Pascal's Wager

When I was younger, my mother always used to tell me that she felt very certain that her faith in God was the correct choice for life. Something about the conversation that we would have on that point, however, made me rather uncomfortable. I agree that she made the correct decision to believe in the God of Christianity, so that wasn't our point of contention. Rather, I was uncertain that she gave a reason for faith that attracted me to further belief myself. She would always say, "Well, if I'm right, and there is a God, I'll be in heaven. And if I'm right, then those who don't believe won't be in heaven. But if I'm wrong, and there's no God, I'm a fool, but there won't be any consequences -- no one will be in heaven. Believing in God is the safest choice because it allows me the possibility of heaven if God is real. But those who don't believe have no chance no matter what. So it makes more sense to believe in God than not to."

Now, this wasn't my mother's only reason for faith, but she did cite this argument often enough to make it memorable to me. And she's not the first to have thought about Christianity in these terms. C.S. Lewis, another strong influence on my young adult faith, polarized Christianity into either infinitely true or infinitely false: Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Lewis's statement fortifies a position like the one my mom talked about. If Christianity is infintely true and important, than belief in it is necessary, and if it is infinitely false and unimportant, at least belief in it won't harm you at all because it just doesn't matter.

Having had other influences in my life that espoused this position, I wasn't surprised when I read Blaise Pascal's Pensees, notes taken for an uncompleted defense of Christianity, and I found that Pascal actually tried to reduce belief in Christianity to a mathematical probability statement in order to convince those not compelled by other sorts of theological arguments by the use of reason. Pascal viewed Christianity as a wager in which all must cast a bet, either to believe in God or not to believe in God. His argument is that belief in God, while not a position that can be reasoned because of the mysterious and unknowable nature of God, is the safer argument because of it's statistical benefits.

The goal for this week's discussion will be to unpack the primary text from which Pascal's wager is drawn and analyze it's benefits and limitations. Here's the text in which Pascal makes his argument for Christianity as a safer bet than atheism. It's long, so if you'd rather read it elsewhere, here's a link: http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm. The wager is found in section 233.

233. Infinite--nothing.--Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;^[28] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness."

Here's a chart that summarizes Pascal's position:

	God exists	God does not exist
Wager for God	Gain all	Status quo
Wager against God	Misery	Status quo

Now, there are many potential limitations to this argument. Let me list just a few for you to think through.
1. It assumes that God is a God who rewards belief rather than skepticism.
2. It assumes that Christianity is the only religion which makes claims to exclusivity.
3. It is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather for belief in God regardless of his existence.
4. It does not require true belief in God, but rather belief driven by fear of the potential consequences of unbelief.
5. It assumes that one can choose to believe, rather than being predestined to believe (a position which assumes that God controls who believes).

However, there are also benefits to the argument.
1. It allows individuals to consider the implications and potential problems with unbelief.
2. It explains the benefits of a certain type of belief.

Here are some further descriptions and resources on Pascal's Wager and it's benefits and limitations as an argument for faith in God. A composite of these resources explains the text better than I ever could. Please take the time to read them, because they will enrich our discussion and your understanding of Pascal's project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif (A fun Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that plays upon the idea of Pascal's wager by applying it to Santa Claus)