Analysis Of Blaise Pascal's The Wager
During the mid-1600s, or the Age of Reasoning, Blaise Pascal authored “The Wager,” to convince others of the time to decide whether or not they believed in the existence of God. Pascal sought to convince the religious skeptics and people of Libertine lifestyles to “wager” their belief that God exists. The hedonistic and self-pleasurable lifestyle led by the Libertines had a tendency to not have any significance or relevancy to the lifestyle of religious devotion. He argued that one is unable to determine the existence of God because he is “infinitely beyond our comprehension” (Wager 101). Pascal then created an either-or situation by forcing the Libertines to choose “ ‘Either God is or he is not’ ” (Wager 101). However, I argue that Pascal
…show more content…
failed to provide sufficient evidence as to why one ought to believe in God’s existence. He promised that if God indeed existed and one believed, then they will have infinite happiness, which is not always the case. The argument made in “The Wager” is a straw-man argument of what actually happens at the end. Pascal began “The Wager” by arguing that “since, being indivisible and without limits, he [God] bears no relation to us” (Wager 101) because humans lack the capacity to understand or comprehend his greatness. After stating this, Pascal argued that through reason, we are unable to decide the truth of God’s existence. Pascal pointed out the fallacy in Libertine arguments that they should not believe in God because it has not been proven that he exists. He justified that Christians are unable to give rational grounds because “reason cannot prove either wrong” (Wager 101. Pascal then moved on to condemn those that have not made a choice because one must be inclined towards a side. If one refused to make a choice, then they sided with the one that denied God’s existence because any decision made leans one way or the other. Pascal began to sweeten the wager he asked of the Libertines by forcing them to place their bets for infinite happiness, or to lose nothing at all. Pascal appealed to the greed and self-interest of the Libertines, and argued that by believing in God, and he [God] exists, then “you win everything” (Wager 101). However, if you believed in God, and he [God] does not exist, then “you lose nothing” (Wager 101). Though it may seem like a waste of time for believing, Pascal argued that if you do not believe that God exists, and in actuality does, then you would lose everything and have an eternal life of infinite suffering, and if he [God] did not exist, then you would still lose nothing. At the flip of a coin, one would either land on heads or tails.
However, in Pascal’s case, the two sides are that God exists or he does not. If God does not exist, then one does not lose anything, but if in the case God exists, it would be wiser to believe in God for infinite happiness as opposed to not believing and receiving eternal suffering. In “The Wager,” Pascal worked his way slowly getting Libertines on his side by asking if they would wager one for a chance to win one, or one for two, or even one for three, slowly increasing the number, but then ended his point by saying that the prize would, in fact, be infinite (Wager 101). Pascal gave his audience the choice to choose to either place their bets to believe in God or disbelieve and left his actual existence up to chance. By believing in God, we leave ourselves with either winning everything or losing nothing. If we choose not to believe in God’s existence, then we are left with losing nothing or losing everything. The only thing that Pascal asked of his audience is that they wager something finite, for something infinite, which would be the finite life of self-interest and hedonism for a religious devout one. Pascal argued that gamblers would take risks for gains, and that one ought to consider this wager because of the finite risk and infinite gain (Wager 102). He established such an enticing gamble that it would go against reason to choose not to believe in the existence of God because, as a self-interested individual, you would lose the chance of obtaining infinite happiness. He concluded “The Wager” by offering advice to those wishing to gamble: Ask those “who were once bound” (Wager 102) like the skeptics and Libertines how they changed their
lifestyles. Though the argument Pascal made may seem as simple as a coin toss, it is much more complicated in reality. I argue that Pascal offered a vague description of what will happen after death is an underrepresentation. Pascal enticed Libertines to convert, but he offered no evidence that gaining a faith solely for its payout will in fact result in infinite happiness. If God were omniscient, then we do not know how the gains will turn out since God will already know that this Libertine or skeptic believed in him purely for the self-interest reward of infinite happiness. First of all, God works differently for each religion. It is safe to assume that because Pascal used the term “God,” he referred to monotheistic religions. The end-game that Pascal defined is only half of the story for Christianity. For example, there is not only a heaven, but also a hell. If Pascal referred to a Christian deity, then simply believing for the reward will not only gain infinite happiness, but infinite suffering is a possibility. Pascal only listed the rewards of believing in God, but never mentioned the consequences of not acting in accordance with the religion. I argue that Pascal assumed that if one wished to wager, it would include living in accordance with that religion’s lifestyle. Ultimately, one would wager their finite life on Earth that a Libertine could spend being self-indulgent, for the chance to win an infinite life of infinite happiness. I argue that Pascal used “The Wager” as a way to win over those that were curious and had questions about whether or not they should believe. I consider this to be similar to propaganda used to increase the number of believers without having them know what will happen. Though it is true that we do not know what awaits us at the end, we have a basic idea that either “ ‘God is or he is not’ ” (Wager 101).
Winning everything or losing nothing and losing everything or losing nothing is not a simple as it may appear. I argue that this straw-man argument of the results for one’s “wager” was a trick used to make believing in God a better of two choices, when Pascal failed to prove whether or not God exists. However, this piece is not necessarily written to prove of God’s existence, making proving the religious right and skeptics wrong, but to incentivize and prove why it is a safer bet to believe in God’s existence. What Pascal asks of his audience is to wager something that is valuable, their life. Pascal asked of his readers much more than what he made it seem. If God does not exist and Pascal managed to convert a reader, he had that person sacrifice the only thing that they had for certain, a finite life. I argue that Pascal underplays the importance of sacrificing one’s chance for a known happy life for the chance to earn one full of happiness, which may not even be given. Pascal created a mindset that makes it seem like there is only one outcome for each scenario, but there are numerous ones.
Would you gamble your finite life of happiness for an infinite life of happiness? Pascal offered this wager to those that led a lifestyle skeptical of God’s existence. Though he failed to prove that God existed, Pascal made certain that the safest choice, for a self-interested person, was to believe in God by sacrificing their finite pleasurable life on Earth, for the chance to win an infinitely pleasurable life after death. I would certainly make this wager. However, one ought to remember what you may actually be winning in the end. Though it may seem as though you would really not be losing anything, it is important to keep in mind that to some, you would indeed by losing everything if you believe in God and he turned out to not exist at all. One would be gambling their finite chance of pleasure, which is something we certainly have, for a possibility of having an infinite life of happiness in the end. One question to keep in mind is what path is really the safest? Should one risk their finite life, which certainly exists, for a chance to win an infinite life of happiness that only has a chance of happening? It is important to remember that Pascal failed to explain that there is also a possibility of suffering if you believe in God and he does indeed exist. If Pascal also argued that is not as certain as believing in God and he exists, would you still place your bets in God’s existence? “There is no choice” (Wager 101), you must wager: “Either God is or he is not” (Wager 101). The choice is up to you, but the results are not as simple as Pascal wagered.
failed to provide sufficient evidence as to why one ought to believe in God’s existence. He promised that if God indeed existed and one believed, then they will have infinite happiness, which is not always the case. The argument made in “The Wager” is a straw-man argument of what actually happens at the end. Pascal began “The Wager” by arguing that “since, being indivisible and without limits, he [God] bears no relation to us” (Wager 101) because humans lack the capacity to understand or comprehend his greatness. After stating this, Pascal argued that through reason, we are unable to decide the truth of God’s existence. Pascal pointed out the fallacy in Libertine arguments that they should not believe in God because it has not been proven that he exists. He justified that Christians are unable to give rational grounds because “reason cannot prove either wrong” (Wager 101. Pascal then moved on to condemn those that have not made a choice because one must be inclined towards a side. If one refused to make a choice, then they sided with the one that denied God’s existence because any decision made leans one way or the other. Pascal began to sweeten the wager he asked of the Libertines by forcing them to place their bets for infinite happiness, or to lose nothing at all. Pascal appealed to the greed and self-interest of the Libertines, and argued that by believing in God, and he [God] exists, then “you win everything” (Wager 101). However, if you believed in God, and he [God] does not exist, then “you lose nothing” (Wager 101). Though it may seem like a waste of time for believing, Pascal argued that if you do not believe that God exists, and in actuality does, then you would lose everything and have an eternal life of infinite suffering, and if he [God] did not exist, then you would still lose nothing. At the flip of a coin, one would either land on heads or tails.
However, in Pascal’s case, the two sides are that God exists or he does not. If God does not exist, then one does not lose anything, but if in the case God exists, it would be wiser to believe in God for infinite happiness as opposed to not believing and receiving eternal suffering. In “The Wager,” Pascal worked his way slowly getting Libertines on his side by asking if they would wager one for a chance to win one, or one for two, or even one for three, slowly increasing the number, but then ended his point by saying that the prize would, in fact, be infinite (Wager 101). Pascal gave his audience the choice to choose to either place their bets to believe in God or disbelieve and left his actual existence up to chance. By believing in God, we leave ourselves with either winning everything or losing nothing. If we choose not to believe in God’s existence, then we are left with losing nothing or losing everything. The only thing that Pascal asked of his audience is that they wager something finite, for something infinite, which would be the finite life of self-interest and hedonism for a religious devout one. Pascal argued that gamblers would take risks for gains, and that one ought to consider this wager because of the finite risk and infinite gain (Wager 102). He established such an enticing gamble that it would go against reason to choose not to believe in the existence of God because, as a self-interested individual, you would lose the chance of obtaining infinite happiness. He concluded “The Wager” by offering advice to those wishing to gamble: Ask those “who were once bound” (Wager 102) like the skeptics and Libertines how they changed their
lifestyles. Though the argument Pascal made may seem as simple as a coin toss, it is much more complicated in reality. I argue that Pascal offered a vague description of what will happen after death is an underrepresentation. Pascal enticed Libertines to convert, but he offered no evidence that gaining a faith solely for its payout will in fact result in infinite happiness. If God were omniscient, then we do not know how the gains will turn out since God will already know that this Libertine or skeptic believed in him purely for the self-interest reward of infinite happiness. First of all, God works differently for each religion. It is safe to assume that because Pascal used the term “God,” he referred to monotheistic religions. The end-game that Pascal defined is only half of the story for Christianity. For example, there is not only a heaven, but also a hell. If Pascal referred to a Christian deity, then simply believing for the reward will not only gain infinite happiness, but infinite suffering is a possibility. Pascal only listed the rewards of believing in God, but never mentioned the consequences of not acting in accordance with the religion. I argue that Pascal assumed that if one wished to wager, it would include living in accordance with that religion’s lifestyle. Ultimately, one would wager their finite life on Earth that a Libertine could spend being self-indulgent, for the chance to win an infinite life of infinite happiness. I argue that Pascal used “The Wager” as a way to win over those that were curious and had questions about whether or not they should believe. I consider this to be similar to propaganda used to increase the number of believers without having them know what will happen. Though it is true that we do not know what awaits us at the end, we have a basic idea that either “ ‘God is or he is not’ ” (Wager 101).
Winning everything or losing nothing and losing everything or losing nothing is not a simple as it may appear. I argue that this straw-man argument of the results for one’s “wager” was a trick used to make believing in God a better of two choices, when Pascal failed to prove whether or not God exists. However, this piece is not necessarily written to prove of God’s existence, making proving the religious right and skeptics wrong, but to incentivize and prove why it is a safer bet to believe in God’s existence. What Pascal asks of his audience is to wager something that is valuable, their life. Pascal asked of his readers much more than what he made it seem. If God does not exist and Pascal managed to convert a reader, he had that person sacrifice the only thing that they had for certain, a finite life. I argue that Pascal underplays the importance of sacrificing one’s chance for a known happy life for the chance to earn one full of happiness, which may not even be given. Pascal created a mindset that makes it seem like there is only one outcome for each scenario, but there are numerous ones.
Would you gamble your finite life of happiness for an infinite life of happiness? Pascal offered this wager to those that led a lifestyle skeptical of God’s existence. Though he failed to prove that God existed, Pascal made certain that the safest choice, for a self-interested person, was to believe in God by sacrificing their finite pleasurable life on Earth, for the chance to win an infinitely pleasurable life after death. I would certainly make this wager. However, one ought to remember what you may actually be winning in the end. Though it may seem as though you would really not be losing anything, it is important to keep in mind that to some, you would indeed by losing everything if you believe in God and he turned out to not exist at all. One would be gambling their finite chance of pleasure, which is something we certainly have, for a possibility of having an infinite life of happiness in the end. One question to keep in mind is what path is really the safest? Should one risk their finite life, which certainly exists, for a chance to win an infinite life of happiness that only has a chance of happening? It is important to remember that Pascal failed to explain that there is also a possibility of suffering if you believe in God and he does indeed exist. If Pascal also argued that is not as certain as believing in God and he exists, would you still place your bets in God’s existence? “There is no choice” (Wager 101), you must wager: “Either God is or he is not” (Wager 101). The choice is up to you, but the results are not as simple as Pascal wagered.