« Markets in everything, but not for everybody | Main | I am dared to believe the dollar is undervalued »
Pascal's wager and religious diversification across children
Justin Wolfers of the Wharton Business School spoke on Pascal's Wager, saying that if one believes in religion then the greatest risk is choosing the wrong one. And how to hedge against such a risk? Mr. Wolfers advises the following: Have lots of children and bring each one up under a different faith. That way, if people don't get into heaven themselves, at least they will have maximized the chances that one of their children will.
Here is the link. God may hold this sort of maximizing behavior against you, but surely not against your kids...
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 14, 2007 at 01:38 PM in Religion | Permalink
Comments
The eminent Prof. Wolfers has my admiration and respect, for his great thinking and publishing.
But isn’t he introducing a logical fallacy into the great thinking and work of Pascal, by trying to stake out some middle ground? How convenient that Pascal is not available for comment.
Wolfers' proposal does nothing for the parent, and also dooms most of the family, too. Maybe he should take a page from his prediction markets advocacy, and raise his kids to seek the truth, whilst [sic] seeking the truth himself.
I’ve heard it can set people free. (first posted at Midas Oracle).
Posted by: caveat bettor at Nov 14, 2007 1:59:56 PM
But who believes in "religion?" What does that mean? Is that just another way to say "agnostic?"
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 14, 2007 2:01:09 PM
A fine illustration of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of religion.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Nov 14, 2007 2:17:07 PM
God punishes kids too as evidenced by the 10th plague. But, that was a long long time ago maybe god has mellowed since then. Not likely though.
Wolfers should stick to point shaving and divorce rates. There is a lot less at stake in those areas and his insights are far more interesting.
Posted by: Noam Fischman at Nov 14, 2007 2:23:09 PM
If you think God wouldn't punish the children, you can't have read the Old Testament.
Posted by: dearieme at Nov 14, 2007 2:30:16 PM
An amusing variation on insurance, in which one takes a guaranteed loss in order to avoid a disastrous one later. I'm a believer in CAPM but for spiritual advice I turn to Mark Twain: "put all your eggs in one basket, and watch that basket!"
Posted by: Steve Y. at Nov 14, 2007 2:30:46 PM
What kind of degenerate excuse for economics is that? Where are the covariances of the kids' doomed immortal souls? Where is the higher-order game theoretical intractability proof? Where are the nonlinearities of utility functions under the possibility that an omnipotent God can create payoffs so large that even he can't compare them? It sounds as though it might have involved no Greek letters at all...
Posted by: William Newman at Nov 14, 2007 2:31:22 PM
Your religion picks you, not vice versa. Otherwise it's not religion, it's just a selection from the dogma menu.
Posted by: dam at Nov 14, 2007 2:35:32 PM
This will also maximize the number of children who burn in hell.
Posted by: josh at Nov 14, 2007 2:37:39 PM
This is just plain silly. It assumes that only belief matters for salvation: not faith, not moral choices, not intent. In fact this argument (and Pascal's wager) assumes that none of the things that the follower of any religion I can think of would say actually matter.
I have always regard Pascal's wager as a clever game played with reasoning, I am astonished anyone takes it this seriously.
Posted by: Graeme Pietersz at Nov 14, 2007 2:41:21 PM
aCCORDING TO YHE bIBLE , BUT OLD AND NEW, your religions doesnt matter you can go to heaven even if you are pagan or atheist or agnostic.Thats why the Catholic Curch got rid if Limb
Posted by: juancarlos at Nov 14, 2007 3:34:40 PM
This is a waste of time. Anyone who watches South Park already knows that Mormons are the only people going to heaven.
Posted by: Christina at Nov 14, 2007 3:41:10 PM
Looks like juancarlos got struck down in mid-sentence there.
Posted by: Kieran at Nov 14, 2007 3:41:25 PM
if one believes in religion then the greatest risk is choosing the wrong one.
This seems like the wrong conditional. The importance of the choice does not turn on whether one believes in religion, but on whether the cosmology of one religion rather than another is true. If one of them is, this is going to cause big problems for non-believers as well as believers.
Posted by: Kieran at Nov 14, 2007 3:45:15 PM
I think Bob Montgomery makes an interesting point -- suppose the parent believes in Catholicism: if he raises none of his kids Catholic he either doesn't want them to get into heaven or he's skeptical of his own religion. If he does raise one of them Catholic, he maintains his faith but signals his skepticism of the other kids' religion.
Posted by: Nat Almirall at Nov 14, 2007 3:57:47 PM
is this the kind of sophistry that nowadays passes as economic analysis?
Posted by: wtf at Nov 14, 2007 4:02:48 PM
What's with all the outrage? Isn't it patently obvious this is meant as a joke?
Of COURSE it's ridiculous ... it's religion.
Posted by: Scott O at Nov 14, 2007 5:33:36 PM
Graeme, I think belief is sufficient to get into heaven, at least in the Christian world view. Which is bizarre when you think about it. Of all things to do for eternal life, god selects belief. Not virtue, or faith, or some form of discipline. Its doubly bizarre in view of the rather large gun pointed at your head in the form of hell for refusing the offer.
Posted by: ben at Nov 14, 2007 5:46:09 PM
It won't work, at least not until you get to the great-great-great-grandchildren. Exodus chapter 20:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Posted by: oren at Nov 14, 2007 6:24:10 PM
Omigod! This strategy may also create a traffic jam to hell.
Posted by: Yan Li at Nov 14, 2007 7:54:27 PM
Given that the possible number of deity scenarios is infinite, the probability of guessing the right scenario in a finite number of guesses is zero. You could try to have an infinite number of children, and have faith that the infinity of children you have is the same kind of infinity as the infinity of deities. But there is still the risk that you won’t achieve the one to one correspondence needed to ensure a child in heaven. It is important here to consider the impact of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics and its application to raising children in light Pascal’s wager which clearly leads us to…
Posted by: Rob Sperry at Nov 14, 2007 10:05:57 PM
I want to know what happened to juancarlos...
Posted by: Mike Fladlien at Nov 14, 2007 10:08:54 PM
Maybe juancarlos was raptured ...
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Nov 14, 2007 10:25:59 PM
ben said I think belief is sufficient to get into heaven, at least in the Christian world view. Which is bizarre when you think about it. Of all things to do for eternal life, god selects belief. Not virtue, or faith, or some form of discipline
Not to start a theological discussion, but belief alone doesn't do it. The book of James discusses this, including James 2:19 "Even the demons believe--and tremble!" and "Faith without works is dead."
Back on topic. Would Mr Wolfers say "I'm not sure whether a pyramid scheme, mutual fund, or Nigerian bank account is the best investment--so rather than try to determine which it is, I'll just set up each of my kids with one and hope at least one of them won't die bankrupt"?
Posted by: Laserlight at Nov 15, 2007 10:04:58 AM
What's with all the outrage? Isn't it patently obvious this is meant as a joke?
What outrage are you referring to? And, sure, it's a joke, but it's a joke with a point and its perfectly reasonable to respond to that point.
I'm still baffled by this mythical person who believes in "religion"...do you know anyone like this? What is this? Someone who believes in rituals, the supernatural, but not in any specifics? Even the most wishy-washy "religious" people I know of have SOME specifics they hold dear, even if only that God is a "good" god. They'd probably hate to be pinned down like this, but you've got monotheism and a moral standard just in that phrase.
Posted by: Bob Montgomery at Nov 15, 2007 11:55:50 AM
Hm. I suspect the whole thing was taken second hand, since afaik the only people having that conversation were Tyler, me, Justin, and Betsey. And the only place it was reported was on my blog. So if you don't trust me, I wouldn't trust that Justin's remarks were correctly reported.
Posted by: Felix at Nov 15, 2007 3:27:50 PM
How can there be an MR Pascal's Wager post without a link to Alex Tabarrok's brilliant paper?
Posted by: Gil at Nov 16, 2007 12:56:45 PM
I have always regard Pascal's wager as a clever game played with reasoning, I am astonished anyone takes it this seriously.
Pascal took it seriously. He abandoned mathematics and went into seminary. Not saying he wasn't off his rocker, but he certainly took it very seriously.
Posted by: techreseller at Nov 20, 2007 11:56:59 AM
"Pascal took it seriously. He abandoned mathematics and went into seminary. Not saying he wasn't off his rocker, but he certainly took it very seriously."
Pascal didn't go all pious because his discovery of the wager. That was a gambit from an (incomplete) work of apologetics. The intellectual realization that most moved him was when he realized that the god of the philosophers was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He sewed a note marking that day into his coat lining.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Nov 20, 2007 9:08:14 PM
Make sure one of your kids becomes a Mormron becuase then he can baptize you after you're dead. So if, let us say, mainstream Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism are the three possible methods of salvation, then by yourself being a Chrstian or Muslim and having one of your kids be a Mormon, you increase your odds from one in thre to two in three...
Posted by: David T at Nov 20, 2007 9:16:58 PM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 9:16:52 PM
