Pascal's Wager and Faith

[Candide_West]

Pascal’s Wager is the idea that even if there is only a small chance God, Heaven and Hell are real, since we are betting on infinite pain or joy, it is well worth it to act as if they are. If, for example, there is lottery we only have a 1% chance of winning, but the prize is infinite, it will always be worth it to buy a ticket. To be honest, (although I am Catholic) I think there is probably not literally a Hell of Eternal Fire, but I am not prepared to take the risk!!

I suppose Albert Camus’ statement reflects a similar principle: “It is better to live as if there is a God, and find out there isn’t, than to live as if there isn’t and to find out there is.”

But, is acting out of Pascal’s Wager the same as faith? It seems to be more a kind of agnosticism.

How would unbelievers respond to Pascal’s Wager? Even if there is only a 1% chance Heaven and Hell are real (which, objectively, even a hard-core atheist would have to admit)- are you prepared to take the risk?

Hey,

Pascals wager fails for a number of reasons. The most simple of which is that it is based only on consequence and not at all on probability. This means that it’s possible to construct any scenario our imaginations can invent and if the consequences are significant enough then we should act as if it is true ** even if we have absolutely no evidence to believe it is**.

This is the same principle upon which chain emails are often built “if you don’t forward this message on something terrible will happen” or “if you do forward this on you’ll get a cheque for £45,368”.

Let’s put the imagination to work and imagine another scenario - someone may have hidden the winning ticket for this weeks lottery under a rock outside your house. If you go out there and check right now you’ll win the lottery and be a millionaire. The consequences if it isn’t there are minimal (you just wasted a few seconds of your time) the consequences if it is are amazing (you win the lottery). You have no evidence to suggest either that it is or is not there. So you should go out and check right?*

That is essentially what Pascals wager invites us to do. Act as though we believe X to be true even though there is no evidence to suggest it is.

Another problem is that pascals wager doesn’t consider all the possible outcomes. It only considers the Christian God or no god. At this stage there is no reason to eliminate any other possible god (Pascal said at this stage that the evidence for any god or no god is not compelling).*

So when considering whether to behave as if the christian god exists or not we should also consider how any other possible gods might respond to such behaviour. Since there are an unknown number of different theoretically possible gods we cannot judge whether such behaviour would be favourable or not.*

 

[empther]

JDaniel wrote:

Always remember, God knows our hearts. This is not a children’s game. Pascal didn’t forget this.

And that is the answer to the first question.
If we take Pascal’s wager that God exists and act accordingly, is that faith?

In a way it is. It is faith in the goodness of doing good. If somebody can’t believe in God, loving his neighbor is enough to satisfy God.

I recall a made for TV movie called “The Fourth Magi” starring Martin Sheen. He is one of the Magi, scholars from the East. He sets out to follow the Star, ( of Bethelehem ) but along the way he gets involved with a tribe of people who need medical help. He’s a physician. Year after year he wants to leave these people and go on to Judea, but the people need him.
Finally, he gets away, but he arrives at Galgotha minutes after the crucafixtion and death of Jesus. Sheen despairs and is dying. Jesus appears and says he is saved because of all he did for the Lord. “I thirsted and you gave me water. I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me.”
Sheen asks, “Lord, when did I do all these things?”
“Amen I say to you, if you did it for the least of my brethren you did it for me.”.

 

[cerad2]

Pascal himself later said his wager was pretty silly.

There is absolutely no way that one can assign probabilities to make believe. It’s just as likely that only atheists will be rewarded as it is that someone who just happens to belong to the proper denomination will win the jackpot.

 

[empther]

There is absolutely no way that one can assign probabilities to make believe. It’s just as likely that only atheists will be rewarded as it is that someone who just happens to belong to the proper denomination will win the jackpot.

This is a pretty risky position to take.

Does an atheist love his fellow man enough to sacrifice and do good for other?
I can’t think of one famous atheist who did so.
Oh sure, an atheist may be honest in his dealings, and lend his neighbor a lawnmower and things like that, but is that enough?

Deciding whether or not God exists is not purely an exercise in logic. It’s also a matter of the heart, and that’s what God is interested in.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**I view the Christian conceptions of Heaven and Hell to be different flavors of intolerable, but the good news is, the bar for admittance to Heaven is so low, it would seem you’d hardly need to do anything. **

There’s no Catholic who would agree with you. Jesus wouldn’t either.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my
heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

My departed cousin left the Church, complaining that it was the most difficult religion in the world to practice. Well of course, some Christians think all you have to do is believe.

 

[Qoeleth]

Hey,

Pascals wager fails for a number of reasons. The most simple of which is that it is based only on consequence and not at all on probability. This means that it’s possible to construct any scenario our imaginations can invent and if the consequences are significant enough then we should act as if it is true ** even if we have absolutely no evidence to believe it is**.

This is the same principle upon which chain emails are often built “if you don’t forward this message on something terrible will happen” or “if you do forward this on you’ll get a cheque for £45,368”.

Let’s put the imagination to work and imagine another scenario - someone may have hidden the winning ticket for this weeks lottery under a rock outside your house. If you go out there and check right now you’ll win the lottery and be a millionaire. The consequences if it isn’t there are minimal (you just wasted a few seconds of your time) the consequences if it is are amazing (you win the lottery). You have no evidence to suggest either that it is or is not there. So you should go out and check right?*

That is essentially what Pascals wager invites us to do. Act as though we believe X to be true even though there is no evidence to suggest it is.

Another problem is that pascals wager doesn’t consider all the possible outcomes. It only considers the Christian God or no god. At this stage there is no reason to eliminate any other possible god (Pascal said at this stage that the evidence for any god or no god is not compelling).*

So when considering whether to behave as if the christian god exists or not we should also consider how any other possible gods might respond to such behaviour. Since there are an unknown number of different theoretically possible gods we cannot judge whether such behaviour would be favourable or not.*

Agreed. But the idea of God is not one for which there is zero evidence. And it is not really necessary to worry “which God?”, because most religions more or less coincide in there ethical prescriptions. Hopefully, even most atheist would agree that the “God hypothesis” has at least 10% chance of being true.

Just as most Christians, if they are honest, would have to admit there is a good chance that there is no God. This is pretty obvious that many Christians “have a bet both ways”- they want pleasures, possession and things in this world, but, by being baptised, going to Mass, etc. they also want to keep an account open in the next world. A person who was 100% sure God existed, and there was judgment and heaven and hell, would immediately start to live like Saint Francis of Assisi, or someone similar.

 

[Candide_West]

Agreed. But the idea of God is not one for which there is zero evidence.

Well I guess that comes down to what you would consider evidence. If you take the term in its broadest sense then sure, there’s loads of evidence both for and against. The way I consider evidence is rather more rigorous which ends up eliminating all of it. So by my terms, no there is zero evidence of the existence of any gods.*

In any case if you wish to start talking about evidence then we’re off topic. The only thing the the wager says about the evidence for the existence of gods is that it is “not compelling”. Hence we can (and indeed must) ignore evidence if talking about the wager.

And it is not really necessary to worry “which God?”, because most religions more or less coincide in there ethical prescriptions.*

Afraid I entirely disagree here. Most religions vary wildly in terms of ethics and morality. Just compare Yaweh with Ares for example, or the Buddhist moral expectations with those of Islam. Heck even the differences in moral rules between such recent and close relations as the Church of England and the Catholic Church.*

It is by no means unusual for the behaviour which under one religion will send you to some variant of heaven. While the same behaviour according to a different religion will send you straight to their concept of hell.*

Hopefully, even most atheist would agree that the “God hypothesis” has at least 10% chance of being true.

Well that depends what you mean by*“God hypothesis” if you mean something like:

“there exists somewhere a being or group of beings who have powers so far beyond our capabilities as to appear Godlike”*

• then I’d put a very high percentage on that. Probably 90% or so.

If you mean “the existence of some kind of non-interventionist being who existed or exists beyond the boundaries of our universe and started it off…”. Well I’d give that a much lower percentage. Maybe 1% or so.*

If you mean the Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. then I’d have to put a much lower percentage on that. Maybe 1 / 10,000,000 or so. Similar kind of odds I’d put on the existence of alien abductions, clairvoyance, voodoo, the Loch Ness Monster, Odin, Fairies and ghosts (none of which I believe in either).

Just as most Christians, if they are honest, would have to admit there is a good chance that there is no God.*

But a great many Christians specifically do NOT admit such a possibility.*

This is pretty obvious that many Christians “have a bet both ways”- they want pleasures, possession and things in this world, but, by being baptised, going to Mass, etc. they also want to keep an account open in the next world. A person who was 100% sure God existed, and there was judgment and heaven and hell, would immediately start to live like Saint Francis of Assisi, or someone similar.

Indeed, I always find it strange when people profess absolute certainty in their belief in God and yet do not do as Jesus commanded of his disciples. If I really 100% believed in the Christian God then I can’t see any other option than to really behave as if he exists. So as you say - drop everything and follow.*

 

[empther]

The A-team again

From Candide West: :hey_bud:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qoeleth

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Agreed. But the idea of God is not one for which there is zero evidence.

Well I guess that comes down to what you would consider evidence. If you take the term in its broadest sense then sure, there’s loads of evidence both for and against.

:banghead:

1. There is not, and never can be, any evidence against the existence of God.
2. All the scientists in the world cannot explain how a single subatomic particle can exist without God.

 

[Candide_West]

The A-team again
*
From Candide West: :hey_bud:
*
:banghead:
*

1. There is not, and never can be, any evidence against the existence of God.

I agree, not what I would call evidence anyway.*

However, there is not but could be evidence for the existence of God (if he exists). Much like the loch ness monster, fairies, etc (there could be evidence of their existence IF they exist, however at present there is none).
*

1. All the scientists in the world cannot explain how a single subatomic particle can exist without God.

What a strange statement. Science says nothing about the impact of God on existence, as God has no identifiable impact on existence.*

So you can equally say that "all the scientists in the world cannot explainhow a single subatomic particle can exist without Fairies / Bigfoot / ghosts / Russels teapot / Thor / Voodoo / aliens / etc".

The statement is meaningless. You cannot use science to say anything about the existence of hypothetical undetected or undetectable beings because science is based primarily on observation.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cerad2

**Pascal himself later said his wager was pretty silly. **

Where did he say that?

 

[empther]

The total foolishness of the A-team :banghead:

However, there is not but could be evidence for the existence of God (if he exists). Much like the loch ness monster, fairies, etc (there could be evidence of their existence IF they exist, however at present there is none).
*

1. The whole universe is evidence of God. The more you learn about science ( I have three college degrees in the sciences ) the more you realize the universe can’t be an accident, unless your emotional needs for independence from rules keeps you from admitting the obvious.
2. No one will say the loch ness monster, fairies, etc could explain the universe, and this comparison was thrown in to insult believers.

No more comments on the post are needed. It’s beneath contempt.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon
**
Well, an atheist, pretty much by definition, cannot Love God at all, much less Love him with all his heart, soul and strength. But what Pascal is saying is that it basically doesn’t matter - not to God, at any rate. You don’t need to love God at all. You just need to be polite. **

Where does Pascal say that?

 

[tafan]

Most critiques of Pascal Wager show that people have never actually read what he wrote. The common problems with it: 1) he assumes there is only one choice of religion, and 2) that one cannot make the wager because one cannot force onesefl to believe are addressed in the text, IIRC.
On the latter criticism, it also shows that people miss the whole concept of what Pascal was trying to convey. It was another path to finding God, for those who the classical proofs are insufficient. To those who actually need to take a bigger leap of faith in order to have faith. And he said exactly how to do it.

Read the excellant post #6 on this thread.

 

[wcknight]

There you go again… what is it that counts as evidence for you folks ???

eye witness accounts ?? medical documentation of cures ? some supernatural event ? physical DNA ?

It has all happened and there are such things out there. Thousands witnessed the events at Lourdes. Folks have documented cures at various holy sites. People have seen and experienced supernatural events. If you discount every form of evidence you can imagine, then of course you will claim that no proof exists/

The evidence that probably has not surfaced is that YOU personally have not seen or experienced a miracle or something supernatural.

There is physical evidence of Eucharistic miracles, where the host or wine transforms into real flesh and blood.

IF you had a fraction of such evidence in a murder trial you could easily be sentence to death or life in prison. Matching DNA evidence at the scene in a murder trial is 99.99999 % proof positive that you were there.

Some of the blood from the Eucharistic miracles occurred over 700 years apart. So far it has shown to be the same blood type. Should DNA matching show that they are the same, it would be pretty hard to claim that there is no conclusive evidence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

elev

**So, by Pascal’s reasoning, there’s an infinite expected value to ignoring Pascal’s Wager. **

Yes, the infinite expected value is negative … hell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tafan

Most critiques of Pascal Wager show that people have never actually read what he wrote.

Exactly. What they have read is maybe a single paragraph that contain the kernel of the argument.

But the entire* Pensees* is built up around that one argument. If you haven’t read the rest of Pensees, it’s as if you read only the Sermon on the Mount and no other part of the Bible.

 

[tafan]

tafan

Most critiques of Pascal Wager show that people have never actually read what he wrote.

Exactly. What they have read is maybe a single paragraph that contain the kernel of the argument.

But the entire* Pensees* is built up around that one argument. If you haven’t read the rest of Pensees, it’s as if you read only the Sermon on the Mount and no other part of the Bible.

The Wager is by far the longest Pensee. I am by no means convincedthat all of the Pensees were written to support the Wager. They are very broad in scope and subject matter. I think it more likely they were notes that were prepared by Pascal in order to write a lengthy theological treatese; with the Wager being just part of it.

IIRC, One can read the entire Wager and find most of the answers to the common critiques of it, without reading all of the Pensees. Although I would certainly encourage people to read all of the Pensees.

As to the claim made earlier by another poster that Pascal thought the wager was silly, I find that exceedingly hard to believe as I thought the wager, like the rest of the Pensees were found after his death in his personal writings. I did not think he published it while he was alive (but I could be wrong on this).

 

[Candide_West]

The total foolishness of the A-team :banghead:
*

1. The whole universe is evidence of God. The more you learn about science ( I have three college degrees in the sciences ) the more you realize the universe can’t be an accident, unless your emotional needs for independence from rules keeps you from admitting the obvious.

As I said, it depends what you mean by evidence. If you’re loose enough with the term (as you are above) then there is loads of evidence both for and against the existence of God. I personally am more rigorous in what I consider to be evidence which eliminates both sides.*
*

1. No one will say the loch ness monster, fairies, etc could explain the universe, and this comparison was thrown in to insult believers.

Not at all, they are simply other propositions for which there is no evidence in either direction. So Pascals wager could be applied to them just as easily as it could to God.*

 

[JDaniel]

Well, an atheist, pretty much by definition, cannot Love God at all, much less Love him with all his heart, soul and strength. But what Pascal is saying is that it basically doesn’t matter - not to God, at any rate. You don’t need to love God at all. You just need to be polite.

ASimon:

Perhaps a little more reading of Pascal is in order?

God bless,
jd

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In formulating his wager, Pascal was explicitly addressing “those who are so made that they cannot believe.” He was essentially acknowledging that you can’t force belief on anyone, ourselves least of all, and certain of those among us just aren’t wired in such a way that authentic belief will ever truly be on the table. And Pascal is basically telling those people to fake it.

To answer the first question, no, this cannot be called ‘faith’ in any meaningful sense of the word. But more to the point, Pascal seems to imply that it doesn’t even matter in the eyes of God. He’ll accept a disingenuous believer just as readily as he will a true believer. This is a fairly startling admission if we’re prepared to treat Pascal as any sort of authority on the matter. It means that God either doesn’t know the difference, or doesn’t care.

I view the Christian conceptions of Heaven and Hell to be different flavors of intolerable, but the good news is, the bar for admittance to Heaven is so low, it would seem you’d hardly need to do anything.

An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, “But can you be sure there is no God?” That atheist wrote, forty years later, “I am still an atheist. But Buber’s question has haunted me every day of my life.” The Pascal Wager has just that haunting power.