Pascal's Wager

__________________________________________________________________________

"Wager, then, without hesitation that He is". Outline an argument that may have led Pascal to this conclusion and critically consider one objection to it.

___________________________________________________________________________

There are many perspectives from which to form our beliefs. Beliefs can be formed from epistemic reasoning, where one only believes only in truths and disbelieves falsehoods, reasoning only with knowledge. Alternatively, a belief can be formed through a pragmatic reasoning, where one looks at the available evidence and makes and interprets it in a practical way. Pascal takes a pragmatic view and argues that believing in God makes practical sense as the advantages of believing in God far outweighs the disadvantages. Like many others, William Kingdon Clifford, an English philosopher, criticizes Pascal's reasoning, stating that "he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him" (Clifford, 1879:102), if the evidence is not sufficient. Although I do not support Pascal's theory entirely, I will argue that the manner in which Pascal has come to this conclusion is sound, as the formation of beliefs is a process that can be practically applied without sufficient evidence.

Pascal begins his argument by stating that "If there is a God, he is infinitely incomprehensible" (Blackburn, 1999:186) as he admits that we are ignorant to the metaphysical and "are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is, or if he is" (Blackburn, 1999:186). Therefore, we will never have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove God, and our belief in God can only be made without sufficient evidence. He then goes on to say that when it comes to religious beliefs, there is no room for agnosticism, and "You must wager" (Blackburn, 1999:186), because "If religion be true and the evidence for it be insufficient, I do not wish...to forfeit my sole chance in life of getting on the winning side...." Agnosticism is a common concept in many of our beliefs. We often hold back when deciding what to purchase or where to go, until we have more information to make a decision. However, as we are ignorant to the metaphysical, we will never be able to determine the truth regarding God, and therefore we must take a chance on believing or not believing. ( Peter Kreeft, 1998) Then, when faced with only these two options, Pascal says that you must put your belief in God, because "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing" (Blackburn, 1999:186).

Pascal's wager can be better understood when one considers the decision theory. This theory states that it is only rational for a person to pursue the outcome with the maximum value or utility to them. In order to determine this maximum expectation, each possible outcome is evaluated in terms of their utility, as well as their probability of occurrence – the expectation from each outcome equalling the probability multiplied by the utility. These expected values are then compared to determine the best possible outcome available. Pascal's wager can be viewed in terms of this theory. When looking at the issue of belief in God, Pascal uses the principle of the decision theory to present his argument using a two-by-two row of options:

God exists God does not exist

I believe in him + infinity 0

I do not believe in him - infinity 0

(Blackburn, 1999:187)

The positive infinity figure refers to the eternal happiness and rewards that go with believing in a God that exists (utility is infinite), whereas the negative infinity figure refers to those who do not believe in God and spend eternity in Hell. The zeros are present as if God does not exist, nothing is lost or gained for disbelievers, and the cost of following religious principles is not seen as much of a loss for believers. Therefore, in terms of the decision theory, Pascal shows that the only option is to believe that God exists, as you can only gain utility from believing, with the possibility of Heaven, whereas not believing can lead to eternal damnation.

W.K. Clifford, in his essay, "The Ethics of Belief", objects to Pascal's wager of believing in God based on insufficient evidence, as he states, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." (Clifford, 1879:102). Clifford shows in his example of an island that practices a religion that is unfamiliar and as a result, rumours regarding the abuse of the