This is our higher education system

at Freethinker, but, here you go!

Pascal's Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal's Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.

We will begin with some brief stage-setting: some historical background, some of the basics of decision theory, and some of the exegetical problems that the Pensées pose. Then we will follow the text to extract three main arguments. The bulk of the literature addresses the third of these arguments, as will the bulk of our discussion here. Some of the more technical and scholarly aspects of our discussion will be relegated to lengthy footnotes, to which there are links for the interested reader. All quotations are from §233 of Pensées (1910, Trotter translation), the ‘thought’ whose heading is “Infinite—nothing”.

 

It is important to contrast Pascal's argument with various putative ‘proofs’ of the existence of God that had come before it. Anselm's ontological argument, Aquinas' ‘five ways’, Descartes' ontological and cosmological arguments, and so on, purport to give a priori demonstrations that God exists. Pascal is apparently unimpressed by such attempted justifications of theism: “Endeavour ... to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God...” Indeed, he concedes that “we do not know if He is ...”. Pascal's project, then, is radically different: he seeks to provide prudential reasons for believing in God. To put it crudely, we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet. Ryan 1994 finds precursors to this line of reasoning in the writings of Plato, Arnobius, Lactantius, and others; we might add Ghazali to his list — see Palacios 1920. But what is distinctive is Pascal's explicitly decision theoretic formulation of the reasoning. In fact, Hacking 1975 describes the Wager as “the first well-understood contribution to decision theory” (viii). Thus, we should pause briefly to review some of the basics of that theory.

In any decision problem, the way the world is, and what an agent does, together determine an outcome for the agent. We may assign utilities to such outcomes, numbers that represent the degree to which the agent values them. It is typical to present these numbers in a decision matrix, with the columns corresponding to the various relevant states of the world, and the rows corresponding to the various possible actions that the agent can perform.

 

In decisions under uncertainty, nothing more is given — in particular, the agent does not assign subjective probabilities to the states of the world. Still, sometimes rationality dictates a unique decision nonetheless. Consider, for example, a case that will be particularly relevant here. Suppose that you have two possible actions, A1 and A2, and the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, A1's outcome is strictly better than A2's. Let us say in that case that A1 superdominates A2. Then rationality surely requires you to perform A1.

In decisions under risk, the agent assigns subjective probabilities to the various states of the world. Assume that the states of the world are independent of what the agent does. A figure of merit called the expected utility, or the expectation of a given action can be calculated by a simple formula: for each state, multiply the utility that the action produces in that state by the state's probability; then, add these numbers. According to decision theory, rationality requires you to perform the action of maximum expected utility (if there is one).

 

Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage:

“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... 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... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

 

You did not make NANO-Thermite back then.

NANO-Thermite (only developed by several companies throughout the world) is the kind that could be MIXED into a spray on fireproof coating.....similar to the contracts to re-coat all the main steel columns throughout the WTC buildings prior to 9/11. :eek:

 

it doesnt take much of a deep thinker to see problems with this argument. a child should be able to reason his way through this argument.

if we are incapable of knowing whether god exists we are also incapable of knowing which of the thousands of gods throughout history exist. what if the real god hates people who worship the christian god?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html

 

Okay, maybe you got molested or something when you were young.

What part of "wager" do you not understand?

You are an angry person FT. Frankly it is a waste of time. Whatever happened to you in your youth, let it go and go out and enjoy the weather the next time it is good in your area........

 

i dont get angry. but at my age i dont feel the need to waste a lot of time on foolish notions or people. you think unbelievers who are former believers havent thought about pascals wager?
you forgot to answer the question. what if your wager has you playing up to the wrong god and that pisses off the correct god?


"There is something feeble and a little contemptable about a man who cannot
face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost
inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes
them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought!
Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real,
he becomes furious when they are disputed."
[Bertrand Russell, "Human Society in Ethics and Politics"]

 

Nice answer, I will continue. If I am bested, so be it.

You propose then that there is more than one god?

I submit that there is one God who humanity in it's diversity has found different expressions of. I have read all the holy books I can get my hands on. A point came when I realized the inherent similarities amongst them.

I do not worry about pissing off the wrong God. I am reasonably convinced that God has exposed Itself to us in the way that each people was able to best comprehend.

Dogmatic Christians will not agree, neither will Muslims. Mohandas Ghandi has the ideal that whatever or however you choose to praise your God is not an issue to me, I am concerned about the welfare of my brother.

No one can dispute this, no matter what they call themselves. We are all our brothers keepers.