One issue I have with Pascal’s wager is that it seems easy to come up with much more extreme religions.
I believe that in many Christian faiths, when one person is judged as being sent to hell, then afterwards, one person is sent to hell, and experiences the pain that one person can. This might as well last for infinity, but it’s still one person’s pain.
In comparison, it’s easy to imagine a religion that goes much further. Whenever one person is judged as being bad, an infinite number of people will go to hell in their stead (these people might be just like them, if that’s important), and these people will be enhanced to experience a greater amount of pain.
Obviously, heaven goes the same way. 1 person experiencing 1-person-unit of heaven-bliss per year, vs. a religion that has infinity people experiencing infinity-person-units of heaven-bliss per year.
So I’d argue that most religions aren’t “Pascal Optimal”.
You might say, “Well, there’s almost no chance of these pascal optimal religions being true, as no one yet believes in them. We only have the regular religions.”
To which the obvious reply is, ”Well, there might be almost no chance, but there is some chance. And when you do the math, doesn’t this then check out?”
(If it’s not clear, I personally don’t believe in either a regularly known religion or a Pascal Optimal religion.)
My personal response is to be pretty suspicious of this line of reasoning. The outcomes are pretty bizarre, and while I appreciate math, at this point I assume that something went seriously wrong.
But if someone does argue that the line of reasoning makes sense, I’d find it more convincing if they went (what seems like) all the way, and at least chose a Pascal Optimal religion.
If they just go one step and wind up with a religion that was already convenient to themselves for other reasons, I get suspicious.
One issue I have with Pascal’s wager is that it seems easy to come up with much more extreme religions.
I believe that in many Christian faiths, when one person is judged as being sent to hell, then afterwards, one person is sent to hell, and experiences the pain that one person can. This might as well last for infinity, but it’s still one person’s pain.
In comparison, it’s easy to imagine a religion that goes much further. Whenever one person is judged as being bad, an infinite number of people will go to hell in their stead (these people might be just like them, if that’s important), and these people will be enhanced to experience a greater amount of pain.
Obviously, heaven goes the same way. 1 person experiencing 1-person-unit of heaven-bliss per year, vs. a religion that has infinity people experiencing infinity-person-units of heaven-bliss per year.
So I’d argue that most religions aren’t “Pascal Optimal”.
You might say, “Well, there’s almost no chance of these pascal optimal religions being true, as no one yet believes in them. We only have the regular religions.”
To which the obvious reply is,
”Well, there might be almost no chance, but there is some chance. And when you do the math, doesn’t this then check out?”
(If it’s not clear, I personally don’t believe in either a regularly known religion or a Pascal Optimal religion.)
“Well, there might be almost no chance, but there is some chance. And when you do the math, doesn’t this then check out?”
What is your response to this? Do you ignore the Pascal Optimal religion? If so, what rule do you apply to decide what to ignore or not?
My personal response is to be pretty suspicious of this line of reasoning. The outcomes are pretty bizarre, and while I appreciate math, at this point I assume that something went seriously wrong.
But if someone does argue that the line of reasoning makes sense, I’d find it more convincing if they went (what seems like) all the way, and at least chose a Pascal Optimal religion.
If they just go one step and wind up with a religion that was already convenient to themselves for other reasons, I get suspicious.