A critique of Pascal's Wager

[MetaforeX]

I meant to post this a while back. Any comments?

In his essay entitled, Faith is Pragmatically Justified, Blaise Pascal attempts to prove that the decision to believe in God is practical. He believes that there is no intelligent decision but to believe in his view of the divine. Pascal is even gracious enough to offer advice to those that have a hard time convincing themselves of the existence of his God. He counsels, “..by acting as if they believe, by taking the holy water, having masses said...Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness” (Pascal 119). Apparently, by trusting in the wisdom of religious leaders and not asking questions based on reason one can aspire to understand the truth. In Pascal’s argument, the only people that he has shown faith to be pragmatically justified for are those that already believe in the Christian view of God.
Pascal begins his argument by showing that we can know of something without understanding its nature. “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 pure nothing” (Pascal 118). This statement is a critique of the human condition. We are finite and reduced to nothing, amongst the possible infinity of time or of the universe. Pascal continues, “We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature” (118). He asserts that the infinite can be neither odd nor even and yet all numbers must be odd or even. This paradox is subsequently applied to the existence of God. “So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is” (118).
Pascal expands on his discussion of infinity with the addition of two variables; limits and extension. He claims that we know and understand the finite because we have limits and extensions. Next, Pascal explains that we know the existence of infinity because it has extension but no limit. He means that we can relate but only partially to infinity. This line of thought is continued as Pascal claims that we do not know the existence or nature of God because such a being does not have extensions or limits.
Next, Pascal chastises those that would attack Christians for being unable to logically justify their beliefs. He believes that by the nature of God it is impossible to expound such evidence. Pascal asserts that when choosing whether or not to believe in God is a question of faith that is impossible to unravel with the use of reason.
After laying the ground work of his argument, Pascal describes his famous wager. First, he clarifies that one must play the game because it is impossible to avoid the bet. He explains, “-Yes: but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked” (Pascal 118). Pascal logically breaks down the pieces of this game. He explains, “ 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 had two things to shun, error and misery” (Pascal 119). He eliminates the reason variable by declaring that our reason is equally satisfied with choosing either of the outcomes.
This leaves the one betting piece that we have, our happiness. “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” Here, Pascal makes an assumption in describing his wager. He says that because we are obliged to play we would be fools to not bet for God if the stakes were two lives for one. This is, of course, only true under the assumption that both outcomes are equally likely. Pascal disregards this with another assumption; that life and happiness are eternal. With this assumption it is imprudent for anyone to not bet for the existence of God because one would be betting the finite against the infinite.
It is interesting to note that Pascal takes a logical approach in describing the rationality of believing in a God that he has previously defined as being beyond human logic. Comparatively and in modern day terms, this is equivalent to using the rules of football to determine the outcome of a basketball game. He defines the relevant playing field but then opts to use other reasons to justify, or win, his position. In the end, human logic would be assimilated to nothing in the presence of Pascal’s God. When in company with the unfathomably infinite, an argument based on human logic, even if defined to be discussing the prudence of belief on said being and not the existence, one cannot intelligibly rely on their logic. It is therefore illogical to trust that logical assumptions concerning God’s existence, in relation to the finite nature of humanity, to be themselves unequivocally anything but illogical.
Pascal’s argument is anchored in the Christian faith. Christianity is the faithful acceptance that Jesus died for humanities’ sins. This belief loses its dignity in the presence of Pascal’s wager. For he is not arguing that we should believe in Christianity due to its own merits but rather because it is prudent thing to do for our own salvation. Of course, this selfish perspective is at odds with Christian theology in the first place. To believe for the sake of one’s salvation and not the acceptance of Christ’s love is anything but a Christian platform.
Besides being inconsistent with the Christian faith, the very fact that Pascal’s argument is fixated on one religion is a problem. Ignoring the thousands of sects and varying religious beliefs that exist in the world, there are several major religions that undeniably expound certain beliefs that are at odds with one another. Because they are at odds, they can not all be right. In fact, they could all be wrong. Thus, in critiquing Pascal one must ask why he believes Christianity to be the truth on which to base an argument. Surely, as a betting man, Pascal would acknowledge that the odds of one religion being supreme over all others is slim.
Although Pascal attempts to convince others to profess themselves as Christians are irrefutable to the believer, they leave much to be desired in the eyes of the objective philosopher. In the context of Christianity, which undeniably asserts the existence of an omniscient God and an eternal afterlife, one can not argue with Pascal. However, this assumption of prior belief defeats the entire purpose of an argument. Pascal places Christians in a tautological, faith-affirming loop of belief and wagering that is anything but logical. Furthermore, Christianity is based on faith and the veracity of its merits does not bode well in the realm of pure logic. In the end, Pascal is reduced to a salesman with a convincing sales pitch. He does not care of the final product, that one would believe in Christianity for the reasons it professes, but merely for the increase of its sales, faith.

[The Kurgan]

It's the longest-winded critique I've seen of it, but it's a good one. Nice post.

[housejohnson]

I often wondered as well how Pascal's Wager was only devoted to the belief in the christian god. Why not believe in Odin, Thor, Zeus, etc as well. Also I have often wondered how receptive I would be, if I was a God, to someone who believed in me only because the benefits of me being real were better for him. That is a belief out of convenience and hardly worth admittance into heaven.