Elliott’s Wager
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010If you haven’t heard of Pascal’s Wager, it’s a rather silly way of arguing to someone that they should believe in God. The argument goes something like this: in deciding whether or not you believe in God, you should approach the problem the way you approach a wagering situation. Ask yourself what you could possibly gain, and what you could possibly lose.
Given that you have two choices (believe in God, or don’t) and that there are two possible results (God exists, or he doesn’t), there are four possible outcomes. Traditionally, these are arranged in this decision chart to help you conceptualize.
| There is a God | There is no God | |
|---|---|---|
| I believe in God | Go to Heaven (ultimate reward) | Believe in a lie for my entire life, but I can’t feel shame in death (no real punishment, no reward) |
| I don’t believe in God | Go to Hell (ultimate punishment) | Believe the truth throughout life, but take no consolation because there’s nothing after death (no punishment, no reward) |
Clearly, the most sensible solution for a soul-wagerer would be the first row: believing in God. The payoff is potentially high, and the risk is low.
Nevermind that this kind of wagering goes against the very faith-in-the-absence-of-evidence that the Christian God asks of us. Such a disingenuous attempt to feign belief in the deity probably wouldn’t go far to impress Him.
But that isn’t my main problem with the Wager. My beef arises from the fact that it only assumes one possible god. To be a real wager, you’d need to consider all possible outcomes, and that means other gods. Which is why I devised Elliott’s Wager, and the corresponding decision chart.
Unfortunately, it won’t fit in this blog format, so you can find it (here).
-
So where’s your money?
