S. Michael Houdmann Supporter Got Questions Ministries

Pascal's Wager is named after 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal. One of Pascal's most famous works was the Pensées ("Thoughts"), which was published posthumously in 16...

Login or Sign Up to view the rest of this answer.

July 01 2013 • 7 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Jennifer Rothnie Supporter Housewife, Artist, Perpetually Curious

'Pascal's Wager' is a heavily summarized version of one of Blaise Pascal's larger arguments laid forth in 'Pensees'. [As the summarized version is limited, I will go through the entire argument, and point out the summarized parts as I go].

Pascal's wager is found in Chapter VII of Pensees, and is properly titled "On the Advantages of Religious Belief. A dialogue between a Skeptic and a Believer". As such, the argument proceeds going back and forth between the skeptic and believer and covers many things.

The Skeptic claims that God cannot be known or determined by principles of reason, and mentions the limitations of man in addressing the question. From this it is clear that the skeptic is an agnostic. This skeptic believes it is an 'equal chance' one way or the other as to God's existence.

Pascal rejoins that it is -not- impossible to deduce proofs for God from nature or reason, but points out that these are barren and useless for those without Christ, and starts with the philosophical idea that the proportions of numbers are "spiritual, eternal truths, depending on a primary truth". 

The two then discuss the merits and difficulties of philosophic arguments. The skeptic wonders at the limitations of humans, comparing humans as a 'foot' to God's 'infinity'. Pascal answers that though we may not comprehend infinity, we may still know an infinity exists, and so rejects the argument from incomprehension.
He says He will not argue from faith or proofs that Christians possess, but for the sake of the skeptic will limit the argument to premises the skeptic has already accepted. The skeptic believes we are 'incapable' of knowing whether God exists. 

Pascal then lays out several arguments commonly referred to as 'Pascal's Wager', denoted by numbers:

1. There is a God, or there is not, and there is no other alternative.
(The skeptic believes himself incapable of reason to decide which is true, finding by reason he can neither confirm nor deny either. The merit of those who have made a choice is more than the skeptic can determine.
The skeptic also interjects that it is better not to wager at all, but remain in uncertainty]
2. One 'must' wager, as not to wager is equivalent to choosing "there is no God"
(Here Pascal adds a bit on how choosing God is better for reasons of self-interest alone, and better for the same reasons one would sacrifice one life to save ten)
3. The uncertainty of gaining eternal life is a 'better chance of gain' in proportion to what is risked for both choices (commitment in one's earthly life), as there is no chance for eternal gain for the choice against God but there is a chance of eternal loss. 

From here the argument continues beyond the small portion that is often presented as Pascal's Wager:

The skeptic agrees the philosophic argument is forceful, but asks as to further information as how he can evaluate the merit of gain by choosing God.
Pascal refers to scripture, and to the various proofs of Christianity (which elsewhere he lists as nature, testimonies, science, geometry, logic, etc).

The rest of this argument is very interesting, dealing with hell, sanctification, and attending to sin, the heart vs. Cold intellectualism, mentorship, testimonies, etc. The rest of Pensees gets into the proofs for Christ quite frequently.

Pascal's argument is not opposed to scripture. Rather, Pascal frequently refers the skeptic back to scripture and to other Christians to gain more information on the way of salvation. Pascal, understanding that proofs need to be spiritually discerned, simply chose to give the skeptic a philosophic argument to think about.

However, the wager should be treated for what it is, not beyond - a philosophic argument with an agnostic who believes God cannot be known and that one should not choose for or against. It is not an 'ultimate proof' for God, nor should it be taken out of context.

September 18 2014 • 5 responses • Vote Up • Share • Report

Jack Gutknecht Supporter ABC/DTS graduate, guitar music ministry Baptist church

I have a good friend at work who professes to be a Christian. But this week when he asked me how I was, I told him, "Living in certainty -- because I know I'll go to heaven when I die." He replied, that's a paradox and then claimed Pascal's Wager. He googled it for me, and then said "Look it up at home." He may be forgetting one thing:

Mere belief in God is insufficient to attain salvation, the standard cite being James 2:19: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Salvation requires "faith," not just in the sense of belief, but of trust and obedience. Augustine wrote this.

So our faith has to be distinguished from the faith of the demons. Our faith, you see, purifies the heart, their faith makes them guilty. They act wickedly, and so they say to the Lord, "What have you to do with us?" When you hear the demons saying this, do you imagine they don't recognize him? "We know who you are," they say. "You are the Son of God" (Lk 4:34). Peter says this and he is praised for it; the demon says it, and is condemned. Why's that, if not because the words may be the same, but the heart is very different? So let us distinguish our faith, and see that believing is not enough. That's not the sort of faith that purifies the heart.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (an eternity in Hell). Wikipedia

Said another way, "Well, I'm a Christian, so if I'm wrong about God then well, that's it. Turn out the lights, the party's over. But if I'm right, it's all good for eternity.

"Now if the atheist is right, he's no better off than me....lights out. But if HE is wrong, and there is a God, then he has a lot more to lose than I do." --Billy D. Ritchie

June 12 2022 • 1 response • Vote Up • Share • Report