Pascal's Wager

[threej_lc]

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?

When doing a proof of something, you must account for all cases. You haven’t dont hat here.

Believe in Allah/No God/Nothing lost.
Believe in Allah/There is a God/Muslim is wrong/Bad for you.
Believe in Allah/There is a God/Muslim is right/Good for you.

Don’t believe/No God/NOthing lost
Don’t Believe/Bad either way.

The difference is in this wager, this still is an option of Bad for you. When you take out the specific of allah, and just account for God, then there is no bad in believing in God.

Josh

 

[cardenio]

RobNY -

I agree - a finite life is a pointless life, if you can cajole yourself into that kind of thinking. If you’re not going to get out of life alive (Les Brown) then what’s the point of anything? But if you believe on this alone, your thinking is equal to relativism (i.e. I want this to be true, therefore it is). You can’t say God exists because life would be meaningless otherwise. Because who knows, maybe life is meaningless. And since/if it is, let’s eat drink and be merry.

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.

Like I said, I won’t be able to explain this. Lewis did it brilliantly; I can’t. It does make sense but you’ll need to read Mere Christianity or find someone more talanted than I am.

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.

If the credibility of the NT is your only problem, look at non-biblical contemporary writers. Whenever I see a Protestant use this argument, it’s always boiled down to “but it says so in the bible, you have to believe that!” (By the way, I know there are intelligent protestant apologists out there. Problem is most of the protestants I know aren’t. Not saying protestants are stupid, just saying most of the ones I’ve met are.)

I have to admit, I just discovered Lewis’s nonfiction this summer, so I haven’t read much of it. I read all the narnia books with my dad when I was little and I’m reading Out of the Silent Planet now. But for nonfiction, I’ve just read Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters. Plus a couple pages in The Problem of Pain but that one doesn’t count yet.

Oh my, I just started rambling. I hate it when I do that.

You sound like me. Except I say “maunder” because it makes me sound intelligent.

 

[rossum]

threej_lc:

When doing a proof of something, you must account for all cases. You haven’t dont hat here.

Believe in Allah/No God/Nothing lost.
Believe in Allah/There is a God/Muslim is wrong/Bad for you.
Believe in Allah/There is a God/Muslim is right/Good for you.

Don’t believe/No God/NOthing lost
Don’t Believe/Bad either way.

The difference is in this wager, this still is an option of Bad for you. When you take out the specific of allah, and just account for God, then there is no bad in believing in God.

As has been said above, Pascal’s Wager is not specific as to which God it refers to. Yes, Pascal was Catholic (shading towards Jansenism) so he probably meant the Christian God, but the argument can work for all Gods. Using the example of Islam again, if Mohammed really was a Prophet, then God is going to be very annoyed with all the Christians who did not believe in His Prophet, and practised polytheism by worshipping the Prophet Jesus as if he was a God.

Thus, to extend the terms of the wager slightly, if you believe in the wrong God, it can be bad for you, just as much as if there was no God at all. “I am a jealous God”, so picking the wrong God can be dangerous. Pascal’s Wager will not help you there.

rossum

 

[Drew98]

cardenio:

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

Well I’m not a teenager but I’m glad to find a theist who understands the atheist point-of-view so well! Great post! I got all the way to the end before I realized you weren’t an atheist.

 

[Maccabees]

rossum:

As has been said above, Pascal’s Wager is not specific as to which God it refers to. Yes, Pascal was Catholic (shading towards Jansenism) so he probably meant the Christian God, but the argument can work for all Gods. Using the example of Islam again, if Mohammed really was a Prophet, then God is going to be very annoyed with all the Christians who did not believe in His Prophet, and practised polytheism by worshipping the Prophet Jesus as if he was a God.

Thus, to extend the terms of the wager slightly, if you believe in the wrong God, it can be bad for you, just as much as if there was no God at all. “I am a jealous God”, so picking the wrong God can be dangerous. Pascal’s Wager will not help you there.

rossum

Pascal adresses Islam elsewhere. Like I said before the wager is just a small part to get the ball rolling and should be aimed at athiest or agnostics its not and end all or be all to apologetic and it wasn’t emant to be. Not ever Ambrose or Aquinas answers all Pascal gives us a useful too if we combine it with Ambrose, Aquianas and contempporary theologians or writers like Lewis and Kreeft then you have some great tools to work witth.

 

[cardenio]

Drew98:

Well I’m not a teenager but I’m glad to find a theist who understands the atheist point-of-view so well! Great post! I got all the way to the end before I realized you weren’t an atheist.

My problem is that I can hardly see my own point of view anymore.

Would you like to do me a favor and type “If you are Catholic and give your life to God and it turns out there is no God then you’ve wasted every minute of your life and thus have lost something” in really big letters? I’ve said this about eight times and nobody’s said anything about it.

 

[Nan_S]

cardenio:

My problem is that I can hardly see my own point of view anymore.
Would you like to do me a favor and type “If you are Catholic and give your life to God and it turns out there is no God then you’ve wasted every minute of your life and thus have lost something” in really big letters? I’ve said this about eight times and nobody’s said anything about it.

What exactly do you think you will lose? Is it anything really worth keeping?

As a Christian, I’m not free to commit murder. Have I lost something?
As a Christian, I’m not free to be a drunkard. Would I be happier if I was?
As a Christian, I’m not free to lie and cheat. Maybe I should reject Christianity so that I can lie and cheat you. Would you like that?

As a Christian, I’m duty-bound to help my neighbor. Do you know how it feels to need help and have everyone spit on you instead?
As a Christian, I have to be faithful to the truth even when it is hard. Have you ever been falsely accused and had no one stand up for you?
As a Christian, I’m required to be sexually pure. Would the world be better if all children were born to STD-infested single mothers?

I chose to give my life to God. I’m following His rules to make myself a better person, and my little piece of the world a better place.

Please to explain to me, if it turns out there is no God, exactly what part of my life have I wasted if the result is a better world? What have I lost that was really worth keeping?

Details would help.

 

[Nan_S]

Drew98:

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”).

If you don’t follow through, have you truly accepted the wager? Or did you just make an empty statement?

Pascal’s wager is to BELIEVE in God, not just to mouth the words. Belief - true belief - requires action. I quote from the Bible, because this is the holy book I know best, but I challenge you to find ANY religion that says a true believer can just sit around on his butt.

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

*Matt 19:16-19 And behold, one came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to Jesus, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” *

Mark 12:29-31 Jesus answered, “The first commandment is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

 

[RobNY]

Nan S:

What exactly do you think you will lose? Is it anything really worth keeping?

As a Christian, I’m not free to commit murder. Have I lost something?
As a Christian, I’m not free to be a drunkard. Would I be happier if I was?
As a Christian, I’m not free to lie and cheat. Maybe I should reject Christianity so that I can lie and cheat you. Would you like that?

As a Christian, I’m duty-bound to help my neighbor. Do you know how it feels to need help and have everyone spit on you instead?
As a Christian, I have to be faithful to the truth even when it is hard. Have you ever been falsely accused and had no one stand up for you?
As a Christian, I’m required to be sexually pure. Would the world be better if all children were born to STD-infested single mothers?

I chose to give my life to God. I’m following His rules to make myself a better person, and my little piece of the world a better place.

Please to explain to me, if it turns out there is no God, exactly what part of my life have I wasted if the result is a better world? What have I lost that was really worth keeping?

Details would help.

Without God, why is the good of any person, or of the community a worthy thing? What is a “better world,” and why does it matter. If we’re talking in the absence of God, how do we establish that human beings have “worth” and that they “matter,” so as to make the concepts we build off of that-- the good of a peaceful, just society, of a “better world,” matter?

So, perhaps, you’ve lost a chance to run around in a fit of pure hedonism in your finite time on earth. I hope my argument presents no straw men. (Although it likely does.)

 

[Nan_S]

RobNY:

Without God, why is the good of any person, or of the community a worthy thing? What is a “better world,” and why does it matter. If we’re talking in the absence of God, how do we establish that human beings have “worth” and that they “matter,” so as to make the concepts we build off of that-- the good of a peaceful, just society, of a “better world,” matter?

Our basic definitions of good, community, and worth come from understanding natural law, ethics, and conscience. We did not need to know God to recognize the importance of these. It’s what distinguishes humans from animals, even so-called intelligent ones.

Anti-God people (including many - but not all - athiests) follow natural law, ethics, and conscience if it suits their own ends, and ignore them when it doesn’t.

Godly people follow natural law, ethics, and conscience even when it requires self-sacrifice. And they go beyond these three, applying divine law and morality as well.

RobNY:

So, perhaps, you’ve lost a chance to run around in a fit of pure hedonism in your finite time on earth.

That’s exactly the point I was making. As a true believer, I’ve lost the chance to be a hedonist. In other words, I’ve really lost nothing. And if there’s anything else I’ve lost (I can’t imagine what), the eternal reward I hope for is more than worth the cost.

 

[Maccabees]

Nan S:

If you don’t follow through, have you truly accepted the wager? Or did you just make an empty statement?

Pascal’s wager is to BELIEVE in God, not just to mouth the words. Belief - true belief - requires action. I quote from the Bible, because this is the holy book I know best, but I challenge you to find ANY religion that says a true believer can just sit around on his butt.

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Matt 19:16-19 And behold, one came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to Jesus, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Mark 12:29-31 Jesus answered, “The first commandment is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Amen Nan in the protestant dominated culture we live in we forget that the traditional defintiion of the word beleive in the Judeo-christian tradition proior to Luther did not just mean an intellectual recognition but a belief consisting of obedience to one’s faith.
Even Islam recognizes this if an Orthdodox Jew or Muslim says I beleive in their respective religion they mean they also obey the tenets fo that religion. Luther changed monthoeistic religions meaning of the word beleif to merely faith without works or obedience. Pascal was no Lutheran but was a catholic with Jansenist symphaties but mostly orthodox so he does not imply mere intellectual belief.

 

[Drew98]

Nan S:

If you don’t follow through, have you truly accepted the wager? Or did you just make an empty statement?

Yes to both. This is one of the criticisms. Pascal is saying that a simple statement of belief is enough to get you into heaven. It’s hard to believe that God would be very impressed by this.
Nan S:

… I challenge you to find ANY religion that says a true believer can just sit around on his butt.

Pascal’s Wager does not require you to get off your butt which is why I say it is inconsistent with Catholicism and most other religions.

 

[Drew98]

cardenio:

My problem is that I can hardly see my own point of view anymore.

Well, if it doesn’t stand out as superior to other points-of-view then perhaps it’s time you adopted one that does.

cardenio:

Would you like to do me a favor and type “If you are Catholic and give your life to God and it turns out there is no God then you’ve wasted every minute of your life and thus have lost something” in really big letters? I’ve said this about eight times and nobody’s said anything about it.

I didn’t say anything because I mostly agree. Although “wasted every minute of your life” is overstating it a little.

 

[cardenio]

Nan S - Is the way you act not affected by your faith at all? How many times have you heard that living a Christian life is not easy? How many times have you experienced this?

Assuming there is no God:
++Go kill someone. If you’re crafty enough, you can escape the police. Plus it’s a good way to let anger out.
++Go drink. No reason not to get drunk now and then. Some people enjoy it. (Me, I’m 16 and have no experience.)
++Look at somebody else’s exam paper. It’ll help you get the grade you want. It’s okay as long as you get away with it. No, I wouldn’t like it, but this isn’t about me. Doesn’t hurt anybody.
++Your neighbor doesn’t matter.
++I have been falsely accused, but hey, c’est la vie.
++Your children don’t matter, either.

Think about it. If there is no God, then all the life you have is life on earth. Therefore you have no reason not to be selfish, except that other people don’t like selfish people. So if you want people to like you, you have to be selfless. Thus the origin of selflessness is selfishness.

I’m not saying all atheists are selfish losers. But if all we have is this life on earth, then eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may die!

Every minute you spend in church is wasted. Every minute you spend praying is wasted. Every minute you try to do God’s will instead of your own is wasted. Especially since you could be having fun.

Have you ever had to stand up for your faith when people made fun of you or thought you were a moron? You didn’t have to endure that.

I chose to give my life to God. I’m following His rules to make myself a better person, and my little piece of the world a better place.

There was an article in our newspaper the other week about a teenager who grew up Christian (assembly of God, I think) and became Buddhist. He preferred Buddhism because it “wasn’t about worshipping a god but about improving yourself.” And while making the world a better place is a wonderful thing, there’s more to Christianity than that.

The bottom line is this: If there’s no God to answer to then there’s no reason to obey moral laws.

The entire time you spend and effort you put into “following through on the wager” like you said must be done…wasted.

Drew98 -

Well, if it doesn’t stand out as superior to other points-of-view then perhaps it’s time you adopted one that does.

Can you do me a favor and translate this? I didn’t get it.

Although “wasted every minute of your life” is overstating it a little.

Here it is: The more fully you follow through on the wager, the more of your life you are wasting. Maybe not every minute, but it’s directly proportional to the wager itself.

 

[Nan_S]

Nan S - Is the way you act not affected by your faith at all? How many times have you heard that living a Christian life is not easy? How many times have you experienced this?
I’m not saying all atheists are selfish losers. But if all we have is this life on earth, then eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you may die!
Every minute you spend in church is wasted. Every minute you spend praying is wasted. Every minute you try to do God’s will instead of your own is wasted. Especially since you could be having fun.
Have you ever had to stand up for your faith when people made fun of you or thought you were a moron? You didn’t have to endure that.
The bottom line is this: If there’s no God to answer to then there’s no reason to obey moral laws.
The entire time you spend and effort you put into “following through on the wager” like you said must be done…wasted.

Cardenio,

You sound angry. Please hang on anyway because there’s too much at stake, even when you don’t bring religion into the picture.

You’re 16. I’m 46. That means I look at things a little bit differently than you. All too well do I remember how much it stung - it hurt - to have kids poke fun at me and say I’m a prudish, repressed, moronic, goody-two-shoes, religion teacher’s butt-kisser.

It’s amazing, though, how much these name-callers changed their tune when they got out of school and had a good dose of reality hit them like a firehose blast. Suddenly, in a few short years, I was a college graduate with a decent job (and still a virgin, meaning I had no kids and no responsibility for anyone but me). But they were struggling with remedial math to get into community college because working in the Wal-Mart stockroom doesn’t pay enough to support two or three kids when their foul-mouthed, drug-and-alcohol-addicted other parent landed in jail.

The way I act is affected a great deal by my faith. And nearly every sacrifice I’ve made has been richly rewarded. Yes, I have heard that living a Christian life is not easy, but I’m here to tell you that the opposite is true.

Which one do you think has a harder life:

• The Christian who learns to recognize trouble and avoid it, lives cleanly, gets a good job, marries well, and has happy kids?
• Or the hedonistic anti-Christian who has to spend his or her life dodging the cops, the IRS, the bill collectors, the social workers, the lawyers, the car repossessors…?

Whether or not God exists, I can tell you pretty quickly who I think has more fun. It’s the one who ***does ***obey the moral laws.

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

If you don’t follow through, have you truly accepted the wager? Or did you just make an empty statement?
Yes to both. This is one of the criticisms. Pascal is saying that a simple statement of belief is enough to get you into heaven. It’s hard to believe that God would be very impressed by this.
I challenge you to find ANY religion that says a true believer can just sit around on his butt.
Pascal’s Wager does not require you to get off your butt which is why I say it is inconsistent with Catholicism and most other religions.

Obviously we have a serious difference of opinion on the meaning of the word “believe.” You seem to think it’s just a casual mental exercise. I maintain that it’s very much the opposite, and I’ve supported my position from scripture. Where’s your support?

Pascal asks you to decide whether or not you ***believe ***(including all the implications thereof), and speculates on the possible result.

Contrary to what you imply, Pascal does not ask you to decide whether or not to recite the so-called “sinner’s prayer.” Nowhere in his challenge does he even hint that simply reciting a magic formula will gain anyone heaven.

 

[cardenio]

Nan S -

Sorry if I sounded angry; I was getting a little fed up, but I am planning to hang around. I’ve never argued for the opposite side before; it’s an interesting experience.

You can be an atheist and live a very wonderful life. Faith can influence you to have a good life, to plan ahead, etc., but other things can, too. And the faith in the wager doesn’t necessarily mean faith in the Christian God (as has been said).

By following through on the wager (becoming a theist: for argument, Catholic), you do end up wasting a lot of time. You can be a nice and polite person with a good education and a good job without going to mass or praying. I know some adults who are and some teenagers who are well on their way.

Another thing: There’s more to Catholicism than being nice and polite. Catholicism is not about making the world a wonderful place (though this is a wonderful thing). Catholicisim is about truth. Pascal’s wager doesn’t deal with truth.

• The Christian who learns to recognize trouble and avoid it, lives cleanly, gets a good job, marries well, and has happy kids?
• Or the hedonistic anti-Christian who has to spend his or her life dodging the cops, the IRS, the bill collectors, the social workers, the lawyers, the car repossessors…?

The most dangerous place to be is dead in the center. A nice atheist who lives a generally good life, is smart…

Whether or not God exists, I can tell you pretty quickly who I think has more fun. It’s the one who does obey the moral laws.

You may be surprised to hear a teenager say this (my mom still is) but I have found this to be true (to a point). I’ve found that if you do what your parents say, they’re more likely to trust you (duh), and therefore they’re more likely to let you do stuff. But if there is no God, what’s the point in shying away from those little things where you won’t get caught? Why not buy into “safe sex”? Why not use contraception? Euthansia? Gay “marriage”?

Maybe change it to “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die, but you probably won’t die tomorrow, so remember to plan ahead so you can be merry tomorrow, too.”

Here’s what I’m thinking: How would Brittney Spears react if you presented this wager to her? (Please…something other than Hey, I’m bored, let’s get married.)

 

[Nan_S]

cardenio:

You can be an atheist and live a very wonderful life… By following through on the wager… you do end up wasting a lot of time. You can be a nice and polite person with a good education and a good job without going to mass or praying.

I know lots of nice, polite unchurched people who live comfortable lives. They also happily vote for social liberals, and support abortion and animal rights over human rights. Why waste their time with God-stuff? They’re comfortable without Him.

But when the chips are down, they suddenly “find” God. Funny how that is - their leisure time is gone because they’re working two jobs, and they now have time for God. It’s the same lesson God had to teach the Israelites, over and over again.

There’s more to Catholicism than being nice and polite…… Catholicism is about truth. Pascal’s wager doesn’t deal with truth.

You are correct - to a point. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t explicitly mention Truth. He doesn’t try to name or define God either (at least not through the wager). Pascal asks a much more basic question - knowing that heaven and hell could be true, would you refuse to believe? And to Pascal, a Catholic, believe meant a great deal more than just reciting the Protestant “sinners prayer.” Pascal even accused the Jesuits of being too lax!!! You can read a good short bio about Blaise Pascal HERE.

• The Christian who learns to recognize trouble and avoid it, lives cleanly, gets a good job, marries well, and has happy kids?
• Or the hedonistic anti-Christian who has to spend his or her life dodging the cops, the IRS, the bill collectors, the social workers, the lawyers, the car repossessors…?
  The most dangerous place to be is dead in the center. A nice atheist who lives a generally good life, is smart…
  I agree with you. But my question was not “which is more dangerous?” My question was “who has a harder life?”

As a teenager-turned-young-adult I saw the fate of bullying kids who became unchurched young adults, rebelling against the rules and living just for themselves. It wasn’t pretty. Now that I’m the mother of teens and young adults I’m seeing that crowd again. It’s as ugly now as it was then.

You may be surprised to hear a teenager say this (my mom still is) but I have found this to be true (to a point). I’ve found that if you do what your parents say, they’re more likely to trust you (duh), and therefore they’re more likely to let you do stuff. But if there is no God, what’s the point in shying away from those little things where you won’t get caught? Why not buy into “safe sex”? Why not use contraception? Euthansia? Gay “marriage”?
Maybe change it to “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die, but you probably won’t die tomorrow, so remember to plan ahead so you can be merry tomorrow, too.”

Why not buy into those things? There are all kinds of nasty diseases you can get while you’re being “safe.” And the jails are full of people who thought they wouldn’t get caught. Eventually they became accustomed to getting away with everything, got careless, and then their whole house of lies collapsed right on top of them.

Even if you’re not sure about God, there are plenty of good reasons to live by His laws.

cardenio:

Here’s what I’m thinking: How would Brittney Spears react if you presented this wager to her?

Brittney, let’s see… At 16 she said, I’m pure as snow, no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, and I’ll stay a virgin until my wedding night. At 19, she was hanging out the window of a moving car, totally plastered, waving a lit cigarette and a liquor bottle, making obscene gestures, and shouting that whatever she did was nobody’s business but her own!!! When she sobered up, that’s the line she kept repeating to anyone who had the nerve (imagine that!) to ask her why she’d abandoned her high morals.

My kids and I got comp tickets to one of her concerts. They were very excited. Thank God we were up in the rafters and didn’t get a close-up view of her and her dancers with their simulated bi-sexual sex-act dancing. What we saw even from up there was obscene. And this was in a stadium full of 10-year-olds!!! My kids didn’t listen to much Brittney Spears music after that.

How do I think Brittney would answer? She wouldn’t care. She’s too busy having the kind of self-destructive “fun” that has killed a lot of pop stars at an early age. If she lives long enough she may eventually find a god - probably in scientology - and then she’ll proceed to tell us what hypocrites we all are.

 

[cardenio]

You’re reducing the possibility of happiness to Christianity alone. Yes, you’re more likely to be happy and satisfied with life if you’re Christian but it’s not exclusive. Not all atheists either find God or become evil satanic losers. People can remain atheists their whole life and be good, hardworking people and not bother with God or mass or prayer. It does happen.

Even if you’re not sure about God, there are plenty of good reasons to live by His laws.

Catholicism requires more than following laws.

 

[cardenio]

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

This could have solved it for us, Nan S. At least, it solved it for me.

*The Cost of the Christian Life

Of course, many don’t want to live the Christian life because of the cost—like giving up the pleasures of being a dissolute French gambler.

Pascal anticipates this and has two responses. First, he points out that these costs are nothing compared to what you stand to gain. Even if there is a tiny, finite cost in this life (or even if it costs you this life as a whole), that is still nothing compared to the infinite life of bliss you stand to gain.

Second, Pascal argues that you aren’t really losing anything. Even in this life what you will gain by being a Christian outweighs the self-restraint you must show, leaving you better off even if there were no heaven.

He writes, “Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.”*