Pascal's Globel Wager
The above wager chart might look somewhat familiar to you; in essence it is an environmental spin off of the traditional Pascal's Wager chart for belief in God. This argument for global warming is one I used last week when talking to a friend, and today I see it again in my Environmental Geology class, kind of cool to see that I am ahead of the trend there.
Anyway, with out getting into it too much I would just urge you to look over the chart above and tell me what you think, if you agree but think it lacks, please keep in mind that it is simplistic, and could be much more "wordy", please let me know. If you disagree, please let me know.
8 comments:
"Gain All" seems to overstate the case a bit. I'd say something more like "Our Bacon is Saved" would be more accurate.
I meant to use the same wording (gain all) as pascal's original wager. At least for that one and the one below it.
I realize that's Pscal's language, but it still overstates the case. And by pointing that out I mean to say that using Pascal's approach to the problem is appropriate but using his conclsions aren't, since even though the potential harms are extremely grave the potential benefits are not similiarly dramatic. Pascal was literally talking about gaining all via Eternal Life; global warming doesn't compare to salvation/damnation. The epistomological approach works for both but the conclusions certainly don't.
actually I would posit that the potential for the end of all life on this planet is even more serious...since we know this planet exists while the afterlife and eternal life are merely theories.
I would be interested in seeing the religious version.
Ryan, I think you're missing the point of Pascal's Wager. The fact that things are "merely theories" is exactly what it's about; the point of the wager is that we can take two positions on "speculative" theories (e.g. whether there is a God, whether global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels). Those two positions are: belief or disbelief. There are also two possible realities that match up with the speculations.
The religious possibilities are: 1. God exists or 2. God doesn't exist.
Likewise, the global warming possibilities are: 1. Global warming exists or 2. Global warming doesn't exist.
So ultimately there are 4 options, as Eric has diagramed: 1. belief and existence 2. belief and non-existence 3. disbelief and existence and 4. disbelief and non-existence.
Now, for the religious one: if you believe in God and God exists you literally gain everything (heaven). Furthermore, if you don't believe in God and God exists you literally go to Hell. And that's about as serious as it gets. The seriousness issue has nothing to do with certainty or uncertainty - yeah, we know this world exists, and losing it would be just about the most serious thing ever. Except for dying and going to Hell, which, well, the basic idea of Hell is that there's nothing worse. So, does that make sense?
Ok, granted, I may have taken it too literally. Still, the assumption that non-belief & the existence of God results in a trip to hell is too large of a leap for me. It is a speculation within a speculation...and thus I don't see that conclusion as being any more accurate or reasonable than the ones regarding global warming.
Also the entire concept of Hell makes no sense to me, but that is neither here nor there.
New post!
Yes, drag yourself away from that instance and put up a new post.
Post a Comment