Divine Games: Game Theory and the Undecidability of a Superior Being

by Steven J. Brams

A game-theoretical analysis of interactions between a human being and an omnipotent and omniscient godlike being highlights the inherent unknowability of the latter's superiority. In Divine Games , Steven Brams analyzes games that a human being might play with an omnipotent and omniscient godlike being. Drawing on game theory and his own theory of moves, Brams combines the analysis of thorny theological questions, suggested by Pascal's wager (which considers the rewards and penalties associated with belief or nonbelief in God) and Newcomb's problem (in which a godlike being has near omniscience) with the analysis of several stories from the Hebrew Bible. Almost all of these stories involve conflict between God or a surrogate and a human player; their representation as games raises fundamental questions about God's superiority. In some games God appears vulnerable (after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit in defiance of His command), in other games his actions seem morally dubious (when He subjects Abraham and Job to extreme tests of their faith), and in still other games He has a propensity to hold grudges (in preventing Moses from entering the Promised Land and in undermining the kingship of Saul). If the behavior of  a superior being is indistinguishable from that of an ordinary human being, his existence would appear undecidable, or inherently unknowable. Consequently, Brams argues that keeping an open mind about the existence of a superior being is an appropriate theological stance.

Genres: Philosophy

224 pages, Hardcover

Published September 18, 2018

Reviews

[Jonathan Choi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Game theorizing, in not so concrete terms, is the deducing based on observable actions and the preferences of the 'players' the optimum choices that each can make to gain the most out of their decisions. Therefore, game theorizing is something that we all, rationally or not, consciously and unconsciously do in our everyday lives. From inducing our significant others to pick up milk before coming home to negotiating the risk/benefit scenarios when asking for a pay raise, we must be conscious about the needs and preferences, temperaments and passions of ourselves and the other. So why not apply that simple formula to our piety or lack therof.

Many these days have strong inclinations for religiosity and, with greater strength recently, against religiosity. For many, therefore, it is a foregone conclusion. Not many people debate at length whether it is rational or irrational to get up on Sunday mornings to attend mass. It's just what we do or do not do. There's no calculus, no formulaic decision making that attends to these choices. For many, they have strong preferences one way or the other.

These prefernces are motivated by many reasons. Probably, in my opinion, the strongest factors among these is our childhoods. Were our parents instrumental in our religiosities. Did they force you to attend Church. For those who grew up hating that ritual, it's therefore understandable that once they broke free of their parent's yoke, they dared never step foot inside a church ever again. And, for those who found community, comfort in an extended family of believers, it seems almost impossible to extricate their identity from their beliefs. And, possibly, media influences their decisions as well. It is easy to find examples of religiously motivated zealots doing bad in the world. And it is just as easy to find examples of pious individuals behaving well in our world too. And, while those on the more diest side have been screaming of a war on Christmas or whatever symbol of Christianity they feel fit to rally around this year, media probably still plays a smaller role than our upbringing. There's a surfeit of great examples and arguments on both sides.

This book seeks to take the debate around religiousity and possibly the moral question of a omnipotent God in a world of suffering out of the arena of politicking into the rational. He challenges us to think about what a being of like God, with preferences and rational choices, will/may do. And, what, based on assumptions about certain types of people and their preferences towards the religious or agnostic, will/may do as well. Brams challenges our identity and our preferences by setting an arena/stage between ourselves and the supposed divine.

[Siddharth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, somewhat elementary game theoretic analysis of the Bible. Key ideas include that of "moving power" which offers a player to make a move even at the equilibrium. Given this ability, the nash equilibrium changes.

The key takeaway the author wants us to have is that everyone, including god, acts rationally.

The takeaway for me was how one could slightly tweak the notion of equilibria to get interesting effects. The mathematical models are not too compelling, but it's a fun read!