Pascal's Wager Argument - For the Belief in God

Summary

This video delves into Blaise Pascal's famous 'Wager' argument for belief in God. It explains how Pascal, a 17th-century philosopher, uses decision theory to argue that believing in God is a safer gamble, offering the potential for eternal happiness with minimal risk. The discussion covers various objections, such as the cost of religious life, authenticity of belief, and the issue of choosing the 'right' religion. The video concludes by questioning the wager's validity and encourages viewers to share their thoughts on whether Pascal's argument is compelling.

Takeaways

• 🎲 Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument advocating belief in God based on decision theory and the concept of gambling on the outcomes.
• 📜 The argument doesn't attempt to prove God's existence but suggests it is rational to believe due to potential rewards or risks.
• 🤔 According to Pascal, belief in God can result in infinite happiness (heaven) if He exists, and no harm if He doesn’t.
• 💡 Pascal argues that non-belief in God, if He exists, risks eternal suffering (hell), making belief the safer bet.
• 🧠 Critics argue that living a religious life involves sacrifices, such as personal freedoms, even if God doesn't exist.
• 📉 Even though living a religious life might have some finite losses (restrictions), it is outweighed by the infinite potential loss of eternal suffering.
• 🤝 Pascal's Wager also suggests that belief in God can bring positive aspects like community, purpose, and alleviating fear of death, regardless of God's existence.
• 😕 A challenge to Pascal's Wager is that belief isn't something one can simply choose, especially if they don't genuinely believe in God.
• 🌍 Another objection is the existence of many religions and gods, making it difficult to wager on the 'right' God or belief system.
• ⚠️ Critics also highlight that the argument can apply to any deity or supernatural being, such as Hades, making it redundant for deciding what to believe.

Q & A

What is Pascal's Wager in the context of philosophy of religion?

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument that suggests it is in one's best interest to believe in God, as the potential rewards outweigh the potential losses. It applies decision theory to belief, arguing that even if God's existence cannot be proven, believing in God offers the best potential outcome.

How does Pascal apply decision theory to belief in God?

Pascal uses decision theory to weigh the possible outcomes of believing or not believing in God. If God exists and you believe, you gain eternal bliss in heaven. If God does not exist, believing causes no significant harm. On the other hand, not believing risks eternal punishment in hell if God does exist.

Is Pascal's Wager an argument for proving God's existence?

No, Pascal's Wager does not aim to prove the existence of God. Instead, it focuses on why belief in God is a rational choice based on the possible outcomes, regardless of whether God's existence can be proven.

What is the main objection raised about the loss associated with believing in God if He does not exist?

The main objection is that living a religious life can involve significant restrictions and sacrifices, such as attending church, adhering to certain moral codes, and giving up personal freedoms. These sacrifices could be considered a significant loss if God does not exist.

How does Pascal respond to the objection regarding the loss of personal freedom if God does not exist?

Pascal would argue that while there may be a small finite loss in living a religious life, this loss is outweighed by the potential infinite gain (eternal bliss) if God exists. Additionally, Pascal suggests that religious life offers benefits such as community, purpose, and alleviation of the fear of death.

Can someone simply choose to believe in God based on Pascal's Wager?

One objection is that belief is not something that can be forced or chosen at will. If someone does not genuinely believe in God, they cannot simply decide to believe for pragmatic reasons. Pretending to believe might not be authentic, and if God is omniscient, He would know the belief is insincere.

How does the objection of multiple religions challenge Pascal's Wager?

The objection points out that there are many different religions with different beliefs and gods. If one chooses the wrong religion, they may risk eternal punishment from another deity. This complicates Pascal's Wager, as it does not account for the possibility of multiple, conflicting religious beliefs.

Does Pascal's Wager provide any evidence for the existence of God?

No, Pascal's Wager does not provide evidence for God's existence. It only argues for belief in God based on the potential benefits. The wager does not engage with the question of whether God actually exists.

How can Pascal's Wager be applied to other supernatural beliefs?

The argument could be applied to any metaphysical or supernatural being, such as believing in Hades or other deities, out of fear of potential punishment. This leads to the issue of believing in numerous contradictory deities, which makes the argument less effective.

What is the overall conclusion of Pascal's Wager?

The overall conclusion is that, based on decision theory, believing in God is the safer bet because the potential rewards (eternal bliss) far outweigh the risks (eternal punishment) or losses (minimal finite sacrifices in life). However, there are several objections, including issues of sincerity, other religions, and lack of evidence.

Outlines

00:00

🎰 Pascal's Wager: The Gamble on Belief in God

This paragraph introduces Blaise Pascal's Wager, a philosophical argument for the belief in God. Pascal, a 17th-century philosopher and mathematician, presents a decision-theoretic approach to theism, comparing it to a gamble. The argument posits that if God exists and one believes, they will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If God does not exist and one believes, there is no significant loss. Conversely, if God exists and one does not believe, they risk eternal punishment in hell. The paragraph also discusses the potential objections to the argument, such as the loss of freedom and personhood due to religious restrictions, and the subjective nature of the perceived benefits of a religious life.

05:02

🤔 Objections to Pascal's Wager

The second paragraph delves into potential objections to Pascal's Wager. It raises the point that belief in God might not be a choice, but rather something one either does or does not feel. It questions the authenticity of belief if it is adopted solely due to the wager's argument. Furthermore, it highlights the issue of multiple religions and the risk of choosing the wrong one, which could lead to eternal suffering. The paragraph concludes by noting that Pascal's Wager does not provide evidence for God's existence but rather serves as a strategic argument to protect oneself against the possibility of God's existence.

Keywords

💡Philosophy of Religion

Philosophy of religion is a branch of philosophy that explores the philosophical concepts and questions related to religion, including the nature of the divine, the relationship between humanity and the divine, and the meaning of religious practices. In the video, this concept is central as it sets the stage for discussing Blaise Pascal's wager argument for the belief in God.

💡Blaise Pascal

Blaise Pascal was a 17th-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist. In the context of the video, he is noted for his 'Pascal's Wager' argument, which is a philosophical argument that encourages belief in God by presenting a decision-theoretic approach to the question of whether or not to believe in God.

💡Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is the argument presented by Blaise Pascal that suggests it is more rational to believe in God than not to, because the potential payoff of believing (eternal happiness) outweighs any potential losses (eternal suffering). The video discusses this argument in depth, exploring its implications and criticisms.

💡Decision Theory

Decision theory is a study within the field of decision science that proposes models to aid in decision-making. It is used in the video to frame Pascal's Wager as a gamble, weighing the potential outcomes and values to determine the best choice. The video uses decision theory to analyze the rationality of believing in God.

💡Eternity of Bliss

In the video, 'eternity of bliss' refers to the infinite reward promised by belief in God, as per the argument of Pascal's Wager. It is used to illustrate the potential gain if God exists and one believes in Him, which is an eternity in heaven.

💡Eternity of Pain

This term from the video describes the infinite punishment that could be faced in the afterlife if one does not believe in God and God does exist. It is used to illustrate the potential loss in Pascal's Wager argument.

💡Religious Life

A religious life, as discussed in the video, refers to living according to the rules and practices of a particular religion. It is mentioned in the context of the potential loss one might face if they believe in God but God does not exist, as they might have to follow certain restrictions.

💡Loss of Freedom

The video discusses the concept of 'loss of freedom' in the context of living a religious life. It suggests that adhering to religious rules and practices might limit one's personal freedom and autonomy, which could be considered a loss if God does not exist.

💡Omniscient

In the video, 'omniscient' is used to describe the attribute of God, meaning all-knowing. It is brought up in the context of the argument that if one pretends to believe in God without genuinely doing so, an omniscient God would know and not reward such inauthentic belief.

💡Inauthentic Belief

Inauthentic belief refers to a belief that is not genuinely held but is instead pretended or feigned. The video uses this term to discuss the potential issue with Pascal's Wager, where one might go through the motions of belief without truly believing, which might not be rewarded by God.

💡Metaphysical

Metaphysical refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including the nature of reality and the distinction between the mental and the physical. In the video, it is used to describe the nature of God and the supernatural, and to critique Pascal's Wager for its potential applicability to any metaphysical entity.

Highlights

Introduction to the philosophy of religion and Blaise Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument to prove God's existence but to show why we should believe in God.

Pascal uses decision theory, similar to gambling, to argue for the belief in God.

The argument presents a gamble: either God exists or does not, and we choose to believe or not.

If God exists and we believe, we are rewarded with eternal bliss.

If God does not exist and we believe, our lives remain unchanged.

If God does not exist and we do not believe, our lives remain unchanged.

If God exists and we do not believe, we face eternal punishment.

Believing in God is presented as the best decision according to decision theory.

The argument is criticized for not considering the potential loss of freedom in religious life.

Response to criticism: The loss of freedom is finite and outweighed by the potential infinite gain.

Pascal might argue that a religious life is valuable and not a loss.

The question of whether belief is a choice and if it can be influenced by the wager argument.

Critique that the argument does not provide evidence for God's existence but is a safeguard.

The argument could be applied to any deity, leading to a potential belief in multiple contradictory deities.

Conclusion and invitation for viewers to share their thoughts on Pascal's Wager.

Transcripts

[Music]

hello and welcome to philosophy but the

channel will be discuss and debate

different philosophical ideas today

we're going to look at philosophy of

religion and focus on an argument for

the belief in God and that is Blaise

Pascal's wager argument gray now Pascal

was a 17th century philosopher and

mathematician who gave a compelling

argument as to why we should all believe

in God please note this is not an

argument that attempts to prove the

existence of God such as the ontological

teleological or cosmological argument

this is not even an argument that

attempts to show the existence of God as

more likely than not Pascal is not

trying to prove God's existence Pascal

is only trying to show people that we

should in fact believe in God and we

have good reason to do so ok how does

Pascal do this Pascal developed the

wager argument this is effectively the

gambling persons approach to the belief

in God interesting

Pascal effectively adopts decision

theory this is the study of one's

choices and outcomes and the formula for

the best decisions this is often used in

gambling for any gambling situation

decision Theory will weigh up the

chances of winning with the value of the

winnings and decide based on this so if

we have a lottery with a jackpot of 1

billion dollars with 1000 tickets

available at $1 a ticket the odds of

winning are one thousand to one but we

stand to win 1 billion dollars at the

risk of only $1 decision theory will say

gambling $1 is a great decision yes

understand NAB has cow adopts this

approach for the belief in God and turns

this into a gamble looking at decision

theory this is how Pascal has approached

the situation either God exists or God

does not exist and we have to either

believe in God or not believe in God if

God does exist and we believe in him we

will be rewarded with an eternity of

bliss in heaven if God does not exist

and we believe in him nothing has

changed in our lives and this does not

affect us if God does not exist and we

do not believe in him nothing has

changed in our lives and this does not

affect us how

if God does exist and we do not believe

in him we will be eternally punished an

infinite amount of pain and suffering in

hell now for a gambling man and using

decision theory we would clearly see

that believing in God is the best

decision by believing in God we risk

nothing but stands to gain an infinite

amount of happiness whereas not

believing in God we gain nothing but we

risk an infinite amount of pain as

Pascal says let us weigh the gain and

the loss in the wagering that God is if

you gain you gain all if you lose you

lose nothing wager then without

hesitation that he is so whether God

does exist or doesn't exist whether this

can be proven or not it doesn't really

matter the absolute best decision we can

make is to believe in God and so this is

the wager we should make thus it becomes

Pascal's wager argument the gamblers

approach to the philosophy of religion

fascinating argument but instantly I

have an objection what's that you

mentioned that in the situation of

believing in God and God not existing

involved no loss here I would disagree I

do in fact think there is a loss think

about it focusing now on the

judeo-christian religion for you to

believe in God means you will need to

attend church every Sunday you cannot

have premarital relations

you cannot cohabit etc etc there are

restrictions and rules or lots on your

life you must live your life in fear

constantly trying to appease and please

your deity this is not easy and this

takes away quite a bit of your freedom

and your personhood now to go through

all of this for no God to live a

religious life where a God does not

exist I would say is a huge loss we only

really get one life and you can

potentially waste it down a religious

path for no reason this needs to be

considered in decision theory and

factored into the wager yes I understand

what you're saying and there are two

responses to that point firstly you can

indeed factor it into the wager and

there will be a small finite loss

considered on the believing God but

God does not exist category it's not a

huge loss because a religious life is

not necessarily one of immense physical

pain and it is finite because it is only

for the duration of your life however

when we compare this to do not believe

in God but God does exist category you

were weighing this up to an immense

physical pain for an infinite amount of

time essentially an eternity in hell so

this is still outweighed and it still

looks like the better decision is there

believe in God I see the second point

and what Pascal would most likely argue

is that a religious life is not really a

negative thing and carries no real loss

a religious life puts value on things

like community family it gives people a

purpose and also eliminates the fear of

death with a promise of eternal paradise

so believing in God carries no real loss

and if God does not exist it does not

really matter as your life has been

better off with just the belief mmm Wow

I'm not sure about that that seems more

like a subjective opinion either way to

believe in God still seems like the more

intelligent gamble okay but how exactly

can you believe in God if you don't

believe in God is belief a choice I

would say it's not I think you just

believe or you don't sure something can

happen that makes you change your

beliefs but just saying to someone

believe because it's a better gamble

seem strange and something that is

impossible to do if you have learned

about the concepts of God and see no

real evidence to convince yourself how

could you possibly force yourself to

believe in him and if you were just

pretending to believe in God this is not

a genuine belief this is an inauthentic

belief in God so you can go through the

motions so to speak you can go to church

you can read the Bible you follow the

rules but you don't truly believe in

your heart of hearts that he exists you

have some doubts then if God does exist

and he is omniscient he will know he

will know you have been faking your

belief for your own selfish reasons and

that cannot possibly end in a reward

yeah good point

also what Pascal has not factored into

the wager is other

there are so many different religions

with different beliefs in different gods

if you choose the wrong religion and

worship the wrong God you run the risk

of ending up in eternity of pain this

needs to be factored in and when it is

the choice does not become so clear-cut

I see but the most pressing objection is

that really this has not added any

evidence to the existence of God it has

given us no reason to believe in God

other than to have our backs covered but

this argument can be used for absolutely

everything I can say to you believe in

Hades the lord of the underworld once

you die if you do not believe in Hades

he will take your soul to the underworld

for eternal damnation

so following Pascal's wager you should

also believe in Hades do you now believe

in Hades well no no I don't exactly it

can be used for any metaphysical or

supernatural being and after a while it

will be redundant we will believe in

absolutely every possible deity or demon

even if they contradict each other good

point well that's all the time we have

for now thank you for watching we hope

you enjoyed the vibe and what are your

thoughts do you think Pascal's wager

argument is a good argument for

believing in God let us know in the

comments below don't forget to Like

share and subscribe take care and we'll

see you next time