Background
Probability Theory
Pascal's Triangle & Probability
Application of Probability Theory
Pascal's wager
Objections
Homework
Joyce Lam Nga Ching
2001714828
Phil1007
12-4-2002
27-4-2002
The
Alternative Formulation
Realising these potential objections, Pascal went on to give an alternative formulation. This time, he made the claim that heaven is infinitely better than hell. This claim can be justified either by claiming that heaven is an infinitely good result, or that hell is an infinitely bad result, or both. This time the matrix is as follows :
|
|
God exists |
God does not exist |
|
Wager for God |
Heaven |
Small downside |
|
Wager against God |
Hell |
Small upside |
Again, not everyone is happy with this second formulation. Finitists - those with the belief that the infinite does not occur in this universe - argue that an infinite reward is not possible. Others argue that even if Heaven is indeed infinitely good, or Hell infinitely bad, a finite human being can only experience a finite reward. Again, second assumption worries.
The other, more subtle, problem with this formulation occurs if the claim is that Heaven is infinitely good, while Hell is merely finitely bad. Clearly, the net reward for wagering for God is then infinitely good, while the net reward for wagering against him is finite. Now, suppose you choose to make the decision by flipping a coin, the net reward for this decision is also infinitely good. In fact, provided you ensure that there is any chance that you will believe in God in the future, your net reward will be infinite. Universal salvation, indeed!
On a similar note, if Heaven is infinitely good, and Hell is infinitely bad, then the net reward if you make the decision by flipping a coin is infinity minus infinity, which is undefined. The same thing occurs if there is any chance that you will end up believing, and any chance that you will end up not, which makes the fate of most real people effectively unknowable.
There are even those that claim that both Heaven and Hell would be infinitely bad, because both last for an eternity, and as such would eventually become excruciatingly boring. 'Oh no, not another day glorying in the everlasting majesty of the father.' Christians in general tend to claim that glorying in the everlasting majesty of the father would never become boring, which either shows their greater spirituality, or that they have no sense of adventure, depending upon which way you look at it.
The last problem of this type that has been raised is one that some people find offensive - the claim that God, as presented to them, is an immoral being, so if he did exist, they would not wish to support him. Whether these people have really understood the concept of God is, perhaps, somewhat doubtful, but their objection does make sense from their own point of view. If they knew that God existed they would morally have to become a devil-worshipper, and hence the pay-off for believing in God if he existed would also be Hell. Because of this, the Wager has completely the opposite effect for them.
Reference: