Views on Religion by Pascal - Essay Example

Pascals Wager The “father” of probability theory Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher, put the following argument in his famous work Pensees (Thoughts): 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 if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.[1] Pascal’s wager is very clear: one should better believe in God as it will put him in advantageous position. This strong and logical argument explained from the positions of rationalism and skepticism had postulated the existence of God and had acknowledged superiority of faith over reason. Pascal’s wager follows the previous philosophical views of Descartes who was of the most brilliant representatives of rationalism in 17th century France. Even in the text of the wager we can observe contradictive philosophical views of Pascal as he is hesitating between rationalism and skepticism. Pascal’s work Pensees was written during the reaction of Catholicism in Europe and when any philosophical thought different from the original Catholic Church doctrine was persecuted. That’s why we see that even though Pascal stood on the ideas of rationalism he’s views are deeply influenced by dogmatic religion. His postulate: to blindly believe in God without requiring the evidence of his existence was close to religious authorities who preached nearly the same ideas, but just could not logically explain their views with help of new logic tools of induction and deduction. Pascal’s wager should the advantage of being a believer as he would be “protected and cared by god” and an atheist would be not in case god exists, otherwise: if god doesn’t exist both would be in the same situation. Obviously one who believes, who doesn’t reject the faith will be in a favorable position as he would not experience danger (he might go to heaven in case god exists or not), an atheist or a non-believer (would burn in hell if god exists, or would not if God doesn’t exist). So we can see that Pascal’s wager was a strong counter-argument against atheism and agnosticism. He disposes the weak arguments of atheists who do not believe in God and rejects the arguments of agnostics who state that God’s existence can not be either proved or disproved. Pascal makes a strong argument against agnosticism saying that God exists but is alienated from the human. He argues about the limitations of comprehension and perception of human mind as it cannot comprehend infinite values, eternity and infinity in general. Human mind is unable to cognize infinity of the universe and the infinity of primary particles as molecules or atoms. Human mind has its limitations and as he argues god exists over the limits of human mind so his existence is an unbreakable postulate. Explaining the particularities of human comprehension based on logics, rationalism and objective thinking Pascal’s showed that from any approach there is more positive witness for god’s existence than against it. As Peter Kreeft writes in article: Argument from Pascal’s wager: The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death. Pascal makes a clear statement that to his point of view those who believe in God would be in favorable position and those who not would be in hell in case god exists. The conclusions that come out of Pascal’s wager may be only of two types: with outcomes for those who believe and with outcomes for those who do not. Coming out from laws of formal logics Pascal eliminates the third case in this situation as only true or false may exist. Pascal doesn’t mention anything about agnostics, about those who do not believe in existence of God as it can not be proved. Pascal simply divides on those who believe and those who not. So agnostics, or those who do not believe in existence may be proved are ranked among those who do not believe in God. That’s why Pascal predicts the same punishment for both atheists and agnostics in case God exists that both of them “would be burnt in hell for being unfaithful”: “Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way: 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 avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other… “(from Kreeft, Peter Argument from Pascal’s wager) Pascal’s rationalism is the main tool against both agnostics and atheists. As he argues that existence of God can not be empirically cognized and his existence can not be experienced and proved he postulates God’s existence over the boundaries of our mind and ability of comprehension. Pascal’s argues about the ability of a human to reason about God’s existence as this question is unsolved as well as understanding of infinite universe and infinity in mathematics. Attacks on agnostics have a perfect basis as agnostics have no counter arguments against Pascal’s views of limited human mind. Agnostics don’t believe that God’s existence can be proved, Pascal agrees that it can not be proved empirically, god’s presence and God’s existence in our life can not be proved by experiment and feelings, but God’s existence can be proved rationally and logically if to impose restrictions on abilities of human mind and his abilities of cognition. Pascal agrees that both atheists and agnostics represent irrational approach to this problem and their conclusions are false. Moreover agonistics being nearly the same in their beliefs about nonexistence of God as atheists as the outcomes of this philosophy look nearly the same are trying to occupy a special place being different from either atheists or believers. Pascal’s concept represents two outcomes: God’s existence and God’s non-existence. The probability of both is 50 percent as God may either exist or not. As Pascal doesn’t present any idea how God’s existence may be either proved or disproved he makes a solid logical statement or an axiom, which doesn’t need to be proved. Agnostics who do not believe in possibility of God’s existence to be proved do not follow the statement of Pascal about probability of God’s existence and non-existence. They seem to reject existence of god and cognition by any of two approaches: rational and empirical. Even though that some mathematicians may argue that possibility of God’s existence may be different from traditional one half as it’s stated by Pascal, can be negative or equal to zero it would not greatly change the problem. As in reality the main argument of agnostics that existence of God can not be proved is false if there exists a probability of even a very small value that god exists. Otherwise the argument will be logically incorrect. Agnostics’ concept fails to be applied to this case if we discuss Pascal’s wager from the point of probabilities for God’s existence, as the probability implies logical truth (the percentage it may be truth). Agnostics’ concept needs more limits in the statement of Pascal, more special conditions to be applied and more idealization. In fact that the main reason it looks bankrupt. Pascal’s wager is criticized as it seems to be incomplete from theological point of view in many aspects. First of all the choice to believe in god or not does not limit the number of Gods to one, but instead it only shows that there might be more than one God. From this aspect pascal’s wager seems to be undeveloped and unclear. Of course Pascal was talking a definite God from the point of view of Christian theology and monotheism. But this subjective premise can not be proved or disapproved and that’s why Pascal neglected it in wager. Some critics look on wager from the following perspective: Pascal assumes that there exists a probability of god’s existence which equals to 50 percent, but if to be more detailed the existence of a particular God (Jesus Christ according to Christian teaching) is not 50 percent but is much smaller than 50 percent as there might exist other gods. So the possibility of god to non-exist is greater than those 50 percents stated by Pascal. Nevertheless Pascal argues that the reward is worth believing, despite the value of probability. In both cases the point of agnostics is irrational as it doesn’t have any logical explanation and can not be concluded from the following discourse. A variety of gods and existence of non-Christian God may assume that Christians would be punished for “worshiping a wrong God”, but in general the term God in Pascal’s philosophy is equal to infinity eternity and superpower. In different religions the descriptions of god are the same so it means that believing in god (or in gods) a person will receive salvation. One who doesn’t believe will not receive one as well as one who rejects the probability of god’s existence to be proved. From different angles the problem of existence of many gods according to Pascal’s wager only makes the problem of agnostics more complicated to prove that impossibility of God’s existence to be defined. Pascal also had enough arguments for the questions about belief in God when the evidence of his existence is absent; as such belief may be either philosophically or logically irresponsible. Pascal stated that the human makes life choices either on the basis or absence of any reasonable basis, so the decision to base the life on belief in God would not look irrational because of the possible reward one may receive when he dies. According to the logical construction of Pascal’s wage about existence of god and faith, this formula may be applied to any kind of the dilemma proving the bankruptcy of agnosticism approach which is based on rejection of any possible solution. If to think about agnosticism in general and about its influence on the process of cognition we would definitely observe that it doesn’t propose any solution or any way out of the problem, as it only rejects the reason of the problem stating that it can not be proved. So agnosticism either in theological basic questions or in any other contradictive nature is only an alternative approach to leave the problem unsolved. The years of human development and progress have shown that the surrounding world is cognized that matter is cognized and that a man is able to cognize the environment both rationally and empirically, as these both methods supplement each other and promote multi-sided perception of reality. References: 1. Kreeft, Peter Argument from Pascal’s wager Article available from http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm 2. Tobin, Paul N. Epilogue: The Rejection of Pascals Wager Article available from http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html?20051#1#1 3. Till, Farrell Playing the Odds, Article available from http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/2/2front91.html Read More