Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosophermathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal — Pascal argues that a rational person should live as Mathematician destroys atheist dating God exists and seek to believe in God.
If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss some pleasures, luxury, etc. Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian Godthough similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.
Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory marked the first formal use of decision theoryand anticipated future philosophies such as existentialismpragmatism and voluntarism. Pascal asks the reader to analyze humankind's Mathematician destroys atheist dating, where Mathematician destroys atheist dating actions can be enormously consequential but our understanding of those consequences is flawed.
While we can discern a great deal through reason, we are ultimately forced to gamble. Pascal cites a number of distinct areas of uncertainty in human life:. We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as Mathematician destroys atheist dating principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others. Pascal describes humanity as a finite being trapped within an incomprehensible infinity, briefly thrust into being "Mathematician destroys atheist dating" non-being, with no explanation
Mathematician destroys atheist dating "Why?
Given that reason alone cannot determine whether God exists, Pascal concludes that this question functions like a coin toss. However, even if we do not know the outcome of this coin toss, we must base our actions on some expectation about the outcome. We must decide whether to live as though God exists, or whether to live as though God does not exist, even though we may be mistaken in either case. In Pascal's assessment, participation in this wager is not optional.
Merely by existing in a state of uncertainty, we are forced to choose between the available courses of action for practical purposes. If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or Mathematician destroys atheist dating He is Reason can decide nothing here.
There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. The true course is not to wager at all.
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. Which will you choose then? Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery.
Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one "Mathematician destroys atheist dating" settled. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these Mathematician destroys atheist dating chances. If you gain, you gain all; Mathematician destroys atheist dating you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that Mathematician destroys atheist dating is. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager.
But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play since you are under the necessity of playingand you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of
Mathematician destroys atheist dating and gain.
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an Mathematician destroys atheist dating of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain.
But Mathematician destroys atheist dating is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal's assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.
We only have two things to stake, our "reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is " equal risk of loss and gain" i. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist. He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter.
The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing.
The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed.
On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated in which case, nothing matters one way Mathematician destroys atheist dating the other or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In notespeaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable Pascal addressed the difficulty that ' reason ' and ' rationality ' pose to genuine belief "Mathematician destroys atheist dating" proposing that "acting as if [one] believed" could "cure [one] of unbelief":.
But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions.
You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it.
Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured.
Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager can be thought of as a decision under uncertainty with the values of the following decision matrix.
Any matrix of the following type where f 1f 2and f 3 are all negative or finite positive numbers results in B as being the only rational decision. Many criticisms have explained that the wager has been used as a supposed theory of the necessity to believe, although that was never Pascal's intention.
As Laurent Thirouin writes:. The celebrity of fragment has been established at the price of a mutilation. By titling this text "the wager", readers have been fixated only on one part of Pascal's reasoning. It doesn't conclude with a QED at the end of the mathematical part.
The unbeliever who had provoked this long analysis to counter his previous objection "Maybe I bet too much" is still not ready to join the apologist on the side of faith. He put forward two new objections, undermining the foundations of the wager: To be put at the beginning of Pascal's planned book, the wager was meant to show that logical reasoning cannot support "Mathematician destroys atheist dating" or lack thereof.
We have to accept reality and accept the reaction of the libertine when he rejects arguments he is unable to counter. The conclusion is evident: Belief in God doesn't depend upon rational evidence, no matter which position. Pascal's intended book was precisely to find Mathematician destroys atheist dating ways to
Mathematician destroys atheist dating the value of faith, an apology for the Christian faith.
Criticism of Pascal's Wager began in his own day, and came from both atheists, who questioned the 'benefits' of a deity whose 'realm' is beyond reason, Mathematician destroys atheist dating the religiously orthodox, who primarily took issue with the wager's deistic and agnostic language. It is criticized for not proving God's existence, the encouragement of false belief, and the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped.
Voltaire Mathematician destroys atheist dating prominent French writer of the Enlightenmenta generation after Pascal, rejected the idea that the wager was "proof of God" as "indecent and childish", adding, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists". Voltaire's critique concerns not the nature of the Pascalian wager as proof of God's existence, but the contention that the very belief Pascal tried to promote is not convincing.
Voltaire hints at the fact that Pascal, as a Jansenistbelieved that only a small, and already predestined, portion of humanity would eventually be saved by God. Voltaire explained that no matter how far someone is tempted with rewards to believe in Christian salvation, the result will be at best a faint belief. Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many conceptions of God or godssome assert that all of them need to be factored into the Wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations.
This, its proponents argue, would lead to a high probability of believing in "the wrong god", which, they claim, eliminates the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Mackie notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Romebut perhaps that of the Anabaptists or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshipers of Kali or of Odin.
Another version of this objection argues that for every religion that promulgates rules, there exists another religion that has rules of the opposite kind.
If a certain action leads one closer to salvation in the former religion, it leads one further away from it in the latter. Therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion could be negative.
Or, one could also argue that there are an infinite number of mutually exclusive religions which is a subset of the set of all possible religionsand that the probability of any one of them being true is zero; therefore, the expected value of following a certain religion is zero.
Pascal says that unbelievers who
Mathematician destroys atheist dating content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism Mathematician destroys atheist dating seduced them into a fatal "repose".
If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine "in detail" whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered. As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a "trap"  that he had no intention of falling into.
If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter "in detail". In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on "other religions". As David Wetsel notes, treatment of the pagan religions is brisk: Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance.
Mathematician destroys atheist dating are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest 'les gens habiles' 'clever men'  ".
Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a Mathematician destroys atheist dating to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism.
As the global face of atheism over "Mathematician destroys atheist dating" last decade, Dawkins has . of biology based on the mathematical modelling of animal behaviour. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think. Pascal's Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth- century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal.
What I've noticed about the general nature of atheist responses to this article The Father sacrificed
Mathematician destroys atheist dating own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not To date any theological and/or philosophical reason has left me Probability is fine math but it's not applicable necessarily to all circumstances.