Pascal’s Wager
March 21, 2007
Pascal’s Wager
By believing, you gain all; by not believing, you lose all. Is the choice really that clear?
Let us now speak according to natural lights…Let us then examine this point, and say, “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. This is one point settled. But your happiness? 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. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Pascal’s wager appears pretty straightforward, and logical, it suggests 4 possible outcomes:
- God Exists and you believe - Eternal Bliss
- God Exists and you and you don’t believe -Eternal Damnation
- God Doesn’t exist and you believe - Nothing happens
- God Doesn’t exist and you don’t believe - Nothing happens
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Or does it? Let’s really think about it.
First off, the premise that you have nothing to lose is fatally flawed.
Any religion imposes (what I would consider) an arbitrary set of rules, and following those rules removes the individual’s ability to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong. Basically, the follower lets a priest, pastor, imam, or rabbi decide for him what is right and what is wrong, ostensibly with the understanding that the clergyman is somehow recieving that information from a divine source. Most of the time, there’s no problem with that, but when you get on the fundamentalist fringes, the results can be disasterous. Somehow, “peaceful” religions are used to justify killing doctors who perform abortions, crashing airplanes into buildings, or blowing up buses and markets.
For the mainstream follower, hoever, you still have a lifetime of rituals and dogma to wade through. How much is a lifetime of Sunday mornings really worth? What sacrifices do you make for god? Do you tithe? Do you do things you’d rather not do and justify it by thinking about eternal paradise?
The cost of believing is not zero. Still, considering the possible reward for that belief and the possible punishment for lack of belief, the price of belief seems a rather small figure. It still looks like it’s worth it.
Second, Pascal’s wager breaks down when we realize there are multiple possible methods of belief.
Let’s face facts: There are a ton of theistic religions out there, and they all have a couple things in common: They have a path to get to their version of Heaven; they claim that all other paths are false and will ultimately end in some version of hell.
If we consider only three faiths, say Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, the possibility of getting to some form of heaven is 3 in 16, the possibility of going to some form of hell is 9 in 16, and the possibility of nothing happening is 4 in 16.
This is assuming, of course, only top 3 major religious distinctions, and that all members of the correct major religion are admitted. What of the various sects, though? Jack Chick would have you believe that Catholics are going to hell, does the particular sect matter?
Let’s say that there are a total of 29 sects among the major religions and each of them is incompatible.With the possibility for Atheism, there are a theoretical 900 possible solutions, you’ve got 29 chances in 900 (approximately 1 in 31, ~3.2%) of guessing the correct solution, 30 in 900 (1 in 30, or ~3.3%) that nothing will happen because there is no god, and an amazing 841 in 900 (~1 in 1.07, or ~93%) chance of burning in hell. Let me repeat that: According to Pascal’s wager and assuming only 29 sects, there is a greater than 93% chance that you are going to burn in hell.
Pascal’s Wager is a Sucker’s Bet.
(My focuse here has been on Christianity and Theistic religions that include a concept of both heaven and hell. Outside those religions, Pascal’s Wager doesn’t make much sense.)
Comments
6 Responses to “Pascal’s Wager”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
Excellent post once again, rival. Something quite similar was written here, at a friend’s site.
Rival,
You fail to see the obvious. Pascal didn’t even mention religion. All he said was “Wager then, without hesitation, that He is.”. He didn’t say “Wager that the (insert religion here) is the one true way to god. I don’t understand why it is so difficult for some people to understand the difference between god and religion. God is considered to be a type of entity. Religion is an organization. Why can’t I believe in a creator without submitting to a religion?
AlmightyStolis: Generally, Pascal’s Wager is used by Christians as a method to instill doubt. Personally, I have never come in contact with someone from a different faith using Pascal’s Wager. I believe that this is the reason for the post, but I will let Rival expound on the matter.
Stolis,
Pascal’s wager is nothing more than an expansion of the carrot-and-stick approach of psychological manipulation. No, Pascal made no mention of Religion, he merely made an assertation regarding the assumed nature of God - that He would reward believers and condemn non-believers.
The article was intended to discredit Pascal’s Wager as a legitimate tool in determining whether or not to believe. Pascal’s wager suggests that EVERYONE who believes in god will win, and the major religions disagree with that idea (which, incidentally, is why they are the major religions - but I’ll cover that later, I’m sure)
So, to answer your question, believe what you want, but don’t let Pascal’s Wager influence your decision.
[...] are you pandering to (or giving in to) when asking me (or being asked) to contemplate a contorted Pascal’s Wager? One of the most base, primal emotions: fear. To simply accept anything based on fear is ridiculous. [...]
[...] have been asked Pascal’s Wager so many times in my life that I no longer want to dignify it with an answer. So, for now, I would [...]