Pascal's Wager Argument

[Charlemagne_II]

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, physicist, theologian and philosopher devised the Wager Argument. The argument resulted from his conclusion that reason was unreliable either to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that therefore believing in God must be an act of the will resulting from the decision to act in the best interest of the self. What is the best interest of the self? If we believe and God exists, we have acted in our best interest. If we don’t believe and God exists, we have acted in our worst interest. If we believe and God does not exist, we have lost nothing. If we do not believe and God exists, we have lost everything. Therefore, in the absence of definitive logical arguments for or against the existence of God, we should bet on the existence of God, rather than on His non-existence.

Comments?

 

[FightingFat]

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, physicist, theologian and philosopher devised the Wager Argument. The argument resulted from his conclusion that reason was unreliable either to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that therefore believing in God must be an act of the will resulting from the decision to act in the best interest of the self. What is the best interest of the self? If we believe and God exists, we have acted in our best interest. If we don’t believe and God exists, we have acted in our worst interest. If we believe and God does not exist, we have lost nothing. If we do not believe and God exists, we have lost everything. Therefore, in the absence of definitive logical arguments for or against the existence of God, we should bet on the existence of God, rather than on His non-existence.

Comments?

I never understood Pascal’s wager until I lost my seven year old daughter in a car crash. Then I got it.

 

[JulieAA]

I never understood Pascal’s wager until I lost my seven year old daughter in a car crash. Then I got it.

I can not even imagine the pain in your life…by the grace of God.

If this is personal, please excuse my curiosity. Do you care to share where this has brought you?

 

[danserr]

I think, though am not sure, that the argument was originally designed at least in large part, to be directed against pyhronnist skepticism (sp). They doubted one’s ability to know anything. They claimed the reason is faulty, the senses deceive us, and so since we can’t know anything for sure, we should suspend judgment. I think Pascal may be retorting that if we can’t know anything for sure, then why suspend judgment, you may as well choose to believe.
So today, it would be stronger directed against an agnostic than against an atheist, that being said, I still think it’s a fair point that has value.

One more note, Pascal did actually think there was also good evidence for Christianity that could tip the scales of the wager that way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

danserr

*One more note, Pascal did actually think there was also good evidence for Christianity that could tip the scales of the wager that way. *

Something in particular you are thinking of?

 

[In_Spiration]

I never understood Pascal’s wager until I lost my seven year old daughter in a car crash. Then I got it.

Your faith in the wake of such a tragic loss is inspiring. A lot of very devout men have sadly leaned in the opposite direction. (Even C.S. Lewis had a crisis of faith when his beloved died.) May we all be so strong-minded if, God forbid, any of us is called to rely on that degree of virtue. And I second Julie’s request, especially because I’ve always tended to reject Pascal on this matter. Yet this seemingly simple, “too easy” kind of argument, just like the ontological argument, has always interested me.

 

[hecd2]

Blaise Pascal, French mathematician, physicist, theologian and philosopher devised the Wager Argument. The argument resulted from his conclusion that reason was unreliable either to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that therefore believing in God must be an act of the will resulting from the decision to act in the best interest of the self. What is the best interest of the self?

It’s an appalling argument. You cannot genuinely believe in a proposition only by an act of will.

If we believe and God exists, we have acted in our best interest.

How?

If we don’t believe and God exists, we have acted in our worst interest.

How?

If we believe and God does not exist, we have lost nothing. If we do not believe and God exists, we have lost everything.

How? The fallacy here is thinking that believing in a non-existent God is necessarily neutral while not believing in an existing God is necessarily deleterious.

Therefore, in the absence of definitive logical arguments for or against the existence of God, we should bet on the existence of God, rather than on His non-existence.

In other words, belief in God (or rather the outward form of belief in God, because belief cannot be engendered by an act of will) is reduced to a sort of metaphysical roulette, and that the “choice” to believe is motivated entirely by self-interest. Not only should this be distasteful to honest believers, but it presupposes that bare belief in a God, any God, is instrumental in determining a good or bad outcome. The argument depends on the proposition that belief is in and of itself the key determinant of salvation, and that those who do not believe will necessarily be punished.The argument can be applied to any proposition for belief in an entity - it doesn’t distinguish between the God(s) of different religions. It’s an appallingly bad argument for belief on many levels.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[In_Spiration]

It’s an appalling argument. You cannot genuinely believe in a proposition only by an act of will.

Sometimes you can. Belief in God is more complicated, but it’s at least arguable, a point on which two reasonable men can disagree. For instance, Carl Ginet says:

“We have started on a trip by car, and 50 miles from home my wife asks me if I locked the front door. I seem to remember that I did, but I don’t have a clear, detailed, confident memory impression of locking that door (and I am aware that my unclear, unconfident memory impressions have sometimes been mistaken). But, given the great inconvenience of turning back to make sure the undesirability of worrying about it while continuing on, I decide to continue on and believe that I did lock it.”

Principle:

“In deciding to perform an action, a person staked something on its being that case that a certain proposition, p, was true if and only if when deciding to perform the action, the person believed that performing the action was (all things considered) at least as good as other options open to him or her if and only if the proposition, p, was true.”

See more here. The classic essay regarding these matters is William James’s “The Will to Believe”; W.K. Clifford wrote “The Ethics of Belief” (you might like the source site, too).

I’ll comment on the rest if I get time. I might agree with you.

 

[hecd2]

Sometimes you can. Belief in God is more complicated, but it’s at least arguable, a point on which two reasonable men can disagree. For instance, Carl Ginet says:

“We have started on a trip by car, and 50 miles from home my wife asks me if I locked the front door. I seem to remember that I did, but I don’t have a clear, detailed, confident memory impression of locking that door (and I am aware that my unclear, unconfident memory impressions have sometimes been mistaken). But, given the great inconvenience of turning back to make sure the undesirability of worrying about it while continuing on, I decide to continue on and believe that I did lock it.”

Principle:

“In deciding to perform an action, a person staked something on its being that case that a certain proposition, p, was true if and only if when deciding to perform the action, the person believed that performing the action was (all things considered) at least as good as other options open to him or her if and only if the proposition, p, was true.”

Fine, but this is not a description of belief, but the process of arriving at a decision to act in the absence of a belief in the truth of a proposition - in this case, since I cannot remember, then I have no reason to believe that I have or have not locked the door, so I cannot assert a belief either in the proposition or its negation, and my decision to act is based on matters which are extraneous to the truth of the proposition (viz the inconvenience of turning back assessed against the probability of someone intruding through the possibly unlocked door). So this is not a description of a process to arrive at a belief, but a process to arrive at a decision to act in the absence of a belief. As far as I can see, this does not negate my claim that you cannot genuinely believe in a proposition by an act of will - in this example, there is no genuine belief in the proposition of the locked door - merely a decision to act as though the door were locked.

See more here.

Surely this is only relevant to beliefs, where holding the belief has an influence over the truth of the proposition. Surely believing or not in God has no influence over the truth of the proposition.

The classic essay regarding these matters is William James’s “The Will to Believe”;

I am unfamiliar with this and would need to study it further to comment.

W.K. Clifford wrote “The Ethics of Belief” (you might like the source site, too).

Yes, but this essay hardly supports the concept of willing to believe *in the absence of evidence, reasonable extrapolation of evidence or reason to accept authority, *none of which are relevant to Pascal’s argument. Isn’t Clifford one of the prime exponents of the need to base beliefs on evidence? I once paid my respects to him in Highgate Cemetery so you are right about the idea that I find his ideas amenable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Jessup]

I’m still trying to master pascals triangle, I’ll get to that stuff later. haha

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hecd2

*Surely believing or not in God has no influence over the truth of the proposition. *

Why not? The Wright brothers believed in the proposition of manned flight before they could prove the truth of it? Astronomers routinely posit the existence of civilizations throughout the universe without proof. Some even posit the existence of other universes without proof.

What you have forgotten is that Pascal concedes the impossibility of rationally proving one way or another that God does or does not exist. But since you have to decide one way or another (unless you are completely cold and indifferent to the proposition), the only avenue left is to consider how your decision may influence the fate of your immortal soul. That is the reason for so many deathbed conversions that we hear about.

The notion that we should never decide the truth of propositions on the basis of self interest seems to me really absurd. We do it all the time. For example, we believe in doing unto others as we would have them do unto this. Is this true or isn’t it? Yet it’s based on self interest as well as the interest of others. The person who does not believe it usually lives a hellish existence in this life … and perhaps in the next as well.

 

[inocente]

Which god do we bet on?

And wouldn’t that god see through us betting on her existence purely out of self-interest?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Which god do we bet on?

The one who cared enough for us to die for us.

*And wouldn’t that god see through us betting on her existence purely out of self-interest? *

Yes, but He wouldn’t care because he also is for our self interest.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2

*Surely believing or not in God has no influence over the truth of the proposition. *

Why not? The Wright brothers believed in the proposition of manned flight before they could prove the truth of it? Astronomers routinely posit the existence of civilizations throughout the universe without proof. Some even posit the existence of other universes without proof.

So let me get this right. You are suggesting that the truth of the proposition, the actual existence of God, depends on whether you, I or anyone else believes in Him? I would say the Wright brothers example is not apposite - for whereas their belief in the proposition “manned heavier than air flight is achievable” did influence the truth of the proposition ie that such flight is achieved, in the case of God, belief in the proposition “God exists” has no bearing on the truth of the proposition ie that God actually does exist.

What you have forgotten is that Pascal concedes the impossibility of rationally proving one way or another that God does or does not exist.

I have not forgotten that at all - the arguments that I laid out to show that this is a very poor way to arrive at a belief stand whether Pascal made that concession or not.

But since you have to decide one way or another (unless you are completely cold and indifferent to the proposition), the only avenue left is to consider how your decision may influence the fate of your immortal soul. That is the reason for so many deathbed conversions that we hear about.

The fact that deathbed conversions do sometimes occur is not an argument that supports Pascal’s wager as a good guide to belief, for all the reasons that I pointed out (and more), that you have chosen not to address.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[danserr]

danserr

One more note, Pascal did actually think there was also good evidence for Christianity that could tip the scales of the wager that way.

Something in particular you are thinking of?

I’m citing this from Reasonable faith 3rd editino, by WL Craig. pp.66-68.

Pascal had planned to write a defense of the Christian faith called L’Apoligie de la religion chretienne but he died of disease at age 39 and left only hundreds of pages of unplublished notes later published as Pensees. In the second part of his work, he intended to discuss the proofs of miracle and prophecy from scripture.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hecd2

So let me get this right. You are suggesting that the truth of the proposition, the actual existence of God, depends on whether you, I or anyone else believes in Him? I would say the Wright brothers example is not apposite - for whereas their belief in the proposition “manned heavier than air flight is achievable” did influence the truth of the proposition ie that such flight is achieved, in the case of God, belief in the proposition “God exists” has no bearing on the truth of the proposition ie that God actually does exist.

I didn’t make my point as clear as I should have. What I meant to argue is that the Wright Brothers wanted it to be true that manned flight is possible. Without wanting it to be true, they would never have found out that it could be true. Why can’t we take the same approach to God? Why can’t we discover, by degrees, that God is true simply by getting to know God, as the Wright brothers got to know the airplane after time and effort, failure and success, but first of all sheer desire and belief.

The argument depends on the proposition that belief is in and of itself the key determinant of salvation, and that those who do not believe will necessarily be punished.

They will be rewarded for spitting in God’s face? Hell is a place (or state of being) that people choose for themselves. It is how they perversely punish themselves.

If there is a God, I wouldn’t count on the believers and the unbelievers all going to the same place.

“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

In other words, Christ is not going to force us into heaven if we prefer hell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

danserr

In the second part of his work, he intended to discuss the* proofs of miracle and prophecy from scripture. ***

I think William Paley, as I look at the table of contents in his Evidences for Christianity, picked up where Pascal left off.

 

[FightingFat]

I can not even imagine the pain in your life…by the grace of God.

If this is personal, please excuse my curiosity. Do you care to share where this has brought you?

To my knees Julie.

It’s her birthday today. She would have been 9.

Concentrating on where we are: one striking realisation that came to us after we lost her was that the movement of love between us did not change, or diminish in any way. Love is a dynamic force that we can feel most intensely in the kind of relationship that exists between parent and child, unconditional love. The love we have goes out from us and is returned. We certainly still feel this movement of love today, and this keeps us sure in the hope of being reunited with our daughter “when every tear shall be wiped away” (Rev 21:4).

This movement of love is especially pertinent when considered in the light of God the Holy Trinity. The Trinity, the lover, the beloved and the love that moves between them, is perfect community—we can say the transcendent Archetype of communion-in-love-without-rivalry. It is as such that the Trinity draws all of us together to the goal of perfect communion-in-love-without-rivalry we call heaven. In some small way then, the solidarity and love offered to us by our friends, family, Church community and even here, by you Julie, offer a foreshadowing that can help us to understand where Ruth is. The life of grace in heaven is a sharing in the life of the Holy Trinity, the archetypal community and thus the perfection of the communities of Church, family and mankind we hold to here on earth in an imperfect way.

Pain of this magnitude always presents us with deep questions, but holding on to love, we can glean some understanding of how human frailty is primarily manifest in the most intimate relationships and wounds most deeply those whom we are to love most fully.

Pain and suffering are realities we all face in some way. Even when Jesus raised Lazarus, he eventually suffered physical death—what matters is the healing we undergo on the inside. This suffering is the truth and challenge of our lives, especially when you are hit by an enormous tragedy. It is then that you really find that you are radically participating in the dereliction and bewilderment of our Lord in His passion “With Christ I hang upon the Cross” (Gal 2:20). Truly we can begin to understand just what the Passion means for us all, and, at times like this, as we take up our own cross and follow Him (Lk 9:23), we know that our Lord understands the depth of our suffering, that He is close to the broken hearted and saves the crushed in spirit (Ps 34:18), that He gathers up all our tears and keeps them in His bottle (Ps 56:8). What is important then, is that we know that Ruth is held in the Everlasting Arms (Deut 33:27) and all that is left is to join with St. Peter, in casting all our anxiety on Him, because He cares for us (1 Pet 5:7).

 

[FightingFat]

Your faith in the wake of such a tragic loss is inspiring. A lot of very devout men have sadly leaned in the opposite direction. (Even C.S. Lewis had a crisis of faith when his beloved died.) May we all be so strong-minded if, God forbid, any of us is called to rely on that degree of virtue. And I second Julie’s request, especially because I’ve always tended to reject Pascal on this matter. Yet this seemingly simple, “too easy” kind of argument, just like the ontological argument, has always interested me.

I read in Benedict XVI’s mentor: Henri de Lubac’s great book The Splendor of the Church that it is, perhaps, that the Church, our faith, the mystery of God if you will, are not things we can ever fully grasp: “the Church is not a this-wordly reality such as lends itself to exact measurement and analysis. So long as the present existence lasts she cannot be perfectly known but remains hidden as under a veil” (p. 18).

My faith has been, since I was a child, something undeniable. Even when I turned away from the Church in my rebellious teens, convinced it was just man made rules and structure with nothing to offer the true free “thinker”, I still had a real relationship with God, I bore in myself, in my very soul, a seed of eternity, irreducible to the merely material, which I knew could only have its origin in God (GS 18, CCC 33).

I have invested in the love that I felt in my heart, trusting the Church and having faith in God, I have studied that which I struggled to understand and come to see that where I disagreed with the Church, I was usually at fault. I have found peace in that I realise not everyone is where I am, I do not have to win every discussion or argument, I merely have to know that there is depth and scope within Church teaching for all these positions to be pondered and studied. I have decided that I will never be able to read everything ever written or understand the nuance of every argument, but I know that someone somewhere in the Church has pondered carefully and considered all the minutia and probable outcomes. In short, I have learnt to trust, I have learnt that the Church is a mystery of faith and surpasses the capacities and powers of our intellect no less that any other. More than this, she is, as far as we are concerned, the meeting place of all mysteries; and mystery is something that is fitly believed in obscurity, something to be meditated in silence—“Seek not the things that are too high for thee” (Sir 3:22).

Now think of Pascal. It is the idea elucidated in this verse that called forth protest from Pascal (and many other Christian writers; St. Ephraem, St. Basil, St. Hilary, William of Saint-Thierry and Alain of Lille). Innumerable believers have felt the greatest reluctance in speaking of the Church. They have felt a sort of deep-seated resentment against those whose provocativeness has forced them to talk about something they simply want to adore, and to drag the sacred object of their faith out into the turmoil of theorising and disputation.

We are the Church, after all, (as Pope Pius XII reminded us when speaking of the laity) and since this is so, it would seem that there is a danger in constant analysis that threatens the man who wants to be a spectator at his own prayer. For if you turn back in contemplation of yourself instead of contemplating the object of your faith and invoking that of your hope, the recoil and self-regarding involved seem likely to put a sort of filter between your spiritual vision and the reality that is the object of the faith and hope alike.

So, when Ruth was killed, I felt that I was wrapped in my faith. Cosseted and held up by God the Holy Trinity. Not abandoned, not betrayed, but loved, comforted, strengthened. It was my Church community who came to my rescue, who came and grieved in their hundreds. Who mourned and wept, who prayed and prayed and prayed, and tried to understand. It has been impossibly hard to loose someone so loved, someone so dear to my heart, someone I held and kissed and blessed each and every day, but there is a part of me that gets it, on an ontological level (even though I don’t on a human, material level).

So, with Pascal, I place my bet. There is only one way I can bet, the wager is loaded, all my money is on God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*So, with Pascal, I place my bet. There is only one way I can bet, the wager is loaded, all my money is on God. *

Mine too. I don’t know why anyone would choose to bet on nothingness.