331 lines
14 KiB
Text
331 lines
14 KiB
Text
#import "@preview/unequivocal-ams:0.1.1": ams-article, theorem, proof
|
|
#import "@preview/wordometer:0.1.3": word-count, total-words
|
|
|
|
#show: ams-article.with(
|
|
title: [The Argument for Betting on God and the Possibility of Infinite Suffering],
|
|
bibliography: bibliography("refs.bib"),
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
#set cite(style: "institute-of-electrical-and-electronics-engineers")
|
|
#set text(fractions: true)
|
|
|
|
#show: word-count.with(exclude: (heading, <wordcount-exclude>, table))
|
|
|
|
#align(
|
|
center,
|
|
table(
|
|
columns: (auto, auto),
|
|
[
|
|
Perm: A2V4847
|
|
],
|
|
[
|
|
Word Count: #total-words #footnote[Figure computed programmatically during document compilation. Discounts content in tables and the AI contribution statement.]<wordcount-exclude>
|
|
],
|
|
),
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
= Introduction
|
|
|
|
The argument for Betting on God says that you should believe in God, regardless
|
|
of other evidence, purely out of self-interest. In this paper, I challenge this
|
|
argument by assessing the premise that believing in a particular God always
|
|
guarantees the greatest expected utility.
|
|
|
|
The author's argument for belief in God #cite(supplement: [p. 38],
|
|
<Korman2022-KORLFA>) goes as follows:
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
x: 16pt,
|
|
[
|
|
#set par(first-line-indent: 0pt)
|
|
#smallcaps[The Argument for Betting on God]:
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -2pt,
|
|
[(BG1) One should always choose the option with the greatest expected utility
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -2pt,
|
|
[(BG2) Believing in God has a greater expected utility than not believing in God
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -2pt,
|
|
[(BG3) So, you should believe in God
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
BG1 should be uncontroversial. If you expect an action to bring you the most
|
|
utility (i.e. be the most useful), why wouldn't you choose to do it?
|
|
|
|
To justify BG2, the author uses a so-called "decision matrix" to compute the
|
|
expected utility of each combination of action and possible outcome. The
|
|
possible actions are placed on the rows, and the possible outcomes are placed
|
|
on the columns, except for the last column, which is the calculated expected
|
|
utility. At each intersection of a row and column, we place the utility we gain
|
|
from that combination of action and outcome. The expected utility for a given
|
|
action is computed by multiplying the utility of each action-outcome pair in
|
|
that row by the probability of the corresponding outcome occurring, and summing
|
|
up all of those values.
|
|
|
|
Here is the decision matrix the author proposes on #cite(supplement: [p. 38],
|
|
<Korman2022-KORLFA>) which gives the expected utility for believing or not
|
|
believing in God.
|
|
|
|
#show table.cell.where(x: 0): strong
|
|
#show table.cell.where(y: 0): strong
|
|
|
|
#figure(
|
|
caption: [Author's decision matrix],
|
|
align(
|
|
center,
|
|
table(
|
|
columns: (auto, auto, auto, auto),
|
|
table.header(
|
|
[],
|
|
[God exists ($50%$)],
|
|
[God doesn't exist ($50%$)],
|
|
[Expected utility],
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
[ Believe in God ], [$infinity$], [2], [$infinity$],
|
|
[
|
|
Don't believe in God
|
|
],
|
|
[1],
|
|
[3],
|
|
[2],
|
|
),
|
|
),
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
Note that the numerical utility values themselves have no meaning, and they are
|
|
meant to be viewed relative to each other. Utility doesn't literally provide an
|
|
empirical measure of "usefulness" or "happiness."
|
|
|
|
We assign the various finite utilities as we see fit, based on how much each
|
|
scenario benefits us. In the case where God does exist, and you believed in
|
|
God, then you are rewarded with an eternal afterlife of bliss and pleasure in
|
|
heaven. This reward is infinitely greater than any possible reward on earth, so
|
|
it has a utility of $infinity$.
|
|
|
|
So, the expected utility for not believing is $0.5 times 1 + 0.5 times 3 = 2$,
|
|
and the expected utility is $0.5 times infinity + 0.5 times 2 = infinity$. If,
|
|
according to BG1, you should pick the option with greatest expected utility,
|
|
clearly you should choose to believe in God, because the expected utility is
|
|
$infinity$.
|
|
|
|
The exact utilities don't matter much, since any finite utility you could gain
|
|
for atheism cannot possibly be greater than the infinite expected utility of
|
|
believing in God. Also, as the author points out on #cite(<Korman2022-KORLFA>,
|
|
supplement: [p. 40]), the exact probabilities don't matter either since
|
|
multiplying them by $infinity$ still results in the expected utility of
|
|
$infinity$.
|
|
|
|
I will show that the Argument for Betting on God fails because BG2 fails. In
|
|
section 2, I argue you cannot determine whether or not believing in God has the
|
|
greatest expected utility because the decision matrix approach fails when
|
|
possible outcomes involving infinitely negative utilities are introduced. In
|
|
section 3, I address a possible response to this objection.
|
|
|
|
= Possibility of Infinite Suffering
|
|
|
|
It is possible there are more gods than just the one that sends you to an
|
|
eternal afterlife for believing? The author partially addresses this in
|
|
#cite(<Korman2022-KORLFA>, supplement: [pp. 43-44]), using the example of Zeus.
|
|
Zeus will only reward those who believe in him with an eternal afterlife of
|
|
pleasure. So, if you believe in the wrong god, you don't go to the afterlife.
|
|
The author concludes either believing in Zeus or the Christian God still has
|
|
expected utilities of $infinity$, while being an atheist does has a finite
|
|
expected utility. Therefore, it is still preferable to believe in _some_ god
|
|
that may grant you an eternal afterlife, although no argument is made for
|
|
_which_ god.
|
|
|
|
However, this leaves out the possibility of gods who punish you for some
|
|
reason. For instance, suppose there exists an _Evil God_ who sends anyone who
|
|
believes in any god to hell for eternity, and does nothing to atheists.
|
|
|
|
Let us modify our decision matrix to model an outcome where the Evil God
|
|
exists. #pagebreak()
|
|
|
|
#[
|
|
#set figure()
|
|
#figure(
|
|
caption: [Possibility of an Evil God],
|
|
table(
|
|
columns: (auto, auto, auto, auto, auto),
|
|
align: center,
|
|
table.header(
|
|
[],
|
|
[Correct god exists ($33.3%$)],
|
|
[No god exists ($33.3%$)],
|
|
[Evil God exists ($33.3%$)],
|
|
[E.U.],
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
[ Believe in some God ], [$infinity$], [1], [$-infinity$], [$?$],
|
|
[
|
|
Don't believe in any God
|
|
],
|
|
[2],
|
|
[3],
|
|
[4],
|
|
[4.5],
|
|
),
|
|
)
|
|
]<other-gods-table>
|
|
|
|
We've added the new option to our matrix. For the sake of argument, let's say
|
|
each option has an equally likely outcome. Again, the exact probabilities don't
|
|
really matter when we're multiplying them by infinity.
|
|
|
|
The utilities are mostly the same as before. Not believing in any god and the
|
|
Evil God existing is now the best case for the atheist since they avoided
|
|
infinite suffering. However, the theist now faces the possibility of the worst
|
|
case of all: eternal punishment for believing in the wrong god. If eternal
|
|
bliss in heaven has a utility of $infinity$, then it follows that we should
|
|
represent eternal punishment in hell with a utility of $-infinity$.
|
|
|
|
There is a problem: how do we calculate the expected utility of believing in
|
|
god? We have $0.333 times infinity + 0.333 times 1 + 0.333 times -infinity$.
|
|
What is $infinity - infinity$? A naive answer might be 0, but infinity is not a
|
|
number in the traditional sense. It makes no sense to add or subtract infinite
|
|
values. For instance, try and subtract the total amount of integers
|
|
($infinity$) from the total amount of real numbers (also $infinity$)
|
|
#footnote[Famously, this infinity is "larger" than the infinite number of
|
|
integers in the sense of cardinality (G. Cantor). But subtracting them still
|
|
makes no mathematical or physical sense.]. Clearly, this notion is meaningless
|
|
and we cannot obtain a solution. So, we consider $infinity - infinity$ an
|
|
_indeterminate form_. So, the expected utility is now _undefined_.
|
|
|
|
Consider the following argument:
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
x: 16pt,
|
|
[
|
|
#set par(first-line-indent: 0pt)
|
|
#smallcaps[The Indeterminate Utilities argument]:
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -1pt,
|
|
[(IU1) If the expected utility of believing in god is undefined, then we
|
|
cannot compare the expected utilities of believing in god or not believing
|
|
in god.],
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -1pt,
|
|
[(IU2) The expected utility of believing in god is undefined.],
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -1pt,
|
|
[(IU3) So, we cannot compare the expected utilities of believing in god or
|
|
not believing in god.
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -1pt,
|
|
[(IU4) If we cannot compare the expected utilities of believing in god or
|
|
not believing in god, then we cannot determine if believing in god has a
|
|
higher expected utility than not believing in god.
|
|
],
|
|
)
|
|
#pad(
|
|
y: -1pt,
|
|
[(IU5) So, we cannot determine if believing in god has a higher expected
|
|
utility than not believing in god. ],
|
|
)],
|
|
)<wordcount-exclude>
|
|
|
|
We just showed why the premise IU2 is true, and the conclusion IU5 is in direct
|
|
contradiction with BG2. So, if IU5 holds, then BG2 must fail.
|
|
|
|
It's important to note that the Indeterminate Utilities argument doesn't say
|
|
that the _opposite_ of BG2 is true. It doesn't argue that the expected utility
|
|
of being an atheist is greater. In fact, it doesn't say anything about the
|
|
expected utilities, except that they cannot all be compared. If they cannot all
|
|
be calculated, then they cannot be compared. So, we can't say whether believing
|
|
in god has a greater expected utility or not.
|
|
|
|
= Addressing Objections
|
|
|
|
// == Believing in a god is still preferable to atheism
|
|
//
|
|
// One might argue that believing in a god that rewards believers is always
|
|
// preferable to atheism since you at least have the _opportunity_ to receive
|
|
// eternity in heaven. Perhaps there exists a god who punishes non-believers with
|
|
// eternal damnation. Then, even without the exact expected utility calculation,
|
|
// it's clear that the expected utility of believing in some god must be higher
|
|
// than believing in none as you stand to gain more. Either as a theist or
|
|
// atheist, you run the risk of eternal punishment, but you only have the
|
|
// opportunity to go to heaven by believing in some god rather than none.
|
|
//
|
|
// Fair, the possibility that you are punished for believing in the wrong god
|
|
// doesn't imply that you should be an atheist either. Indeed, there may be a god
|
|
// that punishes atheists. However, there could also exist a god who sends
|
|
// everyone to heaven regardless. Or perhaps they only send atheists to heaven.
|
|
// Either way, there is also the possibility of attaining the infinite afterlife
|
|
// in heaven by being an atheist, so it's still impossible to say that the
|
|
// expected utility of believing in god is must be higher.
|
|
|
|
== The Evil God is not plausible
|
|
|
|
One might argue that it is not plausible there is an Evil God who punishes all
|
|
theists, including their own believers. Many religions present a god that
|
|
rewards believers and at most punishes disbelievers. None of the major world
|
|
religions propose an Evil God who punishes all believers. It's much more likely
|
|
that a benevolent god exists than an evil one.
|
|
|
|
I contend that it doesn't matter whether or not the Evil God is less plausible
|
|
than a benevolent god. Surely, if a rational atheist who is unconvinced by all
|
|
the world's scriptures can still concede that there is at least a non-zero
|
|
chance that some god exists, the rational theist should also concede that there
|
|
is a non-zero chance that the Evil God exists. All it takes is that non-zero
|
|
chance, no matter how small, because multiplying it by $-infinity$ still
|
|
results in the undefined expected utility.
|
|
|
|
== Finite utilities
|
|
|
|
One might argue that we can avoid using $infinity$ to ensure that all expected
|
|
utility calculations are defined. Instead, suppose that the utility of going to
|
|
heaven is just an immensely large finite number. The utility of going to hell
|
|
is likewise a very negative number. All of our expected utility calculations
|
|
will be defined, and given sufficiently large utilities, we should be able to
|
|
make a similar argument for believing in god.
|
|
|
|
// The problem with this argument is that we now open our expected utilities up to
|
|
// individual subjective determination. A core feature of the previous argument
|
|
// involving infinite utilities is that they can effectively bypass numerical
|
|
// comparison. If, instead, finite utilities were used, then each person may
|
|
// assign different utilities to each possible outcome based on their own beliefs.
|
|
// Also, the probabilities are no longer irrelevant, so they must be analyzed as
|
|
// well. This greatly complicates the decision matrix.
|
|
|
|
The problem with this argument is that infinity has a special property argument
|
|
relies on. Namely, any number multiplied by $infinity$ is still $infinity$, so
|
|
the exact probabilities we set for the existence of God don't matter. This is
|
|
important for defending against the objection the author mentions on
|
|
#cite(<Korman2022-KORLFA>, supplement: [p. 40]), that the probabilities are
|
|
possibly incorrect, since the numbers don't matter anyways.
|
|
|
|
If, instead, only finite utilities were used, then the theist must contend with
|
|
the concern that the probabilities in the matrix are wrong. There could
|
|
conceivably exist a matrix with probabilities for a benevolent god and an Evil
|
|
God such that the expected utility of atheism is actually higher. The issue is
|
|
we cannot say for sure what the probabilities of the benevolent god and the
|
|
Evil God existing are. If we cannot know what the actual probabilities are,
|
|
then we cannot know the final outcome of our matrix. So, without knowing the
|
|
final outcome of the matrix, we still cannot determine whether or not believing
|
|
in god has greater expected utility, and BG2 still fails.
|
|
|
|
#pagebreak()
|
|
|
|
#[
|
|
= AI Contribution Statement
|
|
|
|
#quote[I did not use AI whatsoever in the writing of this paper.]
|
|
]<wordcount-exclude>
|