The worst outcome with A1 is being rewarded for all eternity. The best outcome with A2 is being punished for all eternity. The worst outcome with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome with A2. Therefore my objection meets the premise.

The fact of the matter is that Pascal's Wager rests on a false dichotomy. It's not a case that either there's no afterlife or there's a psychopomp of some sort who rewards those who believe in him and who punishes those who don't. There might also be a psychopomp who rewards those who don't believe in him and who punishes those who do, or at least one who punishes those who believe in him only because of a game theory wager.

Yes, stated that way, it's valid but there's rather no reason to believe that it's sound.

If think the deathbed scenario paints this situation in stark relief, one must make a choice, do you talk to the Chaplain or not Terrapin? Do you confess or just die? — Cavacava

I'd talk to him if he wanted to talk to me--well, and if it's not a situation where I'm going to die at any immediate moment, as then I'd want to be talking to family instead, but my beliefs wouldn't change. The notion of gods, generally and specifically re some tenets of some religions, rests on notions that are incoherent and/or comically absurd in my view. I don't have any background of religious belief, so it's not as if I believed at one time but then later rejected the beliefs, and it's not as if I simply have doubts or a lack of (psychological) certainty about religious beliefs.

Growing up, I didn't even know about religious beliefs in any detail whatsoever until I was about fourteen or fifteen. When I first learned what folks believed in any detail I thought that they had to be putting me on--playing a practical joke on me (there are a lot of elaborate practical jokers in my family). That's how ridiculous the beliefs struck me as being, and that hasn't lessened over the years. In fact, that opinion has only strengthened as I've gotten older, learned a lot more about religion, studied philosophy, and so on.

.

The worst outcome with A1 is being rewarded for all eternity. The best outcome with A2 is being punished for all eternity. The worst outcome with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome with A2. Therefore my objection meets the premise

No that does not sound right. The worst outcome with A1 is oblivion, no god, no eternal bliss, no nothing. The only outcome from A2 is oblivion, eternal nothing.

No that does not sound right. The worst outcome with A1 is oblivion, no god, no eternal bliss, no nothing. The only outcome from A2 is oblivion, eternal nothing. — Cavacava

A1 is "not believing in God, leading to eternal bliss" and A2 is "believing in God, leading to eternal torment".

The worse (only) outcome of A1 is at least as good as the best (only) outcome of A2. My wager satisfies the premise. Therefore, using my wager, it is rational to not believe in God.

Yea, I went to Catholic grammar school, high school and college, then a predominantly Jewish graduate school, which was like shock therapy, changed me significantly. Pretty much agnostic now.

Interesting, I have to ask my daughter what if any beliefs she holds, her background does not include the push towards any religion.

Well in my case it wasn't just the lack of a "push." I didn't know about religion at all really. No one in my family was religious (people in my extended family are, but we didn't live with them or even near them when I was growing up--my mom is an atheist who very easily meshed with hippie culture; my dad is a real blue-collar (very easygoing) greaser/biker-type guy who has always seemed to have zero interest in stuff like religion, politics, philosophy, etc.; the grandparent I was closest to was also an atheist), none of my friends were religious--no one ever went to church, no one ever talked about religion in any manner, etc. Also, I was born in the early 60s, so this was long before the Internet or religious channels on cable TV or anything like that.

My first real exposure to any sort of religious beliefs was actually philosophy, which I started reading when I was 11, but I didn't really get what the heck what was being talked about in that material--as an 11-year-old trying to read academic philosophy (as well as a variety of other academic-level texts--for example, I tried to tackle a graduate-level serial music composition textbook), I didn't get a lot of what I was reading, but I figured that if I kept at it, eventually it would make sense to me (although with some philosophy, especially contintental stuff, that still hasn't happened, lol, and I'm in my mid-50s now).

In the words of Bender "Afterlife? Pfft. If I'd thought I had to go through a whole 'nother life, I'd kill myself right now." One go around is enough for me,

As Socrates points out we don't really fear death, we fear what we imagine death to be, and I would wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind.

I would hope on my death bed I don't fold to fear, but even if I did it would hardly validate Pascal's Wager since the motivation was not reason.

Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality seems to require you to perform A1.[1]
SEP

Maybe you can point out irrational part of this.

"Maybe you can point out irrational part of this"

"Suppose"

It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

As Socrates points out we don't really fear death, we fear what we imagine death to be, and I would wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind. — Jeremiah

For me, literal fear associated with death is more along the lines of how I fear possible pain as well as thing ike going to doctors or dentists (I have a bit of a doctor phobia).

The bigger part of it simply not wanting to not be able to experience things any longer. That's very similar to how I won't want to leave a place I enjoy spending time in, or departing, especially for good--for example, if they're moving away--from people I enjoy spending time with, etc. It's just that with death, it's not being able to experience anything any longer, and that being permanent. So that's the big problem with it. That's not so much fear as . . . well, I'm not sure what to call it.

For me, literal fear associated with death is more along the lines of how I fear possible pain as well as thing ike going to doctors or dentists (I have a bit of a doctor phobia). — Terrapin Station

Do you really fear the pain of going to the doctors or dentists or do you fear the pain you imagine will happen?

Do you really fear the pain of going to the doctors or dentists or do you fear the pain you imagine will happen? — Jeremiah

Both, I'd say (especially in the case of dentists)

Do you think perhaps fear is, in some part, dependent on our imagination to even occur?

Insofar as it's anticipatory, sure, but I wouldn't say that fear in response to some present stimulus is necessarily dependent on imagination. You'd maybe argue that it only obtains insofar as one is imagining something other than the present stimulus, but that seems dubious to me, as lots of folks would say that when it's about a present stimulus it's merely a reaction to that stimulus (and that they're not really thinking about anything--they're just reacting).

Like if I point a gun a you screaming and yelling that I am going to kill you, that seems like something real to fear.

But is that really what you fear? Or would you fear that I actually pull the trigger? Something that has not even happened, something that at this point you can only imagine happening, but seems likely to happen.

It is a fine line, and certainly a valid fear given the stimulus, as you suggest, but it still leaves a lot of questions. Like, at what point is it good to let fear take over our imagination? Or is it never good? It would seem reasonable to think that fear and imagination have to be ingrained in our survival instincts, which allows us to see, and response to dangers that have not happened, but could happen.

Might be something worth investigating.

.[reply="Jeremiah;39999"

As Socrates points out we don't really fear death, we fear what we imagine death to be, and I would wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind]

This sentence defeats itself.

If you say so, but since you didn't point out how I'll have to just take you at your word. Clearly I missed how, or else I would have not wrote it that way.

That's not so much fear as . . . well, I'm not sure what to call it. — Terrapin Station

Profound regret, maybe?

Like, at what point it is good to let fear take over our imagination? Or is it never good? — Jeremiah

I'd say it's certainly beneficial in situations where your health and well-being are in danger. For one, it's correlated to the release of adrenaline/catecholamines, and that is beneficial to getting out of the dangerous situation/surviving.

Although regret is usually after the fact. We could say something like "anticipated regret (where the regret can never obtain--since you'll be dead (lol))" although that doesn't seem to capture it well because it's a present disposition.

You

wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind.

and at the same time refer to Socrates. Yet at Socrates' on his deathbed, was in a rational frame of mind. Whether he feared death, I think might have to do with the interpretation of his very last words.

I don't see a conflict, it should be clear enough I was speaking generally. And that part about Socrates and death was before his execution, it was when Xenophon was trying to talk him into escape.

Cavacava, how about you pick on this statement...

It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. — Jeremiah

It should be pointed out that Xenophon's writings are generally considered a more accurate reflection of Socrates. Plato liked to take creative authority.

Let me think about it, I think offhand that it these are not hypothesis, but wagers, as in a bet, in which they obtain the assignment of certain values of utility by the person in making the decision.

Let me think about it, I think offhand that it these are not hypothesis, but wagers, as in a bet, in which they obtain the assignment of certain values of utility by the person in making the decision. — Cavacava

Your whole argument is based on a suppose, "Suppose that you have two possible actions". The problem with your argument is that is a completely imaginary hypothetical.

Algebra is hypothetical until it is applied.

The problem with your argument is that is a completely imaginary hypothetical. — Jeremiah

Is there any other kind? :D

Algebra is hypothetical until it is applied. — Cavacava

All mathematics is hypothetical. Sometimes we use it to model reality.

Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality seems to require you to perform A1.[1]
SEP

Maybe you can point out irrational part of this

-Cavacava

A1 = if you lay in bed all day long a magic fairy will give you a pot of gold.

A2 = if you get out of bed you will have the worst diarrhea of your life.

What is more rational? Is it rational to stay in bed?