blaise pascal - the wager Flashcards
why does pascal offer his reasons for believing in god rather than one of the traditional theistic arguments
-we cannot know, and certainly we cannot prove, the existence of God, as well as God’s nature, since God is not the kind of being that our understanding can grasp.
“We know the existence and nature of the finite, because we are also finite and have extension…We know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because he has neither extension nor limits.”
So, how can we approach God? Through faith.
Why does Pascal believe that God’s existence cannot be proven, or God’s nature be known
-By faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature .”
based on this incomprehensibility of God, and God’s lack of any affinity to us and our intellect, some have claimed that believing in God is an act of foolishness.
Pascal disagrees.
He believes that there are some very good practical reasons that would convince one that it is in one’s interest to believe in God
what is pascals recommendation to the athiest who wants to try to get himself to believe
-Pascal proposes to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of believing in God.
what is pascals argument for believing in god?
-One important thing to keep in mind: Choosing to believe in God or not is too important a decision for us to avoid.
It is a decision that we all have to make. In Pascal’s words: “It is not optional. You are embarked.
- Moreover, according to Pascal, it is not unreasonable to take sides in believing whether God exists of not, even if we know nothing about God.
- As a matter of fact, we often make decisions based on things we do not know.
- This is the case in betting.
•
Using the language of gambling, Pascal proposes a wager on which our faith to God should be based.
• There are two ways of betting, and two possible states of affairs.
• In total, they combine for four possible outcomes.
• Ways of betting: I can either believe that God exists, or believe that God does not exist.
• States of affairs: Either God exists or God does not exist.
• Keep in mind: reason cannot tell us anything about whether God exists or not, so the probability of God existing is unknown.
“Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose.”
must of necessity choose.”
• So, what is the determining factor? Our happiness!
• How is this supposed to work?
• Pascal suggests that we try to calculate the utility or happiness that we may derive in different states of affairs if we decide to either believe or not believe in God.
God exists God does not exist
Wager for god Gain all Minor loss
Wager against god Infinite misery Minor gain
- In case God does not exist, but we believe that he does, we have a (finite and limited) loss of happiness.
- For example, we do things that we have no reason to do, such as going to church, praying, etc.,
- We also suffer the inconvenience of getting our hopes up for nothing.
- Conversely, there is a finite gain in case we are non-believers and God does in fact not exist.
- But, in the case where God does in fact exist, the difference between believing in God and not doing so is huge.
- In fact, it is infinite, according to Pascal, since by believing we gain an infinite afterlife of happiness (heaven), and by non-believing we get an infinity of misery (hell).
• So, Pascal concludes, we should all believe in God, since the benefits of doing so far outweigh the costs.
what are some possible objections to pascals argument
- A possible problem: All this sounds good, but how can I will myself to believe? And is believing enough to ensure my salvation?
- Pascal’s answer: Just do what everyone else does, and soon enough all your skepticism will go away, and you will be as much a believer as everybody else.
- After all, most people believe in God and religion because they are brought up this way.
• “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 is this enough for salvation? Will God buy this?
- Well, the Catholic Church seems to think so, and they must know something, surely more than Pascal.
- Another question: How about what I may lose by being a believer, in case there is no God? Surely it is not the case that I lose nothing.
- Pascal’s answer: There might be some things that living a believer’s life requires one to abandon, but they are not important, when compared with the gains of the afterlife.
- And, as a matter of fact, we would be better people if we acted as the Church asks us to.
• In Pascal’s reassuring words: “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?”
Some objections to Pascal’s argument:
• 1) Pascal assigns to God’s existence a probability other than zero. But how does he know that? What if this probability is zero? Isn’t Pascal’s argument invalid in this case?
• 2) What makes Pascal think that God will reward him for believing, and participating in religious life, if God is omniscient and knows that the only reason Pascal is a believer is for his personal gain? Is this a good reason to believe in any case?
- 3) As a matter of fact, what makes Pascal believe that God rewards believers anyway? (Maybe God rewards people who listen to their reason, and who are honest and not always calculating their profit.)
- 4) Couldn’t the same argument be used in favor of any religion (Islam, Hinduism, the Olympian Gods) and not Catholicism, as Pascal proclaims? In that case, are we not still at a loss regarding which religious beliefs we should adopt?
- 5) Can’t the wager be abused to promote actions that one should normally avoid (and Pascal would definitely avoid)?
- For example, what if I proclaim that by committing suicide (or mass murder, for that matter), one will gain a life of endless bliss, while on the other hand one is condemned to eternal damnation?
- Compared to eternal bliss, the loss of our life (or the life of some others) seems insignificant.
- Should we choose suicide/murder as Pascal would seem to suggest?
