Pascal's Wager

[Big_Easy_Big]

Pascal’s Wager
In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensees. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one’s bets; and so on.

 

[cardenio]

Pascal’s Wager ought to be dismissed. There are better reasons for believing in God.

 

[edward_george]

Pascal’s Wager ought to be dismissed. There are better reasons for believing in God.

There are indeed better reasons for believing in God, but Paschal’s Wager is a valuable tool for at least making the nonbelievers think. I got into a philosophical discussion with an atheist at Boys State this summer and brought up Paschal’s Wager. After he got to thinking about it, he couldn’t think of any logical argument against it. He may not have embraced belief in God just from that one discussion, but I’ll wager (no pun intended) that he left the table thinking more deeply about it than he ever had before.

It is a useful thing to propose to the seeking or the nonbelievers, but after they have transcended disbelief there are indeed better things to found a belief in God in.

-ACEGC

 

[RyanL]

cardenio:

Pascal’s Wager ought to be dismissed. There are better reasons for believing in God.

I disagree with the first, and agree with the second. Pascal’s Wager is pragmatism at it’s finest. From a purely practicle and rational viewpoint, this is a tremendous argument - the logic is irrefutable.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[buffalo]

RyanL:

the logic is irrefutable.

God Bless,
RyanL

and the benefits are many - here on earth and after.

 

[RobNY]

cardenio:

Pascal’s Wager ought to be dismissed. There are better reasons for believing in God.

Dear, which reasons do you find more compelling?

Different people tend to be more or less convinced by other problems. Some people, for instance, find “the problem of evil” to be very compelling against the existence of God, but I’ve never felt so. Different arguments work with different people, I think.

Pascal’s Wager can operate as long as we don’t have perfect knowledge. Obviously, if we knew that God didn’t exist, it would be silly to argue it. As long as doubt remains, Pascal’s Wager can be used.

 

[threej_lc]

I’m quite fond of this line of reasoning.

I came across it myself when I was in 8th grade. It began my conversion from luke-warmness. I decided that day I would follow God in all things, whether he existed or not. It was only once I had made this commitment of faith that He revealed himself to me.

Josh

 

[Steve_Andersen]

RyanL:

…- the logic is irrefutable.

I’m a great fan of Pascal’s Wager
many people are put off if they don’t read the background material to it since it can appear as an insincere approach

but there are potential holes in the logic
it does create a false dilemma and has difficulty dealing with the question of other religions or many gods

and game theory has a problem sometimes with infinite values

 

[rossum]

Let’s take a slightly different look at Pascal’s Wager:

If you erroneously believe in Allah, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in Allah, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in Allah, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in Allah, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

So, how many of you have attended a Mosque on Friday, just in case Mohammed was right? What about going to the Synagogue on Saturday (just replace “Allah” with “YHWH” above)?

Pascal’s argument does not usually seem quite so convincing when it is applied to Gods other than the one that you currently believe in. Taken to its logical conclusion everyone would be going to a Hindu temple; why worship just one God when you can worship 100,000 gods at the same time? The odds of picking the right God are so much better.

As a non-Christian I have never found Pascal’s wager convincing.

rossum

 

[martino]

rossum:

Let’s take a slightly different look at Pascal’s Wager:

If you erroneously believe in Allah, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in Allah, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in Allah, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in Allah, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

So, how many of you have attended a Mosque on Friday, just in case Mohammed was right? What about going to the Synagogue on Saturday (just replace “Allah” with “YHWH” above)?

Pascal’s argument does not usually seem quite so convincing when it is applied to Gods other than the one that you currently believe in. Taken to its logical conclusion everyone would be going to a Hindu temple; why worship just one God when you can worship 100,000 gods at the same time? The odds of picking the right God are so much better.

As a non-Christian I have never found Pascal’s wager convincing.

rossum

What you say is right, this arument would not work with somebody that already believes in God…but then again I don’t think it was meant for them either.

But I believe it is helpful when talking to an atheist because it demonstrates that wether right or wrong the believer is in a much better position than the non believer.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Here’s a link to a good article about the strengths and weaknesses of Pascal’s Wager.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303fea1.asp

 

[cardenio]

First of all, Pascal’s Wager can be applied to any religion, particularly Hinduism, as rossum pointed out. Secondly, the idea of “not losing anything” by being a theist is false, because you can have a lot more fun if you don’t worry about mortal sins and hell.

RobNY - as far as the problem of evil, what do you expect to happen in a world full of people stained with original sin? That was Chesterton’s argument, I think, and if you explain original sin well enough, history makes perfect sense. Also, if there were no original sin, Communism would work wonderfully. See C.S. Lewis’s Out of the Silent Planet - sci-fi novel taking place on Malacandra, a planet where there was no original sin.

Have you read Lewis’s Mere Christianity? (I discovered Lewis’s nonfiction this summer and I’m slightly obsessed.) He presents the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument: In a peanutshell, Jesus could not be a wonderful man because wonderful men don’t claim to be God. Either Jesus was lying, he was insane, or he was (is) God. The theory can be expanded - we have an Al Kresta tape that goes on for about an hour expanding on this. It was beautiful - it showed why it logically makes sense that Jesus is God - therefore not just proving theism, but Christianity.

The Al Kresta tape also went into the empty tomb argument: The tomb was empty. We know this because everybody wanted the apostles to shut up and the best way to do that would be to drag out the body and poke it and say “looks dead to me.” The Romans and Jews would have done the same thing if they’d taken the body. Therefore, either the apostles took the body or Jesus rose. This is when you go into describing how each of them died until the people around you start squirming and plugging their ears and puking and stuff. (Actually, you may want to stop sooner.) If the apostles had stolen the body, this is what would have happened:

Bartholemew: Jesus rose!
Roman Soldier: Shut up or I’ll skin you alive.
Bart: Jesus rose!
Roman: (starts skinning Bart alive)
Bart: Wait, no, stop, that hurts, let me go, I’ll go get him, he’s upstairs in the cupboard. Ow! Stop!
Roman: Don’t ever mention Jesus again.
Bart: Okay, okay, fine, whatever you say, man.

Nobody, nobody, would go through that kind of death for something they know is a lie. Can you ask for a more credible witness than that?

Also in Lewis’s Mere Christianity is the argument from moral objectivism. I don’t like this one so much, but I’m sure it can be buffed. Things like bravery, honesty, loyalty, etc. are universal to all cultures everywhere. And it’s not a leftover instinct - sometimes you feel that nagging to go save someone else even when it would put yourself in danger, which goes against any logically evolved instinct.

That’s not even going into intelligent design… I don’t like that one much, either, though. Basically, the extremely complex way the universe was made couldn’t have happened by chance. Atheists say there were five vermillion things that could have happened and what we got was what we got: every day somebody wins the lottery. I don’t know a good counter to that.

So… there you have it. Better reasons for believing in God.

 

[RobNY]

RobNY - as far as the problem of evil, what do you expect to happen in a world full of people stained with original sin? That was Chesterton’s argument, I think, and if you explain original sin well enough, history makes perfect sense. Also, if there were no original sin, Communism would work wonderfully. See C.S. Lewis’s Out of the Silent Planet - sci-fi novel taking place on Malacandra, a planet where there was no original sin.

Oh no, I agree with you here, dear. I was saying that I *don’t *see a problem here.

Have you read Lewis’s Mere Christianity? (I discovered Lewis’s nonfiction this summer and I’m slightly obsessed.) He presents the Liar/Lunatic/Lord argument: In a peanutshell, Jesus could not be a wonderful man because wonderful men don’t claim to be God. Either Jesus was lying, he was insane, or he was (is) God. The theory can be expanded - we have an Al Kresta tape that goes on for about an hour expanding on this. It was beautiful - it showed why it logically makes sense that Jesus is God - therefore not just proving theism, but Christianity.

Neither my school nor public library has any of Lewis’s books except The Screwtape Letters. But yes, I’m quite familiar with this one, and I find it fascinating.

blah blah, you know, the empty tomb one *paraphrase *]

Indeed.

Also in Lewis’s Mere Christianity is the argument from moral objectivism. I don’t like this one so much, but I’m sure it can be buffed. Things like bravery, honesty, loyalty, etc. are universal to all cultures everywhere. And it’s not a leftover instinct - sometimes you feel that nagging to go save someone else even when it would put yourself in danger, which goes against any logically evolved instinct.

The problem is exactly that it’s hard to prove that these values are intrinsic. I think this one’s a dead end. (As far as arguing it to someone else.)

That’s not even going into intelligent design… I don’t like that one much, either, though. Basically, the extremely complex way the universe was made couldn’t have happened by chance. Atheists say there were five vermillion things that could have happened and what we got was what we got: every day somebody wins the lottery. I don’t know a good counter to that.

Intelligent Design, as in the evolution-replacement I find to be insufficient. To argue otherwise from intelligent design is fun.

So… there you have it. Better reasons for believing in God.

Thanks.

Just uh, I wasn’t asking for the explanations. I’m familiar with most of the arguments for and against, I was just hoping that you’d just name which ones you found compelling. I was looking for an insight into your mind.

As for the CS Lewis stuff, I’m bugging my school library once I get back. We’re a Catholic high school and they only have one CS Lewis book! Oh! the humanity!

It’s been lovely speaking with you,
Rob

 

[Maccabees]

Some here talk as if pascal wote on his wager and nothing else. Its actually a small portion of his bigger apologetic Apology for the Christian Religion.
Pascal lived in the age of enlightenment and beleif in God any god was low thus the wager was an introuction to at least the belief in God and religion he set out elsewhere in his Pensees and his other writings the proof for christ and his church. The wager was not mean to be the be all of the christian apologetic but rather to get the athiest to make the jump from no god and religion to god and religion. Plus in Pascal’s France and present day America - Christiantiy and plain unbelief are the most common options chosen and considered- there are other apologetics for distinguising different religions. Sure this is unconvincing for those who seek higher argumentation but in a society such as Pascal’s and our present society that is severly cynical and lacking in faith and disinterested in the deeper aspects of theology well its a great starting point. This wager was for Pagans and Pagansistic socitety please read Christiantiy for Modern Pagans by Peter Kreeft and you’ll get a better grasp on where Pascal was going for this. You might just appreciate this method for apologetics. In this age of unbelief I have found I don’t get anywhere with the 5 proofs of Aquinas anymore people just don’t think that way anymore unfortunately very few people know how to think Philospohically anymore but Pascal gets straight to certain points and I have found its a starting point anyway that gets people thinking.

 

[Nan_S]

rossum:

Pascal’s argument does not usually seem quite so convincing when it is applied to Gods other than the one that you currently believe in. Taken to its logical conclusion everyone would be going to a Hindu temple; why worship just one God when you can worship 100,000 gods at the same time? The odds of picking the right God are so much better.
As a non-Christian I have never found Pascal’s wager convincing.
rossum

Pascal’s Wager is the reason why I ultimately chose to believe in God almost 30 years ago. The objections to Pascal’s Wager are simply attempts to blur the issue, and to avoid the basic question.

A person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him. Incorrect. Having realized that there is no way to disprove the basic premise, a person must accept that it CAN be true, no matter how false it initially feels to him.

The wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic. Side issue/attempt to confuse. Pascals’ wager simply asks whether “God” could exist. It doesn’t attempt to name or define God. That responsibility is left to the person who honestly accepts the wager - to seek God with a sincere heart and try in his actions to do God’s will as he knows it. (By the way, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 847, definitively states that salvation can indeed be achieved by such seekers.)

God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one’s bets. Partially correct only. If you truly accept Pascal’s Wager, you must follow through by seeking to find out what God wants and then do it. The reward comes not from the statement of belief; it comes from the follow-through. Saying you accept the bet and then doing nothing is essentially the same as believing you are “once saved-always saved” based on stumbling into a church one time, answering an altar call, and stumbling back out again forever.

 

[Drew98]

Pascal’s Wager seems anti-Catholic to me. What it says is that simple belief in God is enough to get you into heaven. No church attendence necessary, no confession necessary, no changes to your lifestyle necessary. So you can keep having premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, whatever. As long as you acknowledge the existence of God you’re going to heaven.

I’m always surprised when Catholics endorse this reasoning because it doesn’t seem consistent with Catholic teaching at all.

 

[Drew98]

Nan S:

If you truly accept Pascal’s Wager, you must follow through by seeking to find out what God wants and then do it. The reward comes not from the statement of belief; it comes from the follow-through.

I don’t see anything in Pascal’s Wager that suggests any “follow-through” is necessary. You just make your “statement of belief” then you’re done. You go back to living your life the way you always did (i.e. you “lose nothing”).

 

[amateurthomist]

Drew98:

Pascal’s Wager seems anti-Catholic to me. What it says is that simple belief in God is enough to get you into heaven. No church attendence necessary, no confession necessary, no changes to your lifestyle necessary. So you can keep having premarital sex, extramarital sex, homosexual sex, whatever. As long as you acknowledge the existence of God you’re going to heaven.

I’m always surprised when Catholics endorse this reasoning because it doesn’t seem consistent with Catholic teaching at all.

Actually, you have to read the Wager in the whole context of the Pensees. Pascal doesn’t mean just intellectual knowledge of God. The choice, for Pascal, is between being a faithful Catholic and being an atheist/libertine. Pascal was quite rigorous morally.

 

[cardenio]

But one problem still remains: Pascal’s Wager can (just about) only apply to loosely-theist Protestantism, the “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and then go on and do whatever you want with your life because now that you’ve said that you’re saved” theology. (Not saying all Protestant theology is like that, just that there are a few churches like that.) Catholicism’s view on salvation is not sola fides. Therefore, if you take the wager (i.e. accept belief in God) and become Catholic, you cannot say that you have lost nothing because–if it turns out that there is no God–you’ve thrown your entire life away believing in him.

You have to look at this from an atheistic viewpoint. If there is no life after death, then what we have on earth is all we have. Therefore dedicating your entire life to service of the Most High God on a wager such as this - if you bet wrong, you’ve wasted everything you had. If there is no God, why bother going to mass or praying or refuse temptation? If there is no God, there’s no reason to be selfless - if life on earth is all we have then guard it with your life (i love puns) and don’t give any of it up.

RobNY - Some values, such as “abortion is wrong,” are hard to prove to be intrinsic. But what about values like courage? Do some research and see if you can find a culture that praises their soldiers for being cowards. Lewis explains it better than I can and I’m too lazy to type up the chapter on it (besides it being slightly illegal - probably - copyright stuff). Check amazon.com or ebay or something for Mere Christianity.

I agree that Intelligent Design seems insufficient. But I’ve yet to see someone expand it into anything beyond “Look, a tree! It sure is pretty. Therefore, God exists.”

The most compelling arguments are the liar/lunatic/Lord and the empty tomb. Because the logic is beautiful and it’s logic, not a false bet.

I’m not surprised your Catholic high school only has one Lewis book. My friends and I call our high school “powers relativist high school” because that’s what it is.

Screwtape Letters won’t provide any arguments for theism. Screwtape Letters is a look into a demonic mind and will open your eyes so temptation screams at you. It’s a wonderful book but it has nothing to do with apologetics.

Hey! I’m glad to find another thinking teenager on these boards.

 

[RobNY]

cardenio:

But one problem still remains: Pascal’s Wager can (just about) only apply to loosely-theist Protestantism, the “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and then go on and do whatever you want with your life because now that you’ve said that you’re saved” theology. (Not saying all Protestant theology is like that, just that there are a few churches like that.) Catholicism’s view on salvation is not sola fides. Therefore, if you take the wager (i.e. accept belief in God) and become Catholic, you cannot say that you have lost nothing because–if it turns out that there is no God–you’ve thrown your entire life away believing in him.

Paschal’s wager is best aimed at back-slid Christians. That’s the most effective group you can aim it at, period.

You have to look at this from an atheistic viewpoint. If there is no life after death, then what we have on earth is all we have. Therefore dedicating your entire life to service of the Most High God on a wager such as this - if you bet wrong, you’ve wasted everything you had. If there is no God, why bother going to mass or praying or refuse temptation? If there is no God, there’s no reason to be selfless - if life on earth is all we have then guard it with your life (i love puns) and don’t give any of it up.

Yes, but as John Maynard Keyes once quipped, in the long run we are all dead. It’s hard for the athiest to view his life as anything but finite and, in the long run, rather irrelevant. (I know there are athiests that hold against this, but I buy what Sartre seized on, the absurdity of life, in absence of God.) The argument needs to seize on the value of the infinite vs. the finite. Nevertheless, I don’t see it as a useful argument against the athiest.

RobNY - Some values, such as “abortion is wrong,” are hard to prove to be intrinsic. But what about values like courage? Do some research and see if you can find a culture that praises their soldiers for being cowards. Lewis explains it better than I can and I’m too lazy to type up the chapter on it (besides it being slightly illegal - probably - copyright stuff). Check amazon.com or ebay or something for Mere Christianity.

See, I know these values are always supported, but that isn’t sufficient. You see, they could have grown that way because these values are the most helpful to a *society. *While it may not help the individual, it surely helps the species. This is what I say from my quick look at it.

I agree that Intelligent Design seems insufficient. But I’ve yet to see someone expand it into anything beyond “Look, a tree! It sure is pretty. Therefore, God exists.”

Yeah, that is the problem.

The most compelling arguments are the liar/lunatic/Lord and the empty tomb. Because the logic is beautiful and it’s logic, not a false bet.

Yes. The first way I’ve used this argument is simply to make people stop saying "Jesus is really nice and all… but… " Once that starts happening I bring them to task. It’s a bit harder to use the L/L/L argument for a nonbeliever, because they would have to put credence in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ character.

I’m not surprised your Catholic high school only has one Lewis book. My friends and I call our high school “powers relativist high school” because that’s what it is.

It’s quite ridiculous. Among the magazines we get are political ones such as “Mother Jones,” we’ve got various other silly pop-political books around and yet we don’t have any serious amount of apologetics books.

Screwtape Letters won’t provide any arguments for theism. Screwtape Letters is a look into a demonic mind and will open your eyes so temptation screams at you. It’s a wonderful book but it has nothing to do with apologetics.

Yeah, it was a fun book.

Hey! I’m glad to find another thinking teenager on these boards.

And I’m glad to see you too.

Out of the CS Lewis books, the Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity, Miracles, etc… which one should I go for first? I might buy one, and I want to have the best one on my bookshelf. (Oh yeah and, I’ve been missing the concluding books to the Narnia series for ages! There have been a few times when I’ve wanted to reread them, and number four onward have just vanished! I’m sure those are in the library, though. ) I *won’t *let myself buy it just yet, though. I still need to finish Dracula and Grendel and some really stuffy history chapters (not to mention that I’m also reading *Basic Economics- *Thomas Sowell at the same time as well, but that’s just for… er… fun). But for the school year. Definitely must read it then.

I think my english teacher might have some of them, though. I’ll ask him to borrow them, I suppose. That might work. Oh my, I just started rambling. I hate it when I do that.