The alarming thought crossed my mind this morning that you, dear reader, woke up today lusting to hear all about Pascal's Wager. No sooner had I thought that than I also thought, "By Golly! I should do something about that!" Hence, I have generously created this thread to satiate your strange and unholy desires. .
As you know, Pascal's Wager is famous -- whole libraries have been written about it. Compared to those libraries, this is a pretty brief OP -- but it might not look like that because it's a bit longer than the average OP on RF. But given how often Pascal's Wager comes up on RF, I thought at least a few people might be interested in studying it in a little more depth
Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist who lived from 1623 to 1662. Pascal had several friends who enjoyed gambling, and some scholars have argued that his invention of the famous Wager was in part inspired by his desire to appeal to his friends. The Wager actually comes in three separate and distinct formulations so it is in fact not one wager, but three.
Having said all that, let's get to the meat of the matter!
Pascal begins by observing that, since God is infinite, we humans are incapable of knowing whether or not He exists...
Pascal then goes on to first insist that it is thus necessary for us to wager whether or not God exists, and then he offers three distinct formulations of his wager...
The Third and final formulation of his wager is the most important for this is the formulation that is most often referred to as "Pascal's Wager"...
Just for kicks, we now turn to Kaufmann's critique of Pascal's Wager...
As you know, Pascal's Wager is famous -- whole libraries have been written about it. Compared to those libraries, this is a pretty brief OP -- but it might not look like that because it's a bit longer than the average OP on RF. But given how often Pascal's Wager comes up on RF, I thought at least a few people might be interested in studying it in a little more depth
Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist who lived from 1623 to 1662. Pascal had several friends who enjoyed gambling, and some scholars have argued that his invention of the famous Wager was in part inspired by his desire to appeal to his friends. The Wager actually comes in three separate and distinct formulations so it is in fact not one wager, but three.
Having said all that, let's get to the meat of the matter!
Pascal begins by observing that, since God is infinite, we humans are incapable of knowing whether or not He exists...
Pensées_Section_233 said: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.
Pascal then goes on to first insist that it is thus necessary for us to wager whether or not God exists, and then he offers three distinct formulations of his wager...
First_Formulation_of_Pascals_Wager said:"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?
>>snip<<
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,[Pg 67] 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.
>>snip<<
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.
Second_Formulation_of_Pascals_Wager said: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.
The Third and final formulation of his wager is the most important for this is the formulation that is most often referred to as "Pascal's Wager"...
Third_Formulation_of_Pascals_Wager said: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. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all…
Just for kicks, we now turn to Kaufmann's critique of Pascal's Wager...
Walter_Kaufmann_Critique_of_Religion_and_Philosophy said:What Pascal overlooked was the hair-raising possibility that God might out-Luther Luther. A special area in hell might be reserved for those who go to mass. Or God might punish those whose faith is prompted by prudence. Perhaps God prefers the abstinent to those who whore around with some denomination he despises. Perhaps he reserves special rewards for those who deny themselves the comfort of belief. Perhaps the intellectual ascetic will win all while those who compromised their intellectual integrity lose everything.
There are many other possibilities. There might be many gods, including one who favors people like Pascal; but the other gods might overpower or outvote him, à la Homer. Nietzsche might well have applied to Pascal his cutting remark about Kant: when he wagered on God, the great mathematician 'became an idiot.'