1st Argument

There are three main arguments in Pascal’s wager show what are the justifications for having a belief in God and all of them come to a conclusion that it is rational for you to wager for God. The core of Pascal's Wager argument lies in decision theory. The assumption is that one does not know whether God exists.

The first argument is the Argument from dominance. It is the decision under uncertainty since there is no enough evidence to decide whether God exist or not. The choice between accepting and rejecting the existence of God that is a choice under uncertainty and it is a gamble. It is unavailing : "Reason cannot make you choose either; reason cannot prove either wrong."

The first argument is that Pascal’s wager are a sub-species of pragmatic arguments. A pragmatic argument is any argument which has premise which are prudentially directed rather then truth directed. Pascal’s wager is concerned primarily with the rationality of theistic belief. But Pascal’s wagers are pragmatic arguments which have the structure of gambles. A decision made in the midst of uncertainty.

You can either wager for God or wager against God and either God exist or God does not exist. The decision matrix can help you to decide the choice.

There are four possible outcomes (gain or loss) to the gambler.

If God REALLY exists, and we believe (= bet that God exists), we have an infinite gain (heaven).
If God REALLY exists, and we don't believe that, then we have the potential of an infinite loss (hell, or at least eternal separation from God).
If God really does NOT EXIST, and we believe that God exists, we essentially lose nothing.
If God really does NOT EXIST, and we believe that God doesn't exist, we essentially gain nothing.

The decision matrix is as the following.

	God exists	God does not exist
Bet on God’s existence	Eternal life	Status quo
Bet against God’s existence	Eternal punishment	Status quo

Pascal's wager had to weigh the two alternatives open to him. Either to believe in God with the risk that he did not exist or not to believe in God risking to be condemned for eternity.

If God exists, you believe in God or the bet on God’s existence will enjoy eternal life and happiness. There is everything to gain included the rewards of Heaven and an eternal afterlife while the bet against God’s existence will suffer eternal damnation and hellfire as you go to Hell.

If there is no God, whether you bet on God’s existence or not, there is no afterlife. If God does not exist then the bet on God’s existence will enjoy finite happiness before they die and end up with nothing like all other players. The bet against God’s existence will enjoy finite happiness as well. But the happiness you gained is not so much the bet on God’s existence because you will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. A believer will be in a better position to understand his misery and know that being courageous through these trials will enable him to appreciate the great gains later.

Not matter whether God exists or not, the eternal life that is an infinite reward. It is the best outcome that associates with the bet on God exists. It shows that the best bet is to believe that God exists independent of the probability. The case that bet on God exist is dominant than the other three cases and hence the most rational belief is belief in God.

Pascal came up with the different wager as an attempt to decide whether or not we should believe based on the possible outcomes for the afterlife. Even though God's existence is in question, acting as if God exists produces a better outcome.

If the choice stood on this basis, its resolution would be very straight-forward:

If you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

The first step is a dominance argument. The second, by taking account of costs, shifts the issue form one of straightforward dominance to one of preponderant expectations. At this stage Pascal’s argument is effectively complete. The succeeding part of the discussion simply tries to show that this line of reasoning does indeed conform to the standard principles of probabilistic decision under conditions of uncertainty: the wager is simply an instance of the general strategy of probabilistic decision.

Pascal appears to be aware of a further objection to this argument, for he immediately imagines an opponent replying:

"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much."

The thought seems to be that if I wager for God, and God does not exist, then I really do lose something. In fact, Pascal himself speaks of staking something when one wagers for God, which presumably one loses if God does not exist. (We have already mentioned ‘the true’ as one such thing; Pascal also seems to regard one’s worldly life as another.) In other words, the matrix is mistaken in presenting the two outcomes under ‘God does not exist’ as if they were the same, and we do not have a case of dominance after all.

Pascal addresses this at once in his second argument, which we will discuss only briefly, as it can be thought of as just a prelude to the main argument.

2nd argument: Argument from Expectation

Reference:

1.http://plato.Stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager

2. N.Warburton, Philosophy: the basics,( London, Routledge,1999).P31-33

3.R.Nicholas,Pascal’s Wager: A study of practical reasoning in philosophical theology, ( Notre Dame,University of Notre Dame Press,1985)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws