilla Not sure what that has to do with the question, or the answer. I am using the religion that I know about to answer a general question about religions (fictional or real). The question I understood is: "Why (do people) trust God?", and that seems independent of whether said God exists, what nature he has, or how much about that nature is known. We can even ask "Why do people trust other people?" and probably get to a similar answer. – kutschkem Oct 20 '20 at 08:13
  • Pascal himself is saying that he knows essentially *nothing* about his god. Self-quote: "Pascal is considering only one random variable (existence), but there is another: sincerity." – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 20 '20 at 10:13
  • @Martín-BlasPérezPinilla Ok I added something which I think is in the spirit of Pascals wager and hopefully addresses your issue. – kutschkem Oct 20 '20 at 12:48
  • 1
    @Martín-BlasPérezPinilla Also, although both Pascal and Melisandre take this for granted I suppose: There is also another uncertainty which is the Prophet/Priest: Are the people who claim to speak in God's name actually doing so? This issue is a very big one in the real world. – kutschkem Oct 20 '20 at 12:52
  • Re: Pascal, maybe this weekend I will edit the question for more details (payment matrices). Re: prophets/priests, YES!!! – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Oct 20 '20 at 18:18
  • 1
    The OT also offers examples of God being untrustworthy, like when he told Abraham to sacrifice his son only to test him, hardened pharaoh's heart, got the Hebrews to be lost for years in the desert, played favorites with David, etc... The second angle however is very relevant. – armand Nov 20 '20 at 05:56
  • @armand Untrustworthiness would be if God says one thing, then does another. Of your examples, only "hardened Pharaoh's heart" counts in my book, if you take that literally. Maybe (big maybe) Abraham. The rest is literally punishment for something told beforehand, not something random. – kutschkem Nov 20 '20 at 07:16
  • 1
    If the bible is not to be taken literally, it can't be used to establish God's trustworthiness either. YMMV, but Abraham's "it was only a test" episode is clearly a deal breaker to me. The other punishments were never established beforehand, always arbitrary. I forgot to count the Flood, an arbitrary genocidal punishment on people who never saw it coming, all due to an inability to own one's mistake in creating a wicked world. The OT God is (involuntarily) described as a petty, careless, unpredictable individual I wouldn't approach with a ten feet pole. – armand Nov 20 '20 at 08:39