Gambling on God

In the late 17th century the development of natural theology and empirical science fostered the idea of the uncertainty of all human knowledge (the imperfections of sense experience were clearly an important limitation on the reliability of observations and experiments, as Bacon had announced). To save human belief from total skepticism without having to revert to the dogmatic deductive certainty of the medieval scholastics, certain thinkers (including Robert Boyle) developed the concept of inferior degrees of physical and moral certainty.In this new definition of rationality, the proof of a hypothesis did not have to have the full rigour of a mathematical proof.The best known example of this newly qualified reasonable belief is Pascal's Wager .

Pascal had studied many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God but did not find the arguments persuasive. Living in a time when gambling was en vogue, Pascal attempted to formulate an argument, based on chance, that would impel the reader to believe in God. Pascal's wager provides Practical Reason in philosophical theology.

Since we do not know whether or not God exists, we are in much the same position as a gamble before a race has been run or a card turned. The Pascal’s wager argument is also known as Gambler’s Argument, it is an argument for believing in the existence of God but not an argument for the existence of God. Pascal introduced a wager betting on the existence of God.. As in all bets, if we wager properly, then we stand to gain. If we wager improperly (or lose the bet), then we stand to suffer a loss. So we must then calculate the odds so as to maximise our possible winnings, and minimise our possible losses. According to Pascal's wager, the best way to do this is to believe in God.

Pascal's analysis here translated the decision to accept or reject Christianity into the language of decisions about business or games of chance (i.e., into probabilistic language). Since all human knowledge was in principle imperfect and since one had to act on the basis of inadequate knowledge, the rational thing to do was to maximize one's expectations in such a potentially hazardous circumstance.

Pascal’s wager was a revolutionary apologetic device. The wager is not an argument for the claim that God exists. That sort of argument, the appeal to evidence, whether empirical or conceptual is the domain of the cosmological, the ontological, or one of the other theistic arguments. Pascal’s wager is an argument for the claim that a belief in god is pragmatically rational, that inculcating a belief in God is the response dictated by prudence. Pascal’s concern is not with the truth of theistic belief so much as it is with the rationality of belief. Pascal’s pragmatic turn though forshadowed in certain early writers, was an attempt to argue that theistic belief, in particular Christian belief, was the only proper attitude to adopt when faced with the question of the existence of God. Because reason cannot determine the answer, it must yield the field to prudence, which, if the wager succeeds, wins the day for Christian belief.

When reason cannot answer, a sensible person can say that he or she will not play the game. But in our case, by the mere fact of living, we are engaged in play. God would not offer salvation to those who refused to commit themselves to his existence, either one betted on God’s existence or one betted against it: “you must wager. It is not voluntary, you are already committed.” All of us need to make a decision whether we believe in God. We have no option and we must play the bet.

Assumptions:

Now, of course, there are a number of assumptions which are required by this argument. It is immediately apparent that, in order to reach the conclusion that one ought to bet on God, one needs to defend the following claims:

1. It is reasonable to suppose that the value of a bet on God, in the case in which God exists, is .
2. It is reasonable to assign a finite value to p (i.e. to the probability that God exists).
3. It is reasonable to suppose that there are only two options between which one is to choose, viz: (i) a universe which includes the traditional Christian God; and (ii) a universe without deities (or transcendent beings) of any sort.
4. It is reasonable always to act so as to maximise expected utility.
5. It is reasonable to suppose that there are no theoretical considerations which can decide the question whether God exists.

I am going to explain Pascal’s wager argument in three parts:

The Three Main Arguments, The Objections and The theory applied in Pascal's wager.

Go to Pascal's Wager

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