Pascal's Wager Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

If you’re only going through the motions of Christianity because you’re making a wager that the afterlife might exist, then you aren’t doing God’s will; you’re just pretending. And apparently you’re betting that God won’t realize that you don’t really mean it.

This only shows that you have read the Wager Argument and probably nothing else by Pascal. If you read through the Pensees, of which the wager argument constitutes only a couple of paragraphs, you would see that Pascal is hardly in favor of** pretending** to be a Christian. Once the atheist begins to realize that he has everything to gain and everything to lose by accepting or rejecting God, he begins to think more logically in his own self interest. That is an easy thing to do since the atheist is necessarily more dedicated to his own interest than anything else. Having made the decision to give God the benefit of the doubt, the atheist starts the long climb toward Christian spirituality which draws him increasingly into the conviction that what he once bet on, he now sees to be perfectly logical and consistent with his own human nature. Encountering God in a more meaningful way, the self-interest begins to evolve into real personal conviction and a desire to be one with Christ in all the ways that Christ will call him to be. This experience of evolving into a Christian has been attested to by many who have come to Christ from atheism, including G.K. Chesterton, Jacques Maritain, and C.S. Lewis. The leap of faith is driven, however, by the realization that death is a chasm into which we will fall unless there is a bridge to another reality beyond death. There is hope. It should be no surprise that the highest rate of suicide world wide is among atheists, and the lowest rate among Catholic countries. Atheism believes only in the chasm of nothingness. Pascal invites atheists to look for a bridge to the other side. He invites them to begin with a bet and end with a conviction.

That’s why Pascal’s Wager can be taken seriously as an argument in favor of believing in God.

But of course the atheist who does not want to find God, will not want to find Pascal either.

 

[Betterave]

But of course the atheist who does not want to find God, will not want to find Pascal either.

Dat be true, man.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known.” Blaise Pascal

 

[jonfawkes]

But your construal of the wager is fallacious: it’s a straw man. Obviously Pascal isn’t recommending simply going through the motions, not really meaning it, and merely pretending to do God’s will (whatever that would entail). Where did you get that idea from?

Maybe from Pascal

“I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

Pretend, then maybe you might believe it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Pretend, then maybe you might believe it. *

Hope that it’s true.

Live as though it’s true.

Love as though it’s true.

Discover that it’s true.

Let the cynics sneer.

 

[kbachler]

Still looks like a non sequitur: why can’t those ‘indications’ be conclusive? Why can’t they move ‘mere belief’ to ‘knowledge’?

Simple. That’s the way the universe is made.

This is an old philosophical argument/issue. The issue is that there is a separation between consciousness and the universe. We perceive the universe but do not experience it directly, and thus we must always choose to base our knowledge on a certain amount of belief.

Within the context of what we mean by “a sun rise” there is a strong inductive argument that the sun will rise tomorrow. But this is not a proof that it will rise tomorrow, it is a belief. I have knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow but the knowledge is in the form of a belief. We CAN have knowledge, but we need to recognize that all knowledge is tacit, and therefore must be careful of considering knowledge as “objective”. Generally it is not.

For example, consider any argument of the existence of God based on a prime mover; consider Aquinas’ argument from contingency (as stated in Wikipedia)

Aquinas’s argument from contingency allows for the possibility of a Universe that has no beginning in time. It is a form of argument from universal causation. Aquinas observed that, in nature, there were things with contingent existences. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which these things did not in fact exist. Thus, according to Aquinas, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If this is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Contingent beings, therefore, are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings: there must exist a necessary being whose non-existence is an impossibility, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived.

However, it has been demonstrated that this argument is mathematically incorrect. It is possible to show mathematically that a universe can in fact arise from nothing, with no outside cause. Further, logically Aquinas’ argument doesn’t hold because Aquinas’ argument in fact assumes that the laws of physics and logic as Aquinas knows them must continue to exist in a universe where nothing exists; otherwise Aquinas’ logic that nothing could not create something does not follow. But if nothing exists, then but what logic do we assume that something cannot magically appear, since there are no laws of physic to be broken by such an appearance?

Consequently, we can see that Aquinas’ argument, which he intended to be a proof, is actually a belief.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

kbachler

*Consequently, we can see that Aquinas’ argument, which he intended to be a proof, is actually a belief. *

This was also Pascal’s view, that all the traditional proofs were inadequate because an atheist can always find a way to punch a hole in the argument. Pascal’s aim was to find an argument that an atheist could not punch a hole in. He found it in the Wager. But the Wager does not have the same weight of conviction as a proof. It requires that the atheist make a leap of faith that will get him to the other side of the chasm, where he can move on down the trail toward God … and find out sooner or later that the leap was justified.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler

*Consequently, we can see that Aquinas’ argument, which he intended to be a proof, is actually a belief. *

This was also Pascal’s view, that all the traditional proofs were inadequate because an atheist can always find a way to punch a hole in the argument. Pascal’s aim was to find an argument that an atheist could not punch a hole in. He found it in the Wager. But the Wager does not have the same weight of conviction as a proof. It requires that the atheist make a leap of faith that will get him to the other side of the chasm, where he can move on down the trail toward God … and find out sooner or later that the leap was justified.

The funny thing is that the wager DOES have the same weight of conviction as a (so-called) proof, because in the end, that “proof” requires just as much belief as the wager.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*The funny thing is that the wager DOES have the same weight of conviction as a (so-called) proof, because in the end, that “proof” requires just as much belief as the wager. *

Whether it requires just as much belief is arguable. Some atheists have converted because they have found the traditional arguments to be reasonable, even if not airtight. I am thinking of Jacques and Raissa Maritain who converted immediately upon reading Aquinas. It is the extreme atheist/agnostic who will find the “proofs” to be the least bit believable. It is those people to whom Pascal addresses the Wager. He knows that at first they are not going to accept the Wager with conviction, but later the conviction may grow as the experience of God through love grows. But some of them might accept it with tentative submission, in their last days especially. A relationship with God requires humility. Are atheists famous for their humility? The approach of death is the most humbling experience in the world.

 

[kbachler]

*The funny thing is that the wager DOES have the same weight of conviction as a (so-called) proof, because in the end, that “proof” requires just as much belief as the wager. *

Whether it requires just as much belief is arguable. Some atheists have converted because they have found the traditional arguments to be reasonable, even if not airtight. I am thinking of Jacques and Raissa Maritain who converted immediately upon reading Aquinas. It is the extreme atheist/agnostic who will find the “proofs” to be the least bit believable. It is those people to whom Pascal addresses the Wager. He knows that at first they are not going to accept the Wager with conviction, but later the conviction may grow as the experience of God through love grows. But some of them might accept it with tentative submission, in their last days especially. A relationship with God requires humility. Are atheists famous for their humility? The approach of death is the most humbling experience in the world.

Each person chooses their belief in their own way. Generally, people do not question a lot of what they believe, they accept it as what they know. It is only if they go through such self-examination that they come to the realization that the level of belief is not significantly different.

Unintentional belief is belief nonetheless.

 

[Betterave]

Maybe from Pascal

Pretend, then maybe you might believe it.

Doh! Jon strikes again! Another swing, another miss. This *obviously *has nothing to do with trying to fool God into thinking that you believe or with merely ‘pretending’ to do what you suppose to be God’s will, if He in fact exists.

 

[Betterave]

This is an old philosophical argument/issue. The issue is that there is a separation between consciousness and the universe. We perceive the universe but do not experience it directly, and thus we must always choose to base our knowledge on a certain amount of belief.

Knowledge does not rest on perception, it only begins with perception.

Within the context of what we mean by “a sun rise” there is a strong inductive argument that the sun will rise tomorrow. But this is not a proof that it will rise tomorrow, it is a belief. I have knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow but the knowledge is in the form of a belief.

No, you don’t know that the sun will rise tomorrow. You do know that it probably will, that there is good reason to think that it will, and little reason to think that it won’t.

We CAN have knowledge, but we need to recognize that all knowledge is tacit, and therefore must be careful of considering knowledge as “objective”. Generally it is not.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

For example, consider any argument of the existence of God based on a prime mover; consider Aquinas’ argument from contingency (as stated in Wikipedia)

Do I have to?
(I think I’d rather stick with a discussion of epistemological principles than get into a debate about particular metaphysical principles.)

However, it has been demonstrated that this argument is mathematically incorrect. It is possible to show mathematically that a universe can in fact arise from nothing, with no outside cause.

That sounds absolutely absurd: mathematical proof that the universe can in fact arise from nothing, with no outside cause? With due respect, I think not…

 

[jonfawkes]

Doh! Jon strikes again! Another swing, another miss. This *obviously *has nothing to do with trying to fool God into thinking that you believe or with merely ‘pretending’ to do what you suppose to be God’s will, if He in fact exists.

You asked

Originally Posted by Betterave
But your construal of the wager is fallacious: it’s a straw man. Obviously Pascal isn’t recommending simply going through the motions, not really meaning it, and merely pretending to do God’s will (whatever that would entail). Where did you get that idea from?

That is exactly what Pascal recommends. Going through the motions, with the chance that you will begin to believe.

Here is his recommendation again:

Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*That is exactly what Pascal recommends. Going through the motions, with the chance that you will begin to believe.

Here is his recommendation again:

Quote:
Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose? *

You really have no perception of what Pascal is all about. You take snippets from the Pensees and build a false case against him. If you really understood Pascal you would understand. You think that Pascal expects this **acting as if to become a permanent state of mind? Au contraire. It is rather a giving of the benefit of the doubt. Once embraced as if, **Pascal knows that the as if will become in due time the certain conviction based on the experience of God which is real, rather than as if. Pascal is not out to deceive us or help us deceive ourselves with as ifs.

You underestimate the brilliance of Pascal as a psychologist. One always makes a leap of faith as if the object of our devotion is real, even if it is unreal. The atheist makes a leap of faith when he asserts that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist, so how can his conviction be anything more than a leap. He lives his life** as if** there is no God. But his conviction never grows stronger, as does the conviction of the person who grows nearer to God. It only grows more desperate as he spends the rest of his life fighting God or fleeing from the very God he supposes does not exist. Finally, at the end, if he has any fight left in him, he goes to his grave cursing God. But if he finally gets wise to himself, to his own penchant for self deception, he just might begin to say his first and last prayers as if there is someone to pray to. And maybe at the very end he discovers in his heart that there really was Someone to pray to all along.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*That is exactly what Pascal recommends. Going through the motions, with the chance that you will begin to believe.

Here is his recommendation again:

Quote:
Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed*, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?

You really have no perception of what Pascal is all about. You take snippets from the Pensees and build a false case against him. If you really understood Pascal you would understand. You think that Pascal expects this **acting as if to become a permanent state of mind? Au contraire. It is rather a giving of the benefit of the doubt. Once embraced as if, **Pascal knows that the as if will become in due time the certain conviction based on the experience of God which is real, rather than as if. Pascal is not out to deceive us or help us deceive ourselves with as ifs.

You underestimate the brilliance of Pascal as a psychologist. One always makes a leap of faith as if the object of our devotion is real, even if it is unreal. The atheist makes a leap of faith when he asserts that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist, so how can his conviction be anything more than a leap. He lives his life** as if** there is no God. But his conviction never grows stronger, as does the conviction of the person who grows nearer to God. It only grows more desperate as he spends the rest of his life fighting God or fleeing from the very God he supposes does not exist. Finally, at the end, if he has any fight left in him, he goes to his grave cursing God. But if he finally gets wise to himself, to his own penchant for self deception, he just might begin to say his first and last prayers as if there is someone to pray to. And maybe at the very end he discovers in his heart that there really was Someone to pray to all along.

We are discussing the wager, this paragraph 233 section III, classically considered the wager. Not the whole of the Pensees. My quote comes from that paragraph, and is about that paragraph. The title of the thread is the wager. The comments are a critique of the wager.

Pascal also says some ridiculous stuff as well in the Pensees like in paragraph 222.

Why cannot a virgin bear a child? Does a hen not lay eggs without a cock? What distinguishes these outwardly from others? And who has told us that the hen may not form the germ as well as the cock?

Is he an idiot for not understanding basic reproduction? Should I discount the whole of the Pensees - of course not.

If we are going to discuss the wager, lets discuss the wager. He does say “pretend” as part of the wager, with the hope that someday we will believe. That is his advice for those who “cannot” believe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

We are discussing the wager, this paragraph 233 section III, classically considered the wager. Not the whole of the Pensees. My quote comes from that paragraph, and is about that paragraph. The title of the thread is the wager. The comments are a critique of the wager.

I see you are determined to keep this discussion based on one or two paragraphs from Pascal, and not the rest of Pascal which surrounds those two paragraphs. That is a bit like taking two paragraphs out of the Bible and refusing to see how the rest of the Bible surrounds and amplifies and clarifies the importance of those two passages. Or it is like taking two paragraphs out of the U.S. Constitution and saying we may only discuss those two paragraphs and are not allowed to discuss how those two paragraphs relate to the rest of the Constitution. Or it is like saying to a med or law student, that we are allowed to discuss two paragraphs from the class text, but are not allowed to discuss how those two paragraphs impact, or are impacted upon, by the rest of the textbook.

Well, from that point of view, you have a rather narrow vision of it all. Good luck with it.

By the way, are we to understand that you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth?

 

[Candide_West]

Hi,

I’m new here, just thought i’d join in if that’s ok?

I’ve always found Pascals Wager to be something of an odd approach to religion. It is based on the idea after all that in not knowing the answer to something we should take a definative stance to one side or the other rather than simply saying “don’t know”.

The risk / reward ratio argument given by the wager is not helpful on it’s own, after all you can construct any number of similar risk / reward arguments as a cause for whatever behaviour you like. ie if while i’ve been sitting here at my computer a madman has crept into the room with a knife and is poised behind me right now. if i don’t turn around i’m dead, turning around is a totally irrelevant difficulty compared to the value of my life, so i should do it right? right… nope there wasn’t anyone there. but what if now…

clearly this can rapidly become absurd. because i am postulating a scenario with no reason to believe it is true and then acting on that scenario. The risk reward ratio of any given scenario is irrelevant if we have no reason to believe that the scenario is valid. This is i suspect why the wager seems to make sense for most theists but not for most atheists. Theists believe they have those reasons, atheists do not.

Would be interested to hear other’s views. Thanks

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

We are discussing the wager, this paragraph 233 section III, classically considered the wager. Not the whole of the Pensees. My quote comes from that paragraph, and is about that paragraph. The title of the thread is the wager. The comments are a critique of the wager.

I see you are determined to keep this discussion based on one or two paragraphs from Pascal, and not the rest of Pascal which surrounds those two paragraphs. That is a bit like taking two paragraphs out of the Bible and refusing to see how the rest of the Bible surrounds and amplifies and clarifies the importance of those two passages. Or it is like taking two paragraphs out of the U.S. Constitution and saying we may only discuss those two paragraphs and are not allowed to discuss how those two paragraphs relate to the rest of the Constitution. Or it is like saying to a med or law student, that we are allowed to discuss two paragraphs from the class text, but are not allowed to discuss how those two paragraphs impact, or are impacted upon, by the rest of the textbook.

Well, from that point of view, you have a rather narrow vision of it all. Good luck with it.

By the way, are we to understand that you don’t believe in the Virgin Birth?

HUH! - You are the one that wanted to discuss the wager and started a thread on* the wager*. You are faulting me for staying on topic.

Do you believe the virgin birth is true because chickens lay eggs? :console:

 

[jonfawkes]

Hi,

I’m new here, just thought i’d join in if that’s ok?

The water is fine, come on in

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes
*
HUH! - You are the one that wanted to discuss the wager and started a thread on the wager. You are faulting me for staying on topic. *

I am faulting you for myopia.