 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summary
Pascal's argument is a simple one: reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. Accordingly, the options would be as follows:
1. You may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness.
2. You may live a pleasure-seeking life and be denied eternal happiness.
3. You may live a holy life but there is actually no God or eternal life.
4. You may live a pleasure-seeking life but it makes no difference because there is no God.
For Pascal, the first of these options is the most
important one because it represents the maximum gain and loss. Even if it
should turn out that there is no God, the sheer risk of deciding against such
a possibility warrants that we should take that option.
History
The "wager" argument for religious belief was produced by the French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) in his Pensees. Although a prodigious philosopher and mathematician, Pascal devoted much of his life to theology and religious speculation, claiming that the use of his gifts for mathematics alone would have been a sin against God.
However, it remains to be seen whether this actually entails faith. The main attack against the idea has focussed on the seemingly arbitrary nature of whether we choose to accept the wager or nor. Pascal believed that such an attitude would lead to faith - through habit, effort, etc. - but doesn't such an attitude represent the opposite of true religious belief? Couldn't we simply accept it as a gambler does, without any deeper committment?
Questions
1. Pascal believes that reason cannot decide one way or the other that God
does or does not exist. What do you think he means by this? Do you agree?
2. Do you agree with Pascal that not believing in God entails the greatest
risk? What about other religions - should we take their ideas of punishment
for non-believers into account?
3. Should faith be based on self-interest? If I choose to do a good act because
it provides me with the best chances of reward, am I really a good person?
4. In what way might Pascal's Wager be antagonistic to religious belief? Can
religious faith be simply a matter of choosing the right option? Think of
possible objections to this view.