Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s Wager
If God exists, arguments contrary to that reality do not change the reality. We cannot argue God into non-existence.
If God does not exist, arguments contrary to that reality do not change the reality. We cannot argue God into existence.
This means that our positions concerning God’s reality or not are truly meaningless to His existence. This also means that our positions are truly momentous to our existence. Therefore the goal is simple – align ourselves with true reality.
Pasqual’s Wager makes this point:
1. If God exists, and I believe in God, I procure a blessed eternity.
2. If God does not exist, and yet I believe in God, I live a worthwhile life even if there is no eternity.
3. If God exists, and I don’t believe in God, then I procure an eternal punishment.
Pascal argued, based on that wager, it is better to believe because of the two possible outcomes: either a life worth living and eternal award, or at least a life worth living.
However, Pascal’s Wager is not considered a highly persuasive argument because it can too easily fall under the manipulation of believing solely for not wanting eternal punishment. Therefore it fails in motivation.
Can we salvage the argument? I think so in three ways:
1. Focus on the positives as motivations instead of the negative.
2. Focus on another type of motivation which is the desire to align ourselves with reality.
3. Focus on what belief does to my existence, and not what it cannot do concerning God’s existence. I cannot argue God into or out of existence.
So while Pascal’s Wager is not an argument epistemically, it does present the epistemic challenge of aligning ourselves with reality. Either way, our goal is agreeing with what is real.
Since Pascal’s Wager comes from a mathematical mind, we can argue in probabilities, that is inductive logic. Granted, there are reasons to believe and to not believe. I find that to be an honest epistemology. The plethora of reasons for each position is not the determining factor since one strong argument either way is more persuasive then ninety-nine weak arguments to the contrary. Therefore, our conclusion must be based upon the strongest arguments.
Here is where Pascal’s Wager comes into effect again. God’s existence is not a solely factual reality. Some realities have consequences. Deciding to turn right might be the factual choice legally, but ramifications come with that decision such as oncoming traffic. Should we consider consequences in making our decisions? If so then:
1. Either God is real or not.
2. If God is real, that carries consequences.
3. If God is not real, that carries no consequences other than being wrong about a certain reality. Everyone is wrong about something, so that is a common occurrence.
So whatever position you take, you are not simply focused on ontological reality, but also on consequential reality. Take both realities seriously in making your decision.
Comments