Dragaera

Religion - The Pragmatic Argument for Belief in God

David Dyer-Bennet dd-b at dd-b.net
Mon Dec 2 18:01:23 PST 2002

"Rick Castello" <rick at 404.978.org> writes:

>      I am, myself, an agnostic, but I've always found Paschal's Wager,
>      the pragmatic argument (using decision theory) for belief in God,
>      amusing.
> 
>      Basically, his argument boils down to this:
> 
>        You can hold one of two positions, either you believe in God,
>        or you do not (he doesn't allow for agnosticism here).
> 
>        In reality, one of the following is true: either God exists,
>        or God does not exist.

And he's already skipped over the key point: *which* god?  

It's a perfect argument from the premises, but the premises don't bear
any useful relationship to any actual question of religion confronting
the world.

Which brings me to a variant of that argument, called Sipfle's Wager
(after prof. David Sipfle of Carleton).  It's the same basic argument,
applied to free will.

Breaks down to three cases:

1.  Free will exists, and you choose to believe otherwise.

2.  Free will does not exist, and you're predestined to believe in
    free will. 

3.  Free will exists, and you choose to believe in free will.

4.  Free will does not exist, and you predestined to not believe in
    free will.

Since you don't have any choice in cases 2 and 4, we'll set them aside
as beyond our control.

That leaves cases 1 and 3.  

In case 1, you have committed an avoidable error.  

In case 3, you are correct.

Therefore, you should choose to believe in free will.  If you actually
have any choice, then it's the right choice.  Wilfully choosing to
believe in predestination is an avoidable error.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info