Blaise Pascal: The Wager
Join now to read essay Blaise Pascal: The Wager
Blaise Pascal: The Wager
The Wager is not easy to understand and has been dismissed by logicians. Pascal’s pages contain three distinct arguments each of which is valid. Each has the form of a decision-theoretic argument. Decision theory is the theory of deciding what to do when it is uncertain what will happen. Given an exhaustive list of possible hypotheses about the way the world is, the observation or the experimental data relevant to these hypotheses, together with an inventory of possible decisions, and the various utilities of making these decisions in various possible states of the world: determine the best decision.
What is interesting about the religious writings of Blaise Pascal is the manner in which they show the deep combination in his personality of both the skepticism of the scientist and the faith of the religious convert.
Pascal is often compared to the Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard in terms of his belief in the need for existential religious commitment rather than a faith based on reason alone. Pascal’s �Wager’ was formulated in his Pensees, a classical text of devotional literature in which the author argues that we are incapable of finally knowing whether or not God exists. Nevertheless, even if the metaphysical argument fails, we can still ask if it is better to believe in God than not to do so. This remains a legitimate question.
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.
Pascal’s arguments run as follows:
Argument from Superdominance: According to this argument, if some acts dominate all others, the solution to our decision problem is to perform a dominating act. Therefore:
If God exists, then it is clearly sensible to worship him, since the prospect of eternal life in Heaven (for believers) is preferable to damnation in Hell (for non-believers).
Argument from Expectation: An argument from expectation concludes with the advice: Perform an act with the highest expectation.
If, on the other hand, God does not exist we have lost nothing by living a life based on our religious faith, and may even have gained in terms of the quality of our moral and spiritual self-development. And hence, wagering for God is the best and most prudent act.
Argument from Dominating Expectation: This argument concludes