Pascal’s Wager
If you’ve played Dark Souls, you’ll be familiar with Pascal’s Wager. Both games have
a similar mechanics and use shoulder buttons to attack and health meters. Pascal’s
Wager also has an altar where Terrence can level up his attributes and rest while
respawning enemies.
Arguing for belief in God
Pascal’s wager is an argument for religious belief that relies on ethical reasoning. It
assumes that the wagerer is a moral person and that belief in God is compatible with
his or her values. Pascal argued that man’s animal desires distract him from a
greater good. Because of this, Pascal is obligated to convince the reader that his
wager is compatible with his or her moral values.
Pascal’s wager is one of the most famous philosophical arguments in history. It
posits that human beings have a “wager” on whether or not God exists. Although it
does not prove the existence of God, it is a useful tool in discussions on religion. In
addition to being an effective philosophical tool, Pascal’s wager also has some
limitations. It fails to provide proof of God’s existence, and it is often countered by
the arguments that it relies on inauthentic belief rather than reason.
Pascal’s wager also has an advantage: it can be used to defend the rationality of
Christian choices. While it doesn’t require any rational proof for the existence of God,
it explains why Pascal’s decision to become a Christian was ethically and rationally
defensible. Moreover, it is a kind of true apologetics that is completely different from
the other types of evangelism and proselytizing.
The argument is often critiqued by the inconsistent revelations argument. However,
it is important to remember that Pascal’s wager is not limited to the Christian God. A
number of other possible gods have existed throughout human history and could still
exist in the future. In fact, Richard Dawkins, a prominent skeptic, has proposed a
god who rewards honest disbelief, while punishing blind faith.
Criticism of Pascal’s Wager
One criticism of Pascal’s wager relates to its use of infinite values. This objection
states that the probability of winning or losing a bet is not equal in both cases. But it
is possible to recast the problem in such a way as to address this objection. This
reformulation is known as the ratio-based solution and it avoids invoking infinite
utility.
A second criticism of Pascal’s wager comes from religious orthodoxy. In the view of
religious orthodoxy, this wager is inherently deistic and is, therefore, incompatible
with religious belief. It also contradicts orthodoxy, which rejects the existence of
God. This critique has also been criticized by staunch atheists.
However, it is important to note that many critics of Pascal’s wager do not object to
the notion of infinite utility for the wagerer. Indeed, Rescher’s 1985 paper entertains
the possibility that infinite utility would be negative in the case of betting against an
existent God. And Pascal’s own words have been quoted as indicating that the
wagerer would have to wager against an existent God to be right.
Another criticism of Pascal’s wager relates to the idea that Pascal’s wager is illogical.
He presents a hypothetical situation wherein it is impossible to prove the existence
or absence of God by human reason. To be rational in such a situation, one must
weigh the consequences and make an informed choice. By presenting four possible
outcomes, Pascal makes us face a problem of choice.
Analysis of Bayesian model of Pascal’s Wager
The economic analysis of Pascal’s wager is concerned with deriving the wager’s
economic purpose. The author applies decision theory to the problem. The
implication of this paper is that Pascal’s wager is a rational justification for belief in a
divine being. The author credits Pascal as one of the first contributors to decision
theory.
In other words, Pascal’s wager asserts that non-believers should assign uniform prior
probabilities to the existence of god. However, this reasoning only works for the One
True God, and does not apply to all the other gods. This argument only becomes
useful as the probability of a god increases.
Although Pascal understood the limits of rational thinking, most economists have yet
to realize this. In fact, most economists still fail to understand that relying on rational
thinking alone is dangerous. Pascal’s wager relies on a fundamental assumption:
that God must take a particular form.
The resulting probabilities are based on a ratio that varies between i and s. This
implies that the wagerer can have an infinite utility if they bet on either of two
religions, but a negative utility if they bet against God.
Pascal’s wager makes many assumptions about the nature of reality and god. These
assumptions can be unfounded or undesirable, resulting in the wager’s ill effects.
Moreover, the wager’s implications arise from both theological and game theory
attributes. For example, it is possible for a god to promote evil by rewarding those
who maximize their own gains.
