Pascal’s wager does it make any sense?

If Pascal’s wager does make sense then what God do you bet on?

So let’s start by defining Pascal’s wager.

According to wikipedia Pascal’s Wager

is an argument in philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623 — 62). It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal’s Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal’s posthumously published Pensées (“Thoughts”). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

To gamble or not to gamble

According to standard decision theory you should do the thing with the highest probability to the desired outcome. So how do we design the probability that one God exists or should be chosen over another? So if there are multiple gods which one has the highest payoff? So if we construct a decision theory which God gives you a better infinity and a higher place in heaven? What is the probability to assign that the entire Christian God is mythology or an outright scam.

logic behind the Wager

The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

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. (…) 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.

But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.

Pascal asks the reader to analyze humankind’s position, where our actions can be enormously consequential but our understanding of those consequences is flawed. While we can discern a great deal through reason, we are ultimately forced to gamble. Pascal cites a number of distinct areas of uncertainty in human life:

Category

Quotation(s)

Uncertainty in all

This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet.[5]

Uncertainty in Man’s purpose

For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either.[6]

Uncertainty in reason

There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason.[7]

Uncertainty in science

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.[8]

Uncertainty in religion

If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a god sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity.[5]

We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others.[9]

Uncertainty in skepticism

It is not certain that everything is uncertain.[10]

Pascal describes humanity as a finite being trapped within an incomprehensible infinity, briefly thrust into being from non-being, with no explanation of “Why?” or “What?” or “How?” On Pascal’s view, human finitude constrains our ability to reliably achieve truth.

Given that reason alone cannot determine whether God exists, Pascal concludes that this question functions like a coin toss. However, even if we do not know the outcome of this coin toss, we must base our actions on some expectation about the outcome. We must decide whether to live as though God exists, or whether to live as though God does not exist, even though we may be mistaken in either case.

So what does all this really mean?

It seems awful strange that the actions of many so called believers do not follow their stated Religious beliefs, while the actions of many self proclaimed atheists are actually acting in the service of man kind and the greater good. In reality no critical thinker is 100 percent sure either way by pure definition making them agnostic.

There is some evidence of Spinoza’s God which is the topic for another article!

Let us know what you think in the comments!

The author is open for arguments on all view points!