Dominant Strategy to Believe in God
Pascal is famous for his mathematic contributions – one that especially rings a bell is Pascal’s triangle. He was also one of the original proponents of decision theory. In lieu of game theory, which represents the social situation between two players facing different strategies, decision theory instead focuses on only player with different strategies facing some uncertainty in nature. In his classic article, The Wager, Pascal asserts that believing in God is the dominant strategy to reaping the maximum reward.
The question of the existence of God has been debated for centuries, if not millennia, and Pascal believes it is fruitless to attempt any reasonable arguments for either side. Instead, he argues that one should believe in God. In this case, the uncertainty in nature is the actual existence of God. There are two states, either God exists or God does not exist. Furthermore, there are two strategies that one may choose, either to believe in God or not believe in God. The decision matrix becomes as follows:
| God exists | God does not exist | |
| Wager for God | 1. ∞ | 2. f1 |
| Wager against God | 3. f2 | 4. f3 |
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
Since there is only one player versus the uncertainty of the existence of God, there exists only one payoff for each scenario. The explanations of the payoffs(1-4) are explained in as simple terms as possible as follows:
- If I believe in God and God exists, I reap the infinite payoff of going to Heaven.
- If I believe in God and God doesn’t exist, I lose some finite payoff of wasting time partaking in religious activities.
- If I don’t believe in God and God exists, then life continues as normal. There is 0 payoff.
- If I don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist, then I have a finite positive payoff for living an indulgent life.
The finite payoffs end up not mattering because of the dominance of the infinite payoff in the case of believing in God and God existing. Thus, it is concluded that wagering for God is the dominant strategy because its payoffs are better than the payoffs of wagering against God.
Of course, as is the nature of philosophy, every argument and premise can attacked in some manner. Some questions can arise, such as: What is the meaning of infinite payoff? How does it address other Gods? What about agnosticism? Nevertheless, the example does illustrate a clear case of a dominant strategy in a more abstract world, assuming the matrix is indeed true.
Source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/