Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was born in Clermont-Ferrand, France and died in Paris at the age of 39. Pascal made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics and science, including laying the foundation for the modern theory of probabilities and formulating Pascal’s principle of pressure. He also invented an early calculator called the Pascaline. Later he turned his attention to religion and philosophy and wrote masterpieces in the French language on these topics.
In section 233 of his Pensées (or Thoughts) Pascal outlines an intriguing argument for believing in God (or at least living as if God exists). We can outline it as follows:
Either God exists or s/he/it doesn't.
You have make a bet as to whether God exists or not - it's not optional.
There are then four possible outcomes:
If God exists and you have bet correctly, then you get eternal life in heaven.
If God exists and you have bet incorrectly, then you get eternal life in hell.
If God doesn't exist and you have bet correctly, then you have saved yourself a bit of time.
If God doesn't exist and you have bet incorrectly, then you have wasted a bit of time.
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....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? 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.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.
Pascal, Pensées, Section 233We can visualise Pascal's Wager as a payoff matrix:
What do you think Pascal was trying to show?
Pascal was not trying to convince Atheists to believe in God, but he was trying to show that it was logically fallacious to attempt to use logical arguments to prove or disprove God.
He was also trying to persuade atheists to lead a sinless life. Pascal believed that this was the way to attain faith. He thought that the reason people ultimately did not believe in God was because their thoughts were corrupted by their passions: 'it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks'.
Do you think his 'wager' argument would help persuade people to live a 'sinless' life?
Explain Pascal’s Wager.
Explain at least one objection to it.
What do you think of his argument? Evaluate it and explain your answer.