Pascal's Wager for Believing in God

For years people have contemplated the idea of a supreme being and the existence of heaven and hell. The thought of a god watching over us and a place where all souls spend the rest of eternity was motivation enough for the masses to stay on the righteous path. But sometimes people would wonder if there really was a God and what the consequences of not believing would be. Pascal created a wager in which the possibilities of believing or not believing were combined with the afterlife to see which choice of faith would outweigh all the others. I believe that although this wager is a good starting point for having faith, it is not convincing enough to believe in God for the rest of one's life.

In his wager are the options of believing or not believing in God. These two beliefs are combined with whether or not God actually exists. If one believes and God truly exists, they will be rewarded in heaven for all eternity. If God does not exist, they will be neither rewarded nor punished and remain in a neutral position in the afterlife. Contrary to that, if one does not believe in God and he does exist, their soul will be punished forever and if God does not exist, once again that person will remain in neutral territory for eternity.

This wager does not take into consideration which God to believe in and what exactly makes up heaven or hell. Although it is a bit vague and broad, I still think it is a good starting point for faith. If I were a totally ignorant individual when it came to religion and God's existence and was confronted with Pascal's wager, I believe I would be moved enough by his argument to start to believe in God. If an individual believes in God, that person looks for proofs of his existence in his or her everyday life. Someone who has contemplated the idea of God and concludes that they don't believe has come to terms with the idea of a higher being and made up their mind not to believe. One who is ignorant has no idea what to think either way. With Pascal's wager each box has a possible outcome. Box number one is the most favorable. Box three is least favorable and boxes two and four are neutral either way. The fact that believing will produce results more desirable than any other option is reason enough to start to have faith. When looking at the facts laid out, it makes perfect sense especially if one is ignorant about God's existence. A simple but convincing wager is all one needs to help that person make up his or her mind on believing.

I believe that this wager is a good starting point in the direction towards religion. However, religion is something that one must believe in for the rest of that person's life. Although Pascal's wager shows a good reason to believe in God, I do not believe that it is proof enough to have faith for the rest of one's life. There needs to be more compelling reasons than some non-specific "heaven" for believing. A person needs more motivation in this life on earth to have a strong belief that will stay with them over a lifetime.

When contemplating God's existence and the possibility of an afterlife, people use two different methods of rationalizing. The first is objective rationality and the second is instrumental rationality. Objective rationality focuses on a person's goals towards what they would like to accomplish in the future and instrumental rationality focuses on the means to an end. The difference between the two is the fact that instrumental rationality focuses more on the here and the now while objective rationality aims towards the future. Instrumental rationality tends to consist mainly on actions and objective rationality is more about dreams and wants.

When applying the objective rationality method to situations, one would mostly likely think about their future. He or she would ask the question, "What are my goals?" Regardless of the answer to the question objective rationality would aim towards that goal. A person would focus on that one idea and work hard towards making that thought a reality. Due to the fact that these rationalizations are part of reality, although objective rationality focuses towards the future, it must take into consideration the present. While accomplishing everyday tasks, one would be sure to keep in mind why that person is doing the things he or she does and would keep in mind to only take actions that have relevance to the goal.

In instrumental rationality a person would place more emphasis on the everyday tasks involved in achieving a goal rather than just focusing on the goal itself. All actions that person took would contribute towards the goal but more consideration would be given to each individual action. The focus would lie on finishing every single task and the goal as to why that person is taking a certain action would be the underlying motivation rather than the dominant factor.

The two processes of rationalization connect to Pascal's wager. Each of the two types of rationalization are necessary to decide on whether or not to believe. With objective rationalization comes the question of which God is Pascal talking about. In his wager he claims that one must believe in God, who does exist, in order to get into heaven, but nothing is said of which form of God to believe in. God seems to be used as a general term, simply meaning a higher being. Pascal seems to want to wave away the idea of an alternative form of God and wants the people to focus on instrumental rationality, or how to practice believing in God. Although it is important to worship the right way, I think it is more important to set straight which God to worship. With objective rationality, the goals are focused on and in this case, God is the goal to get closer to. Based on what I have learned about Pascal's wager, it seems as though he wants people to focus more on instrumental rationality than objective. His wager says nothing of which God to believe in, something that is crucial to have true faith. A person must have a convincing and complete reason to believe in God, and the only way to do so is to rationalize both objectively and instrumentally. By not mentioning any details about which God to believe in, I do not believe his wager is complete. This makes it ineffective in giving a truly compelling reason to believe in God.

In dealing with Pascal's wager about the existence of an afterlife with heaven and hell, one must make certain assumptions about the wager in order for it to make sense and work. These assumptions are thoughts that Pascal held to be true because he based his wager around them. He claims that if one believes in these truths, then one must believe in God because it is the most rational thing to do. His wager deals solely with rationality. I believe that Pascal's wager has nothing to do with the fact that his idea of God may not like believers who bet on their faith instead of truly believing or that God does not even exist and takes on the form of another type of god.

His first assumption states that one ought to maximize one's expected payoffs. Although at first hand this seems like the best route to take, there are always cases where maximizing the benefits will not lead to the most desirable results. In some instances, getting less than one could may be the best method to take because of circumstances in that situation. Choosing not to get the best payoff may be done to help another person out so that he or she can maximize the payoffs. A person who is not very financially stable could win the lottery and give it all away to charity because that person believes there are others out there who need the money more. In this case, that person is giving up the chance to live a better, more comfortable life in order to help those less fortunate. By giving the money away, one did not maximize one's expected payoff, and felt that the right thing to do would be to hand it to those who needed it more.

Pascal's second assumption is that no independent evidence can settle the question of where God exists. This is an assumption that I believe Pascal was right about. There has been no solid evidence on earth that God truly exists. Although many signs have appeared and many people have claimed to see, hear, or talk to God, none of this can be factual. A sign could be interpreted in a number of different ways depending on the person's background and faith. What one may consider to be an act of God, another could claim to be a scientific breakthrough. Similarly, people who say they have communicated with God in some form could be lying for some reason or looked at as though they were not mentally stable. In a world where so many beliefs and faiths exist and sometimes clash, nothing can be a hundred percent accurate in proving that God actually does exist.

The third assumption is that the probability of God existing is greater than zero.

This is also another assumption I agree with. Although there is no solid proof of God's existence, there is still a chance he does exist. Not everything in the world can be explained using simple logic or rationality. There are some things out there not even science can claim to know the very origins of. For instance, no one knows what really occurred to make up the universe. Although science uses theories such as the Big Bang Theory, they cannot be proved conclusively with scientific evidence. There are mysteries in life that cannot be explained, so one might rationally assume a divine force out there had something to do in creating these occurrences on earth. I believe that God must have some probability of existing because of this. Unlike Pascal, however, I am not so sure as to what form of God actually exists. I believe that the probability of a god existing is much more likely than the probably of God existing. There is more of a chance of some form of God existing out there that is different from the God that Pascal believes in. Pascal's God is only one idea and the probability that his exists over the probability of everyone else's variation is very low.

Pascal's fourth assumption states that there are only two options between which to choose: Pascal's God exists or no gods of any sort exist. I disagree with this assumption completely. As assumed earlier, no independent evidence can say that God exists yet the probability of him existing is greater than zero. These two assumptions seem to contradict this fourth assumption. Pascal's God has no solid evidence of existence which is understandable and acceptable. Although we do not have solid evidence, there is no reason to say he does not exist at all because of unexplained phenomenas on earth and other unexplainable mysteries. If this is the case, then one cannot say that either Pascal's God exists or no gods exist at all. If Pascal's God has a greater probability than zero of existing, then any other god can have that same chance. If people can claim to speak to Pascal's God and have that be a valid argument for why God exists, then others can claim to have spoken to a different god and have that be just as a valid of a claim for why their alternative god exists. Pascal cannot simply say to believe in his God or no god at all because it does not fit in with his other assumptions. He cannot say that there is only the possibility if one God existing without solid proof, which he and no one else in the world has.

The last assumption asks if it is rational to suppose that if God exists and you have bet on God existing, then the payoff is infinite? As I stated earlier, in his wager, the only thing being taken into account are the chances of getting into heaven or hell. Pascal does not consider the fact that God may not like it if people accept him because it produces the best results. This makes it seem as though faith is merely a bet, and I do not believe that any kind of god would like people to believe in him for that reason. People should believe because they feel it is the right thing to do. They should follow a certain way of life because they have strong faith that it is the righteous way to live. If people take Pascal's wager and believe only for the sake of going to heaven, then their faith in God is not genuine; it is a selfish faith based only on self-interest.

Although I believe Pascal's wager is a good starting point for someone who is totally ignorant to approach faith, it is not enough to believe in for the rest of one's life. Pascal's wager depends on too many vague assumptions and these assumptions are not strong enough to have faith in the wager. His ideas are too simplistic and basic for a person to have a deep faith that they can follow in for the rest of his or her life. These assumptions stretch past the limit of faith. People need more than a simple wager because religion is more complex than that. The wager lacks a certain amount of conviction and substantial proof needed to bring about a full faith in God, something crucial to have a strong and secure belief.