Indiana Jones & Pascal's Wager: Crash Course Philosophy #15

Summary

This Crash Course Philosophy episode delves into pragmatism and its application to belief in God through Pascal's Wager. It explores the idea that belief can be practical, even without certainty, and challenges traditional views on faith. The video contrasts pragmatic belief with Kierkegaard's fideism, which embraces the irrationality of faith, and uses the example of Indiana Jones to illustrate the concept. It concludes by questioning the risks of faith without evidence and the implications for religious beliefs.

Takeaways

• 📚 Pragmatism is a philosophical approach that values practicality over the search for absolute truth, suggesting that beliefs are useful if they improve one's life, regardless of their factual accuracy.
• 🌱 The concept of 'useful fictions' is introduced as a pragmatic belief that people adopt to make life easier, such as believing spinach makes you strong even if it's not scientifically proven.
• 🏁 Pragmatism as a movement is relatively new in philosophy, with notable American figures like William James and the character Indiana Jones being associated with it, though indirectly.
• 🎰 Pascal's Wager is presented as a pragmatic argument for the belief in God's existence, positing that the potential infinite reward of believing in God outweighs the risks of not believing, even if the belief is based on self-interest.
• 🤔 The script challenges the idea of Pascal's Wager by suggesting that living a life of faith might come with its own costs, such as missing out on certain life experiences or freedoms.
• 🧐 Pascal's view on belief is that it can be cultivated through practice, suggesting that even if one starts with self-interest, it can evolve into genuine conviction over time.
• 🎬 The script uses the character Indiana Jones as an example of pragmatic belief, where he performs actions required by faith without necessarily believing in the outcome.
• 🤷‍♂️ The critique of Pascal's Wager includes the argument that forcing belief can lead to unhappiness and is not the pragmatic approach a true pragmatist would take.
• 🦄 Fideism, as introduced by Kierkegaard, is the belief that faith alone is the source of religious belief, and that reason and evidence can detract from the wonder and mystery of faith.
• 🌌 Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is likened to taking a step into the unknown, trusting that faith will provide support, much like Indiana Jones' leap across a chasm in 'The Last Crusade'.
• 🚫 The script concludes with a cautionary note about the risks of faith-based beliefs, suggesting that without evidence and reason, all beliefs become philosophically equal and potentially dangerous.

Q & A

What is a 'useful fiction' as described in the script?

A 'useful fiction' refers to a belief or idea that people choose to accept not because it is necessarily true, but because it makes life more manageable or convenient.

What is the core principle of pragmatism in philosophy?

The core principle of pragmatism is that the practicality of a belief in one's life is more important than whether the belief is objectively true.

Who are some of the well-known American pragmatists mentioned in the script?

The script mentions William James and, in a more metaphorical sense, the character Indiana Jones as examples of American pragmatists.

What is Pascal's Wager and what does it argue?

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument that suggests it is more practical to believe in God's existence because the potential payoff (eternal happiness) outweighs the potential loss (no loss if God does not exist).

What are the possible outcomes of believing or not believing in God according to Pascal's Wager?

According to Pascal's Wager, if you believe in God and He exists, you receive infinite reward (heaven); if you believe and He doesn't exist, there's little to no loss; if you don't believe and He doesn't exist, there's no gain; but if you don't believe and He does exist, you face infinite punishment (hell).

What criticism does the script present against Pascal's Wager?

The script suggests that Pascal's Wager might be flawed because it could be argued that living a life in service of a non-existent deity could actually cost you in terms of missed opportunities and personal freedom.

How does the script relate the concept of pragmatism to the character Indiana Jones?

The script uses Indiana Jones as an example of a pragmatic character who, despite being agnostic, performs actions that align with religious belief, suggesting that such behavior could eventually lead to genuine belief.

What is the philosophical position of fideism as presented in the script?

Fideism, as presented in the script, is the belief that religious faith must come from faith alone, independent of reason or evidence, and that embracing the irrationality of faith is what makes religion meaningful.

What is Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' and how does it relate to religious belief?

Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is the idea that belief in God is entirely irrational and cannot be achieved through reason alone. It requires an individual to take a leap into faith without evidence, hoping that their belief is caught by divine truth.

What is the 'China teapot' analogy presented by Bertrand Russell, and what does it illustrate?

The 'China teapot' analogy by Bertrand Russell is a hypothetical scenario where people believe in the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun simply because it cannot be disproven. It illustrates the potential absurdity of believing in something without evidence, similar to the risks of faith-based beliefs without justification.

How does the script suggest that faith alone can be problematic in religious beliefs?

The script suggests that relying solely on faith can be problematic because it levels the playing field for all beliefs, making it impossible to justify or criticize any belief as wrong or dangerous, since faith itself cannot be justified.

Outlines

00:00

🌟 Pragmatism and Pascal's Wager

This paragraph introduces the concept of pragmatism, a philosophical movement that prioritizes practicality over absolute truth. It uses examples like eating spinach for health and setting clocks ahead to be punctual to illustrate how useful fictions can simplify life. Pragmatism suggests that the effectiveness of a belief in improving one's life is more important than its factual accuracy. The paragraph then delves into Blaise Pascal's pragmatic approach to the existence of God, known as Pascal's Wager. It outlines the wager's logical framework: the potential infinite reward of heaven for belief in God's existence versus the finite losses of not believing. The argument posits that even a slight chance of God's existence justifies belief due to the high stakes involved. The summary also touches on the idea of self-interest in belief and the potential for such belief to evolve into genuine conviction over time.

05:02

🤔 Critique of Pragmatic Belief and Fideism

The second paragraph challenges the pragmatic approach to religious belief by discussing potential drawbacks and the concept of fideism. It suggests that forcing belief for practical benefits could lead to unhappiness, which contradicts the pragmatist's goal. The paragraph then contrasts this with Søren Kierkegaard's fideism, which asserts that religious belief should stem solely from faith,不受理性和证据的束缚。 Kierkegaard's 'leap of faith' is exemplified through Indiana Jones's actions in 'The Last Crusade,' where he takes a leap of faith to reach the Holy Grail, despite the apparent irrationality of the act. The summary concludes by highlighting the philosophical risks of abandoning reason for faith, such as the potential to justify any belief, even those that are extreme or harmful. It also introduces Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy to illustrate the pitfalls of belief without evidence and the importance of maintaining a balance between faith and reason in philosophical discourse.

Keywords

💡Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the practical application of ideas and beliefs. It asserts that the truth of a belief is less important than its practicality in improving one's life. In the video, pragmatism is introduced as the foundation for understanding useful fictions and is exemplified by the belief in the health benefits of spinach, which encourages consumption for a perceived practical outcome.

💡Useful Fictions

Useful fictions are beliefs or ideas that individuals adopt not necessarily because they are true, but because they serve a practical purpose in their lives. The concept is illustrated in the script by the example of setting a clock ahead to ensure punctuality, which is a practical solution to a common problem despite the manipulation of time.

💡Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument made by Blaise Pascal that posits belief in God as a rational decision based on the potential for infinite reward or punishment. The video explains that Pascal's Wager is a pragmatic approach to the question of God's existence, suggesting that the potential benefits of belief outweigh the costs, regardless of the truth of God's existence.

💡Theist

A theist is someone who believes in the existence of a deity or deities. In the context of the video, Pascal is described as a theist, and his argument for God's existence is rooted in the practicality of belief rather than empirical evidence of God's actual existence.

💡Infinite Reward/Punishment

In the script, the concepts of infinite reward and punishment are central to Pascal's Wager. The infinite reward refers to the eternal bliss of heaven, while the infinite punishment refers to the eternal suffering of hell. These concepts are used to argue that the potential gains of believing in God far outweigh the losses if God does not exist.

💡Fideism

Fideism is a philosophical position that asserts religious beliefs must be based solely on faith, independent of reason or empirical evidence. The video introduces this concept through Soren Kierkegaard's assertion that belief in God is inherently irrational and requires a 'leap of faith,' which is a central theme in fideism.

💡Leap of Faith

The leap of faith is a term used to describe the act of believing in something without rational justification, as emphasized by Kierkegaard. In the video, this concept is illustrated by Indiana Jones' decision to take an impossible jump in 'The Last Crusade,' symbolizing the act of faith in the face of uncertainty.

💡Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones is used as a cultural reference and allegory in the video to illustrate the concepts of pragmatism and the leap of faith. His character is portrayed as pragmatic and willing to perform actions for practical reasons, even if they involve elements of faith he does not fully believe in, such as navigating booby traps in the search for the Holy Grail.

💡Self-Interest

Self-interest, in the context of the video, refers to the motivation to believe in something because it offers personal benefits, such as comfort or security. The script questions whether self-interested belief is genuine or if it can lead to true faith, as in Pascal's argument that the method of belief is irrelevant as long as it results in belief.

💡Bertrand Russell's Teapot

Bertrand Russell's teapot is a philosophical thought experiment mentioned in the video to illustrate the problems with accepting beliefs without evidence. The teapot, which is said to orbit the sun between Earth and Mars, is used to point out the absurdity of believing in something simply because it cannot be disproven, paralleling the argument against unfounded religious beliefs.

💡Existentialism

Existentialism is a philosophical movement that emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and subjective experience. While not the main focus of the video, it is mentioned as the next topic to be covered, and Kierkegaard, who discusses the leap of faith, is considered an existentialist, suggesting that existentialism encompasses a variety of perspectives on the nature of existence and belief.

Highlights

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that values practical beliefs over true ones for improving life quality.

Useful fictions are beliefs we adopt for practical benefits, such as eating spinach for strength.

Pascal's Wager is a pragmatic approach to the existence of God, focusing on the practicality of belief rather than proof.

Pascal argued that even a slight chance of God's existence justifies belief due to the high stakes involved.

Belief in God, according to Pascal, can offer inherent benefits like a sense of security and meaning.

Critics of Pascal's Wager argue that living a religious life may come with personal costs.

Pascal disagreed with critics, believing that the benefits of belief outweigh any sacrifices.

Pascal suggested that one can cultivate belief in God through practice and immersion in religious activities.

The analogy of Indiana Jones taking a leap of faith in 'The Last Crusade' illustrates the concept of pragmatic belief.

Critics point out that forced belief can lead to unhappiness, suggesting that pragmatism may not always be effective.

Søren Kierkegaard's fideism posits that religious belief must come from faith alone, independent of reason or evidence.

Kierkegaard's leap of faith is an irrational act of believing in something that defies reason.

The teapot analogy by Bertrand Russell highlights the risks of accepting beliefs without evidence.

Relying solely on faith can lead to accepting any belief as equally valid, which undermines the ability to discern truth.

The episode concludes with a discussion on the philosophy of religion, including pragmatism and fideism.

The Crash Course Philosophy series is sponsored by Squarespace, offering website creation tools for individuals and businesses.

The episode was produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios, featuring other educational shows.

The production credits acknowledge the team and graphics work behind Crash Course Philosophy.

Transcripts

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Remember when you were little and your mom told you to eat your spinach so you’d grow up big and strong?

Or in college, when you set your clock ten minutes ahead, to fool yourself into getting to class on time?

We all engage in useful fictions – things that we choose to believe, because, they just make life easier.

And when we do this, we are being pragmatists.

Pragmatism is based on the theory that finding true beliefs is

less important than finding beliefs that work, practically, in the living of your life.

In this view, it doesn’t really matter whether spinach actually helps muscle growth;

if eating spinach will improve your life, and believing that it’ll make you strong convinces you to eat it

– then it’s a useful belief, which is all that matters.

Pragmatism is relatively recent as philosophical movements go.

But some of the most well-known American pragmatists

– like William James, and, I would argue, Indiana Jones –

have an ideological ancestor in 17th century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.

You can be a pragmatist about basically anything –

knowledge, spinach, metaphysics, ethics, or whether it’s actually 11:30 right now or 11:40.

But Pascal took a pragmatic approach to one of the biggest issues in philosophy: God’s existence.

[Theme Music]

Pascal was a theist, which, given his place in history may not be all that surprising.

But what is weird is that Pascal’s argument for God’s existence had very little to do with whether God was actually real.

Instead, it had everything to do with with whether belief in his existence was practical.

This reasoning became known as Pascal’s Wager, and it’s really a gambler’s argument for religious belief.

Pascal’s thinking went like this:

Either God exists or he doesn’t, and reason will never give us an answer.

So you must choose blindly to believe or not to believe in God – you can’t abstain from choosing

If you choose to believe in God and he exists, you get an infinite reward – heaven.

If you choose to believe in God and he doesn’t exist, you’re not really out much.

If you choose not to believe in God and he doesn’t exist, you also don’t gain much.

If you choose not to believe in God and he does exist, you get infinite punishment – hell.

Therefore, the smart bet is to put your chips on God existing, every time.

Pascal argued that, if there is the slightest chance that God exists – even if that chance is low –

only a fool would bet against his existence, given that the stakes are so high.

In the face of incomplete information, Pascal decided,

we should play the odds, and believe whatever offers us the greatest benefit.

It’s kind of brilliant, right?

But there are a couple of ways you could argue against this.

You might say Pascal’s done the math wrong – that choosing to walk the straight and

narrow in the service of an imaginary deity actually does cost you something.

Like, you might miss out on stuff that you would otherwise want to do –

like, sleeping in on Sunday mornings, or living a heavy-metal-rock-star lifestyle, or, I dunno, coveting stuff.

By this logic, you’d lose out if you abstained from all of that in the name of something

that ended up not being real.

But Pascal, like William James, disagreed with this line of reasoning,

because he saw great personal benefit in being a believer.

He thought theists have better lives, not because God is blessing them as some kind of reward,

but because belief simply has inherent benefits –

like the security of feeling that the world is ordered and meaningful…

That someone is always looking out for you…

That death isn’t the end.

Now, even if you agree that religious belief is comforting, you might still question Pascal’s motives.

Does believing in something because it’s the safest bet really win you a ticket to heaven?

Doesn’t God want you to be less self-interested when it comes to believing in him?

Well, not according to Pascal.

He thought how and why you choose to believe doesn’t really matter, because the fact is,

God doesn’t care how he gets you, as long as he gets you.

OK, so how do you will yourself into believing in something, just because it’s where the smart money is?

Easy! Pascal said you essentially brainwash yourself into true belief,

so that what starts out as self-interest can eventually grow into an honest conviction.

And you do this, basically, by walking the walk and talking the talk.

Start going to church. Start praying. Hang out with other believers.

At first it might seem weird and disingenuous, but over time, it’ll become an ingrained part of your belief system.

You know what it’s kind of like? Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

It’s probably pop-culture’s finest allegory of pragmatic belief in action.

Throughout the whole Indiana Jones trilogy – I’m just gonna pretend the fourth one was never made –

Indy is painted as a pretty agnostic character.

He hunts religious relics for a living,

but the powers that those relics are said to possess are just “hocus pocus” to him.

So, at the end of The Last Crusade, (spoilers) Indy manages to find the Holy Grail,

in an ancient temple, after getting through a bunch of booby traps.

And each trap is kind of a test of faith.

He has to know where to kneel, and how to spell the name of God,

and he has to jump into an abyss with the hope that he will somehow survive.

Indy ends up passing all of these tests.

But not because he suddenly stops being agnostic and starts believing in God – at least not that we know of.

Instead, he just does what he has to do. He’s literally going through the motions.

There’s something about that, that would make Pascal proud.

Because, to him, it would probably look like Indy was on the path to eventually, truly believing.

Now, some critics have pointed out that, when it comes to a really usable belief system,

you’re gonna need morethan just: fake it ‘til you make it.

For example, maybe you were one of those kids, raised in a religious household, who was just never feeling it.

We all know people who were immersed in a culture of religious belief from birth,

but end up to rejecting those beliefs as adults.

And for those people, trying to force yourself to believe is not only ineffective,

it can lead to some pretty serious unhappiness – the exact opposite of what a pragmatist wants.

So it might be that, for a pragmatist, the best advice for non-believers is that they just gotta live their lives.

Maybe they’ll find God and maybe they won’t,

but making yourself swallow it like medicine doesn’t seem like the way to maximize belief.

OK, so Pascal said that we should believe in God because belief is just practically useful.

But Soren Kierkegaard, the 19th century Danish philosopher, went even further.

He adopted the famous tenant of fideism, stating: “I believe because it is absurd to believe.”

Fideism is the school of thought that says religious belief has to come from faith alone.

It says that stuff like arguments and evidence actually kill what’s great about religion

– which is wonder and mystery.

Kierkegaard said that the fantastic thing about belief in God is that it’s entirely irrational

– you can’t do it with your brain.

You have to take what he called the leap to faith.

And, again, here I turn to Indiana Jones.

Remember when Indy faces his last test of faith-slash-booby trap in the Last Crusade?

He has to try to make an impossible jump across a scary dark pit to get to the Holy Grail.

There is no way he can do it – it’s suicide.

But, it turns out, there’s a bridge.

He can’t see it, but in order to find out that it’s there, he has to take that step.

He has to take a chance on something that defies all reason.

That’s what religion is all about, according to Kierkegaard.

We jump and hope like hell that God catches us.

And the only way to know, is to jump.

We have to surrender reason to get to truth.

Now, I hate to break it to you, but this is the end of our unit on the philosophy of religion.

I’m interested to hear what you think about that in the comments.

But before we go, I want to head to the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

Our old friend Bertrand Russell once posited the existence of a china teapot,

orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.

Let’s say that back on Earth there were a bunch of Teapot-ists, people who argued that,

since we can’t disprove the teapot’s existence, they were justified in believing in it.

Not only that, they constructed great buildings, erected statues, composed songs, held weekly services,

and appealed to the teapot for help in their daily lives.

But everyone else thought the Teapot-ists were ridiculous, because there was no evidence

to support their belief in the teapot.

For their part, the Teapot-ists just replied that none of the Ateapot-ists could prove that it wasn’t there.

Thanks, Thought Bubble! Aaand I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this.

Pragmatism, or the leap to faith, might be a solution to the problem of God’s existence,

if you’re not satisfied with any of the other, more evidence-based arguments.

But believing something because it’s expedient

– or because it frees you from having to have any reasons at all – can still have its risks.

After all, if we can leap to God, we can also leap to Russell’s teapot, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Or, much worse, we could leap to particular beliefs about God

– like that he wants us to deny rights to certain kinds of people – or kill them.

These beliefs aren’t representative of the views of most theists, but the problem is,

if you’re giving up on reasons and evidence, all beliefs are philosophically equal.

We count on evidence and justification to help us adjudicate between beliefs, to decide what we value.

If you throw that out, and fall back on faith alone, the sum of your religious arguments is going to end up being:

I have faith in the things I choose to have faith in.

And in that case, no one can tell anyone else that their belief is wrong,

or dangerous, or unjustified, because you can’t justify faith.

Today we’ve thought a bunch about about religious pragmatism and Pascal’s Wager,

and we’ve also learned about fideism and Kierkegaard’s leap to faith.

Next time we’re going to learn about existentialism, which is a movement Kierkegaard is considered to belong to.

But as we will see, existentialists can come in many different flavors.

This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace.

Squarespace is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas.

Squarespace features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support.

Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out amazing shows like

The Art Assignment, Shanx FX, and It’s Okay To Be Smart

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.