FOX43tv.com

Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician, made contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, helped create the studies of projective geometry and probability theory, and strongly influenced the development of modern economics and social science. His namesake is also shared by a programming language and a unit of measurement.

Then he had a "mystical experience" and he abandoned his scientific work and devoted himself to philosophy and theology. It was during this time that he formulated "the Wager";

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."

Based on a probabilistic argument, it goes something like this:

If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.

If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.

If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.

If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.

Mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. Therefore, he concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.

There are many problems with this statement. One, which does not constitute a logical fallacy in its own right, is the fact that there are an infinite number of hypothetical gods. If there was no possibility of more than one god's existence, the statement would make logical sense, however, there is no evidence that the Christian god is more real than any of the Hindu gods or even the Orbiting Tea Pot. Even in the limited world-view of Christian monotheism, various individual Christian sects disagree with one another about what is necessary for salvation.

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil.

The argument against Pascal's wager is as such:

If you belive in a single God, you will have to choose one out of infinite possible varieties.

If any percent of the possible gods will punish you eternally, then there is an infinite number of gods who, if they exist, would punish you for eternity.

If there is only one god, then your chance of worshipping it, and not a nonexistent entity instead, is one out of infinity.

Therefore your chance of picking the correct "One True God" is very close to zero.

So if a god does exist, the chance of you going to any variety of heaven is infinitesimal, regardless of whether you are religious or not.

Believe or not the choices are yours, but leave the wagering in the casinos.

StephentheHeathen's Blog

Pascal's Wager

StephentheHeathen

Write your comment below: Email me when a new comment is added to this entry

Username:
Password:
forgot password \| sign up