Game Theory and a Belief in God

I just finished listening to a fascinating book called Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions about how some of the important problems in math and computer science relate to our everyday lives.  One of the discussions was around game theory, and the book spoke about a problem called the Prisoner’s Dilemma.  Two crooks that worked together in a crime are arrested and put in separate locations.  They can’t discuss between themselves, but because the prosecution doesn’t have enough evidence they are offered a bargain such that if either tells on the other they will be rewarded.  It A tells on B but B doesn’t tell on A, A goes free.  If A tells on B but B also tells on A, they each serve two years.  If A doesn’t tell on B but B tells on A, A serves 3 years.  If A and B both remain silent, they each serve one year.  From a self-interested perspective, A should always tell on B, since whatever B does, A telling on B makes things better for A.  The same goes for B, and thus the most rational choice for the best possible outcome is to defect and tell on the other.  But the outcome that results from this (both serving two years) is worse than the outcome of mutual cooperation (both staying silent).  Wikipedia describes the situation this way: “The dilemma then is that mutual cooperation yields a better outcome than mutual defection but it is not the rational outcome because from a self-interested perspective, the choice to cooperate, at the individual level, is irrational.”  In other words, the best outcome can be reached only with come outside force that will motivate collaboration; the self-interested choice gives a less than desirable outcome for everyone.  We see the same kind of problem in the real world in as simple examples as determining whether or not to be honest: there are many situations in which lying will give you an advantage (it’s the rational choice if the only thing you are looking out for is your own self-interest) without immediately negative consequences.  And yet everyone choosing that “rational” strategy makes life for the society as a whole far worse off.  So what is the answer to the dilemma—well, the book suggests one: God.

                A belief in God, and in particular a belief in a final judgment where we will stand before God to account for our acts, changes everything.  Suddenly the question of whether to lie, or steal, or commit adultery, or use violence on others, etc. can no longer only look at the present maximization of self- interest.  Because there is an ultimate authority to whom we must answer and who provides eternal rewards, our best, self-interested choice is no longer to lie or kill or use others unduly.  As the Lord put it in the Doctrine and Covenants, “If you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (D&C 14:7).  If we believe that, then following the commandments is the best, self-interested choice because it will give us the “greatest” benefit in the long run.  God’s commandments and rules provide us with exactly what we need to have stable society because it’s puts in check behaviors that would otherwise ruin society.  Even for those who don’t believe in God, it becomes clear that obeying commandments that curb our negative behaviors towards others are incredibly beneficial to society and provide a much better outcome than a world where no one felt any duty towards others or a higher power.  So we say to all of society with King Benjamin, “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth….   And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you” (Mosiah 4:9-10).  Our best chance for a society that we all want is one in which a faith in God and our accountability towards Him plays a powerful role.