Paschal's Wager re-formulated mathematically: why being Christian is Rational.
July 24, 2023 at 4:30 am
I know many think Paschal's Wager is false and allegedly irremediable, even with a few changes; but let me make a quick case for it, with some adaptations and changes. Let's call it the NPW, the New Paschal's Wager:
Firstly, the purpose of the NPW is not to show that Christianity is True. There are independent arguments for that, Cosmology, Fine Tuning, the Moral Argument, the Historical Evidence for Christ's Crucifixion, Messianic Prophecies like Isaiah 53, then that for Christ's Resurrection, Internal Experience etc.
The purpose of the NPW is rather to show that Christianity is a rational choice or decision to make given the relation of risk to reward. This is a very common idea in probability called expectations. People might have heard of it and an example will illustrate for those who haven't.
Let's say you had a dice of 1 to 5, and you would receive $100 either for playing on the side of (1) getting 1-3 or (2) 4-5. Which would you choose? Of course the former, because there's a 60% probability that you would get it, while only a 40% probability of the latter. If it was 1-3, and 3-6, and the return was the same in both cases, you'd be neutral in your choice, as those are equiprobable events.
Now, let's come to evaluating the two opinions of Christianity and Atheism. Of these two opinions, Christianity promise an Eternal, Priceless reward. Let's call it, for analogy' sake, like receiving $1 TN. Atheism, according to itself, can credibly promise nothing of that sort. At most it can promise such things as "I'll have my Sunday mornings free", "we can sin without consequence since there is no God" etc. Let's consider that like $1000.
Now, what needs to be assessed is not only the respective reward promised by each but also the probability of each being true.
Given the above, if Christian Theism vis-a-vis Marxist (or other) Atheism is even 50-50, i.e. Christianity has a 50% probability of being true, and 50% one of being false, it in fact logically follows that being a Christian is the more rational choice. [It doesn't prove it true to be sure, but the more rational choice, yes] The same as if 1-3 promised you 1 TN, whereas 3-6 promised you 1000. For atheists to show, in light of the respective reward Christianity promises and Atheism cannot promise, that Atheism is a more rational choice, they would have to show, that Christianity is extremely improbable and Atheism allegedly extremely probable. Again, I don't personally believe it's only 50-50, but the argument works.
If you disagree, pls explain where and why, with reasons of your own. Thanks.
Regards,
Xavier.
Firstly, the purpose of the NPW is not to show that Christianity is True. There are independent arguments for that, Cosmology, Fine Tuning, the Moral Argument, the Historical Evidence for Christ's Crucifixion, Messianic Prophecies like Isaiah 53, then that for Christ's Resurrection, Internal Experience etc.
The purpose of the NPW is rather to show that Christianity is a rational choice or decision to make given the relation of risk to reward. This is a very common idea in probability called expectations. People might have heard of it and an example will illustrate for those who haven't.
Let's say you had a dice of 1 to 5, and you would receive $100 either for playing on the side of (1) getting 1-3 or (2) 4-5. Which would you choose? Of course the former, because there's a 60% probability that you would get it, while only a 40% probability of the latter. If it was 1-3, and 3-6, and the return was the same in both cases, you'd be neutral in your choice, as those are equiprobable events.
Now, let's come to evaluating the two opinions of Christianity and Atheism. Of these two opinions, Christianity promise an Eternal, Priceless reward. Let's call it, for analogy' sake, like receiving $1 TN. Atheism, according to itself, can credibly promise nothing of that sort. At most it can promise such things as "I'll have my Sunday mornings free", "we can sin without consequence since there is no God" etc. Let's consider that like $1000.
Now, what needs to be assessed is not only the respective reward promised by each but also the probability of each being true.
Given the above, if Christian Theism vis-a-vis Marxist (or other) Atheism is even 50-50, i.e. Christianity has a 50% probability of being true, and 50% one of being false, it in fact logically follows that being a Christian is the more rational choice. [It doesn't prove it true to be sure, but the more rational choice, yes] The same as if 1-3 promised you 1 TN, whereas 3-6 promised you 1000. For atheists to show, in light of the respective reward Christianity promises and Atheism cannot promise, that Atheism is a more rational choice, they would have to show, that Christianity is extremely improbable and Atheism allegedly extremely probable. Again, I don't personally believe it's only 50-50, but the argument works.
If you disagree, pls explain where and why, with reasons of your own. Thanks.
Regards,
Xavier.
