Explain
Pascal’s “Wager.” (Kenny, 238 ff.)
1.
Pascal
is a skeptic concerning the powers of human reason.
Pascal had a low view of the powers of human nature
(reasoning).
“Pascal was skeptical of the value of philosophy,
especially in relation to the knowledge of God. ‘We do not think that the whole
of philosophy is worth an hour’s labor’, he once wrote.” (238)
At best philosophical reasoning can prove the existence
of the “god of the philosophers,” but not “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.”
2. Pascal
said there is a “reasoning from the heart.”
Pascal is contrasting intuitive knowledge with deductive
knowledge. “It is the heart, he tells us, which teaches us the foundations of
geometry.” (239)
“The heart has its reasons of which reason knows
nothing.”
As
Pascal sees it, it is reasonable to acknowledge limits to
reason. “Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite
number of things which are beyond it”
Pascal had a transforming mystical experience in 1654.
"The
year of grace 1654, Monday, 23 November, day of St. Clement, Pope and Martyr.
From about half-past ten in the evening until about half-past twelve, FIRE. God
of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers nor of the
Wise. Assurance, joy, assurance, feeling, joy, peace...Just Father, the world
has not known thee but I have known thee. Joy, joy, joy, tears of joy."
(Found sewn into the lining of Pascal’s coat.)
Pascal argued that belief
in God cannot be defended by means of the usual apologetic arguments. The very
nature of what is believed in - namely, an “infinitely incomprehensible” being
– leaves these arguments necessarily inadequate.
3.
Pascal’s
Wager.
Pascal was one of the founders of “game theory” (theory
of probability).
Pascal uses probability theory to show this (game
theory).
“Either God exists or not. Which side shall we
take? Reason can determine nothing here. An infinite abyss separates us; and across this infinite abyss a game is
played, which will turn out heads or tails. What will you bet?” (Quoting
Pascal, 239)
Pascal thought that
reason is neutral with respect to the question of whether or not God exists.
Pascal thought
agnosticism was not a rational possibility.
Because not choosing to believe is equivalent
to choosing not to believe. If you do not choose for God,
you in effect choose against God.
On what basis, then, should one decide?
The solution, Pascal
argues, is to weigh the potential rewards of believing in God against the
potential rewards of failing to believe in God—i.e., to conduct a cost-benefit
analysis of the relative merits of “wagering” for or against God's existence.
The options, as Pascal construes them, can be outlined in the form of a table:
|
God exists
|
God does not
exist.
|
|
|
Believe
|
Infinite Gain
|
No (or
Finite) Loss/Finite Gain
|
|
Disbelieve
|
Infinite Loss
|
Finite Gain
|
Of course, in the case
of God, it is hard to determine what the chances of a successful outcome might
be: we cannot justifiably assume, for example, that the likelihood of God
existing is equal to the likelihood of God not existing.
But that is okay, Pascal
argues, because the payoff if God exists is an infinite payoff.
Thus, the potential
for infinite gain makes it rational to bet that God exists, however slim the
actual chances of this might be: as long as one is willing to grant that there
is “one chance of winning against a finite number of chances of losing,” it is
a better deal to bet on God.