Aha! Pascal's Wager

• Episkey wrote on 2012-03-11 06:51
  Hello everyone!~
  I was interested to see the mention of Pascal's Wager in the Tumblr pictures thread. Rather than delve into the subject and derail that thread, I decided to make my own.
  
  To those reading this and have no idea what I'm talking about, don't be alarmed - I'll try my best to explain it. For those who do know what Pascal's Wager is, this might prove to be an interesting read.
  My goal here is to inform on the matter. If everyone can learn something from this thread, then everyone wins.
  
  So, why did I make this thread? It's because I'm not fond of Pascal's Wager myself.
  I don't approve of it's usage, although well-intended it may or may not be.
  
  Since I'm a Christian, that probably might have shocked you a bit. Although, my thoughts on the matter are probably completely different the majority's superficial reasoning.
  Most posts said against Pascal's Wager only seem scratch the surface and reveal an alarming lack of knowledge concerning Christianity. Hmmm ... not good >.<
  
  This post isn't to belittle those who have previously used some variation of Pascal's Wager, but to share my personal analysis on it. Again, I hope everyone can learn something.
  But now that I've somewhat addressed my point, let me explain Pascal's Wager.
  
  Pascal's Wager is named after 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal. Pascal wrote a famous work that was named Pensées (“Thoughts”), which was published in 1670. This is where we find mention of Pascal's Wager.
  
  Here is the excerpt:
  
  

  
  
  1. "God is, or He is not"
     
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
     
  3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
     
  4. You must wager. (It's not optional.)
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) 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. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
     

1. God exists or doesn't exist.
   
2. Therefore, a "game" occurs, like Heads or Tails. There are two outcomes. God exists or God does not exist.
   
3. No matter how strongly you believe in either side, that said belief has no effect on the outcome. The existence of God is not subject to the whims of humanity. Therefore, either option (Heads or Tails) are possible.
   
4. You must make a decision. It's not optional. You either believe in God or do not. There is no middle ground.
   
5. So, let us see where either option leads. If you believe in God and God does exist, then you inherit eternal happiness. If God does not exist, you neither gain or lose anything. However, if you do not believe in God and he does exist you inherit eternal suffering. If God does not exist, you neither gain or lose anything.
   
6. Therefore, wager - without hesitation that God does exist. There is an infinite amount to gain and nothing to lose.
   
   
   To those who prefer a visual diagram of what I just wrote:
   [SPOILER="Spoiler"]
   [Image: http://puu.sh/kf1Q]
   [/SPOILER]
   
   Great! So yeah. What's the problem? Well ... here's something to think about.
   
   Point 1: Pascal's Wager makes the assumption that knowledge of God's existence cannot be proved or disproved - it's a wager. However, this is not the case. Human beings are capable, through reason, of acknowledging the existence of God. It may consist of an incomplete knowledge of God, but it is some knowledge of God nonetheless. Even within the scientific community, there are very few people who can be described as absolute atheists.
   
   Even Richard Dawkins admitted that he can’t be certain that there is no God.
   Therefore, what constitutes a person's spiritual beliefs, is not mere "coin toss/chance" - it's a series of conscious thoughts that arrive to that said conclusion.
   
   Point 2: There is no mention of cost/hardship of belief. Pascal's Wager grants the illusion that all a person needs to do is believe in God and they are fine. However, it's not simply believing in God that get's you to heaven. In Christianity, a person has to accept Jesus as their savior in order to enter heaven. Even then, following Jesus requires/prompts a change in behavior and character. As such, following Jesus brings with it - the hatred of the world (John 15:19)
   
   Pascal's Wager, since it was originally focused on the Christian God, makes no mention of any of this. As such, it reduces a bonafide faith in Christ to mere credulity.
   
   Point 3: As a an apologetic or evangelistic method, it's focused on a risk and reward outlook. According to Pascal's Wager, a person is choosing to believe and obey God on the basis of receiving heaven as a reward.
   Heaven is a wonderful place, however it's not an achievement.
   Heaven is obtained via the change in the heart of a person that's accepted Christ as their savior.
   
   It's the same principle behind brimstone preaching. If you "convert" someone to Christianity based on fear of going to Hell, the moment that fear is gone - so is any belief.
   
   Anyway, I find Pascal's Wager to be an interesting philosophical thought. However, it shouldn't be used as a prime example or a definition for Christianity.