Download Pascal`s Wager

Make a Wager:
Does God Exist?
Pragmatic Justification of
Religious Belief
Blaise Pascal’s Argument:

If we do a cost-benefit analysis of the
matter, we find that it is eminently
reasonable to get ourselves to believe that
God exists regardless of whether we have
good evidence for that belief.
Blaise Pascal

Regarding the proposition “God exists”
reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor
disprove it. But we must make a choice
on this matter, for not to choose for God is
in effect to choose against him and lose
the possible benefits that belief would
bring. Since these benefits promise to be
infinite and the loss equally infinite, we
might set forth the possibilities as shown
below:
Blaise Pascal: A Choice:
FIRST CHOICE:
“I believe that God exists”:
A. If God does exists, then there is an infinite gain
with minimal finite loss.
B. If God does not actually exist, then there is only
an overall finite loss in term of sacrifice of earthly
goods.
OR:
Blaise Pascal: A Choice:
SECOND CHOICE:
“I do not believe that God exists”:
C. If God does in fact exists, then there is infinite
loss with finite gain.
D. If God does not actually exists, then there is
overall finite gain.
Blaise Pascal: A Choice:
There is some sacrifice of earthly pleasure
involved in belief in God, but by multiplying the
various combinations we find that there is an
incommensurability between A and C, on the
one hand, and B and D on the other.
No matter how enormous the finite gain, the
mere possibility of infinite gain will always
make the latter preferable to the former.
Blaise Pascal: A Choice:
So, the only relevant possibilities are A and C.
Since A (believing in God) infinite unhappiness,
a rational cost-benefit analysis leaves no doubt
about what we should do. Thus, we have a
clear self-interested reason for believing in God.

Appeals to your intellect regarding the wisdom of
choices (making a judgment in view of the options
or/and consequences):
You will experience an infinite loss if God does in
fact exists then if He doesn’t exist-if you refuse to
believe.
You will experience an infinite gain if God does
exists and experience only a finite loss –if you
willfully believe.

This argument appeals to the will regarding the
intellect’s judgment. In view of these type of
probabilities there is a rational tendency to believe.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPEAL BY PASCAL:
“Now what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will
be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere
friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous
pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I
will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at
each step you take on this road, you will see so great
certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that
you will at least recognize that you have wagered for
something certain and infinite, for which you have given
nothing”
[Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Louis P. Pojman
(Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth, 2003), 363].

Lastly, consider…what if we were to add classical
proofs for God’s argument to this probability argument
formulating a cumulative case for God’s existence.
Would the probability in favor of God’s existence
increase?








Cosmological Argument;
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
Moral Argument;
Religious Need Argument;
Innate Idea Argument;
Joy Argument;
Ontological Argument
Teleological argument:


Intelligent Design.
Anthropic Principle (fine tuning of the universe).
Discussion Questions:







How much evidence does one need to have in
order to believe?
Are their weaknesses in Pascal’s argument in terms
of probability?
Can I even choose to believe?
Would God reward me if I did choose to believe for
the reasons Pascal gives for reasons for selfinterest?
Is their a difference in believing “that” from “in”?
Does this wager presuppose “fear”?
Is this argument an exercise in “bad faith”?