Embedded Files
1. God and Proof
1. God and Proof
Beliefs are states of mind that incline us towards or away from accepting something as true or false or right or wrong. However, they are not always true and not always justified.
I believe in the Christian God (justified? On what grounds?)
I believe that we should turn the other cheek and not cast first stones (justified?)
I believe that we should execute child rapists (not justified, contradictory)
I believe in Santa Clause (not true)
Beliefs can contradict each other
Knowledge cannot contradict knowledge. I cannot know a figure is a triangle and know it has four sides. If I know what a triangle is I know it has precisely three sides. But I can believe something with four-sides is called a triangle, even though my belief would be wrong.
Not all beliefs are equally valid.
I believe that anyone’s beliefs are true.
Someone else believes that no one’s beliefs are true.
Therefore, everyone’s beliefs are both not true and true.
This is where Pascal starts:
Pascal believes there are no proofs of God’s existence –God is beyond understanding.
Complains that people still ask for proof: this would be ridiculous, he says:
“If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense”
2. Blaise Pascal
2. Blaise Pascal
1623-1662
natural scientist / mathematician
at 16 years old, produced a work on Conics that Descartes dismissed
mystical experience in 1654 (at 31 years old)
wrote theological/philosophical works: Provincial letters, Pensées
in 1654 a friend with a gambling problem led Pascal to work with Fermat on what would become probability theory
buried at St-Etienne-du-mont
3. The Wager: “God is or God is not”
3. The Wager: “God is or God is not”
“Les paris stupides”
Un certain Blaise Pascal etc… etc…
--Jacques Prévert
Pascal thought the arguments for the existence of God were not compelling, and also that the arguments against the existence of God were not compelling. He thought we were caught in inescapable ignorance about whether God exists or not. Pascal’s disputant claims that both those who claim god exists and those who claim he doesn’t are in error. The most rational thing to do is to suspend judgment. Pascal proposes that we ask a different question: Given that the evidence does not compel us one way or the other, is it reasonable to believe in God?
Or rather: Is it more rational to believe in God (and behave accordingly) or not to believe in God (and behave accordingly)?
Pascal thinks we must make a choice because “we are embarked.”
We are obliged to play the game. In other words, we are alive.
If you lose you losing nothing, if you gain you gain all
4. The Wager
4. The Wager
What is the best bet?
Note that the big win and the big loss are immeasurably bigger than the little win and the little loss: the big win and big loss are for eternity; the little win and the little loss are just for the span of a human lifetime -- 70 years ±
The only way to be sure of avoiding the BIG LOSS, and to have a chance at the BIG WIN is to believe G. Believing G does not guarantee the BIG WIN, but you can’t WIN BIG unless you believe G.
The sceptic asks: “but what if I cannot believe by nature?”
Can one force oneself to believe?
Pascal says we should try – by the abatement of passions, following the model of believers, going to mass.
5. Problems
5. Problems
What if there are many Gods?
Can we force ourselves to believe something?
Is it right to force ourselves to believe something? Is it a good motivation for religious belief? Are we giving up more than we gain?
Is there something fishy with the outcomes?
Helpful Links:
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse