Analysis Of One Objection To Pascal's Wager
Introduction
In fragment 233 of the collection Pensées (Pensamentos), the mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) presented what is now known as Pascal's wager. It is a proposal for a decision, placed in the form of an unavoidable wager, that is, from which no one can escape. Although the wager can be formulated in several ways, one of them is the following:
Pascal argued that belief in God is pragmatically justified because we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from that belief. With his wager, Pascal does not intend to prove the existence of the God of the Bible. In fact, Pascal emphasizes in an introductory paragraph that the existence of God cannot be proved by reason. In another fragment of Pensées, he explains that a proof of the existence of God needs to be relational: “We know God only through Jesus Christ… All who claim to know God, and prove him without Jesus Christ, have only weak evidence? In the heart of every human being, there is a void given by God, which only He can fill through his son Jesus Christ” (Bartha and Pasternack 2018).
Discussion
Pascal (1632-1662), argued in favour of the existence of God in a somewhat different way: 'God exists, or God does not exist… What will you wager? According to reason, you will be able to do neither. According to the reason, you will not be able to defend any of the options ... but you have to wager. What about your happiness? ... If you win (the wager), you win everything; if you lose, and you lose nothing. Then wager, without hesitation, that He exists”.
The basis of Pascal's wager seems to be this: we must wager (belief) that God exists or that God does not exist. If God does not exist, what we wager on will make little difference. But if it exists, we do a great deal. Thus, the smart or sensible person will wager belief that God exists (Nemoianu 2015).
Dishonest Criticism Argument
Richard Dawkins argues that Pascal's wager could be an argument for the Dishonest Belief, as it would be incorrect to believe that a fair and omniscient God would not be able to perceive the strategy on the part of the 'believer' to 'believe' in Him, thus rendering the benefits of the wager mute. Those questioning the validity of the wager are later treated by Pascal, who offers advice to the unbeliever who concluded that the only rational method is to wager on the existence of God, since wagering does not make him a believer (Bartha and Pasternack 2018).
In this essay I will primarily focus on the dishonest belief argument and whether it provides sufficient evidence to disprove Pascal’s wager.
If we lose, do we really lose nothing?
The wager falls into disrepute when we consider it as dishonest belief. A lifetime of devotion to God purely based out of fear, In particular the fear of hellfire and punishment. The wager is painted with a “better safe than sorry” theme, which fails to acknowledge the sacrifice of partial belief in God. Forcing belief will have a huge impact on one’s life, the mental state of an individual will be that of confusion, because rooted in their ‘belief’ is great uncertainty, “When your belief system is built on fear, it’s obvious decision structures will be caution” (Pascal’s Precautionary Wager: The Logic of Fear, 2019). One would go from agnosticism to atheism and to and from various religious teachings in search of truth. Indeed, it would create deep spiritual discomfort because although they outwardly express belief in a deity, in truth they lack conviction. A life devoted to an ideology, you may or may not believe is a dishonest living. It is clear that what motivates existential belief effects all aspects of your life, one not to be taken lightly. However, Pascal’s wager fails to recognize this and takes a very lazy approach to a very difficult problem.
Those supporting the wager may diminish the effects of partial belief in God through statements such as “suffering in this life is a test for the afterlife” or the idea that a mild inner struggle between atheism and theism is a small price to pay for an infinite reward. They will also claim, if the reward is not real, you will have lost little in devoting your life to God. However, this idea seems borderline delusional since it is evident that there are many things one could lose by inheriting the wager; mainly, self-respect and dignity by forcing belief through insecurity, amongst many other worldly joys. We can argue about the existence of a deity all we want however, one common belief that all theists, atheists and agnostics alike have, is that we agree that all humans live a single tangible life here and now. Thus, surely it is more reasonable to live a life you know is real, true to your beliefs; sincerely and honestly, rather than believing in an afterlife that may or may not exist. Surely the life you live now should take precedent over the life of a potential false promise? Pascal’s wager has a survivalist attitude to life and “continues to be used by vast numbers of persons as a justification for enduring life rather than actualizing the potentialities of life” (Nicholl 1978). But we must ask ourselves, is this right way to live? And is the wager worth the sacrifice?
Does God play dice?
When Einstein announced that “God does not play dice,” (A. Shiang, 2008). His followers gathered to confirm that the best personalities shared superstition. Some will argue that Pascal's wager is perfectly rational and those who criticize it don't understand it. No objection proved to be strong enough to refute it. Therefore, it is up to each one to wager on believing in God and gaining eternity of happiness if he exists, not losing anything significant if he does not exist. Or not to believe and lose everything if he exists, gaining nothing significant if he does not exist. Pascal is quite incisive in his criticism of people who are apathetic about considering the problem of the existence of God. In note 194, he states: “This carelessness in a matter that concerns themselves, their eternity, everything, causes me more anger than pity; it impresses and surprises me; it is monstrous to me.” Far from approving blind belief, one of Pascal's main arguments in Pensées was to move people out of their complacent apathy so that they could think rationally about this crucial problem of existence. Pascal states, in note 225, that: “Atheism shows intellectual strength, but only to a certain extent”. Unbelievers who persistently begin a rational and honest search for the truth are praised by Pascal, excluding those who are misleading (Rota 2016). Some argue that Pascal never reinforces dishonest belief, Instead Pascal refers to a hypothetical person who has already rationally weighed the belief in God through the wager and is convinced of the possibility but has yet to believe it. And Pascal offers a way to escape the feeling that compels him not to believe in God after the validity of the wager has been confirmed. This path is through spiritual discipline, study and community.
Critiquing Pascal’s response to dishonest belief
Pascal’s response to dishonest belief does not empathize with human emotion and conflict. Indeed, a very robotic and mathematical approach to life. It demonstrates Pascal’s personal philosophy, one that weighs up the mathematical pros and cons to every action and proceeding to carry out the most beneficial act. Pascal sides with mathematical probability- being a mathematician this would be expected. This approach is extremely utilitarian, one that has a sense of arrogance about it. Bentham (1747-1832) proposed that mathematics could be used to quantify levels of joy regarding which actions would provide the most benefit (Bentham 1780). However, this claim is far-fetched as it’s absurd to believe that simple numbers can quantify the meaning to life (Antoinette 2009). If we measure every action according to mathematical probability, then we become more robotic than human. Surely, an omniscient God would understand the impracticalities of living this way and thus object to the wager. So although Pascal doesn’t clearly enforce dishonest belief, his wager certainly gravitates toward it.
Conclusion
The dishonest belief argument is successful in criticizing Pascal’s wager. It accepts that the running theme of the wager is blind faith and this is problematic. Indeed, the wager’s lacklustre approach to life opens it up for many criticisms. Mainly, it addresses the wager being extremely diplomatic. Its utilitarian approach, influenced by mathematical probability, disregards human sentiment. Indeed, it would be more rewarding to live a life honestly according to your own beliefs, rather than basing your moral code on a supposedly “unavoidable wager”. This is the central theme to the objection and while Pascal is more concerned with probabilistic numbers, the objection focuses on the absurdities of gambling your life away on a promise that may not exist.
