Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Argument

Blaise Pascal would argue that we are incapable of knowing whether or not God exists. However, he goes on to say that we have to "bet" or "wager" one way or another. He came to the conclusion of the consequences of each type of approach to the God question using logical reasoning. Kieth Augustine a modern author and philosopher explains the argument 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)."

The following is Pascal's Strictly logical reasoning to prove that you should believe in God:
  1. Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:
      God exists God does not exist
    Wager for God ∞ f1
    Wager against God f2 f3
  2. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.
  3. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).
  4. Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
  5. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

So if we were to make the best bet then we would choose to believe in God. We have nothing to lose anyway, so we might as well take that chance that God actually exists. Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal said that refusal or failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no possible payoff.

Historical Sorces.

The main source from which philosophers contrive "Pascal's Wager" is from Blaise Pascal's Pensees.

Personal Evaluation.

Personally I can agree with Pascal's Wager on a logical level. Following his reasoning, it makes a lot of sense. However, I do not believe that the solution to such a deeply spiritual question can be attained by logic, nor do I believe that a person can make a simple choice to believe in God for the sake of possible salvation, nor do I believe that we should believe in God in order to be saved; we should believe in God because God has been revealed to us and we know that God exists. First of all it is not just saying that we believe in God that will get us in to heaven; I believe that It takes a good person (Loving, Religious, and Committed to doing Justice) to get into heaven, but who am I to say? It is impossible for any of us to know who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, to know God's will. So because of this, we cannot know that simply stating a belief in God will bring us to heaven. Also real Faith in God cannot be attained by just "placing a bet" that God exists. We have to know it deep inside of ourselves.

Sorces.

Pascal's Wager(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Atheist's wager

Is it safer to believe in God even if there is no proof that one exists?

Essay by Peter Kreeft

BACK 1