A Bear, and Pascal's Wager

[featherynscale]

The other day, I had a dream in which I was being chased by a bear. I often talk about dreams in terms of being chased by a bear (which I must have learned from some television show), as in "You had a bad dream? Were you being chased by a bear?", but to my knowledge, this is the only time that I have ever actually dreamed of being chased by a bear.

In the dream, I was back in college, in my Philosophy class. I was arguing with the professor about Pascal's wager. Now, for context, I really did have a philosophy class, in which I really did argue with the prof about this, and got roundly ignored for it. But here, in the dream, I had much better arguments than I had in real life. But anyway.

sky_pilott came in and informed us that there was a giant bear ravaging the campus, and that the best thing for it would be to run for our lives. And so we did. And there was, in fact, a giant bear. When I say giant, I don't mean giant like a real grizzly bear is giant. I mean giant like a bear in a kaiju film would be, if they ever made kaiju films about bears. It was rending the buildings and shaking students into its maw. This was, of course, when I woke up.

And I was thinking, how is the thing with the bear any different from Pascal's wager? I was told that there was a bear, and that if I didn't react in the appropriate way, I would suffer for it. Bear + running = fine, no bear + running = fine, no bear + no running = fine, bear + no running = dead. And I was perfectly willing to run from this reported bear, on no more evidence than sky_pilott's say-so. Now, I do consider sky_pilott to be a generally reliable source, so that's something. And yet, I reject the idea that I should believe in a deity based on someone's say-so, because I fear that if I don't, then something bad will happen to me. I suppose that I'm perfectly willing to have a fear-based relationship with giant bears, but not with gods. Or something.

Comments

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

I think the key difference is that the hypothesis of a giant bear is easily and concretely verifiable, so one would be relatively unlikely to accidentally identify a tree or an elephant as a giant bear, for example. Whereas Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, involves betting on the existence or non-existence of something which cannot be so easily verified.

From a philosopher (me)

[lordkalkin.livejournal.com]

My favorite problems with Pascal's wager:

Which god? Pascal obviously intends the Xian god, but by the logic of the wager, you should pick out the bitchiest, meanest, least forgiving god, and believe in that one rather than any others or nothing. At this point, the Catholic and Muslim versions run too close a contest for me to decide between them.

What if god is a consequentialist/utilitarian? In that case, going with one of the Eastern religions would be best because samsara offers the greatest good for the greatest number. Everyone gets saved, it's just a matter of time.

you can't trick god I'm borrowing this one from William James in "The Will to Believe." Being saved in the Xian continuum isn't a matter of rationally deciding that you believe in god in order to save your ass. Faith has to be sincere, not selfishly motivated. Pascal's wager proposes the opposite, that one should try to pull a fast one in order to avoid hellfire. If belief in god is a live option, you can certainly use Pascal's wager as a mean to insulate yourself from criticism, but like Anselm's ontological argument and argument from design, it's not going to win any converts.

Re: From a philosopher (me)

[greektoomey.livejournal.com]

I found these remarks to be enlightening, and I shall endeavor to remember them. Thanks.

Re: From a philosopher (me)

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

It was my contention at the time in the class that Pascal was ignoring the negative consequences of accepting the Christian faith. The prof was not inclined to agree with me, or even really allow me to get very far along that road of reasoning.

Dream Logic

[rfunk.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that the dream juxtaposed the bear situation and the Pascal's Wager argument.

I find it even more interesting that, despite the conflict between those two situations, your dream sounds more logical and rational than any I've ever had.

[lexpendragon.livejournal.com]

Another Detail:
Running From A Bear: Short, Relatively Easy Action.
Living A Clean And Virtuous Life: Much More Long Term, Involves A Lot More Sacrifice Than A Quick Run Away.

[fred-smith.livejournal.com]

Also, after a while you get to stop running from a bear.

[jackbabalon23.livejournal.com]

I guess i'm gonna sound like an idiot here, but what is 'Pascal's wager' (besides of course being a wager proposed by Pascal)?

[featherynscale.livejournal.com]

Nah. Pascal's Wager is an alternative to a proof of God's existence (God being, in this case, Jehovah). Instead of trying to prove the existence of God, Pascal says that we should just assume the existence of God, because it's better for us that way. If there is no God, he says, then it doesn't matter if we believe in God or not, because nothing bad will happen to us. If there is a God, then if we believe in him as we're told to, we go to Heaven, and if we don't, we go to Hell. With only one negative consequence possible in Pascal's mind, he says, we might as well believe in God, because we lose nothing if we do, but stand to lose something if we don't.

It is, as lordkalkin says above, sort of trying to pull a fast one on God.

I'm of the opinion that Pascal was a little on the short-sighted side when he was saying that there were no negative consequences to believing in God, personally, but maybe for him personally, there weren't. *shrug*