Make a Wager:

1. Make a Wager: Does God Exist? Pragmatic Justification of Religious Belief

2. Blaise Pascal’s Argument: • If we do a cost-benefit analysis of the matter, we find that it is eminently reasonable to get ourselves to believe that God exists regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief.

3. Blaise Pascal • Regarding the proposition “God exists” reason is neutral. It can neither prove nor disprove it. But we must make a choice on this matter, for not to choose for God is in effect to choose against him and lose the possible benefits that belief would bring. Since these benefits promise to be infinite and the loss equally infinite, we might set forth the possibilities as shown below:

4. Blaise Pascal: A Choice: FIRST CHOICE: “I believe that God exists”: A. If God does exists, then there is an infinite gain with minimal finite loss. B. If God does not actually exist, then there is only an overall finite loss in term of sacrifice of earthly goods. OR:

5. Blaise Pascal: A Choice: SECOND CHOICE: “I do not believe that God exists”: C. If God does in fact exists, then there is infinite loss with finite gain. D. If God does not actually exists, then there is overall finite gain.

6. Blaise Pascal: A Choice: There is some sacrifice of earthly pleasure involved in belief in God, but by multiplying the various combinations we find that there is an incommensurability between A and C, on the one hand, and B and D on the other. No matter how enormous the finite gain, the mere possibility of infinite gain will always make the latter preferable to the former.

7. Blaise Pascal: A Choice: So, the only relevant possibilities are A and C. Since A (believing in God) infinite unhappiness, a rational cost-benefit analysis leaves no doubt about what we should do. Thus, we have a clear self-interested reason for believing in God.

8. Appeals to your intellect regarding the wisdom of choices (making a judgment in view of the options or/and consequences): You will experience an infinite loss if God does in fact exists then if He doesn’t exist-if you refuse to believe. You will experience an infinite gain if God does exists and experience only a finite loss –if you willfully believe. • This argument appeals to the will regarding the intellect’s judgment. In view of these type of probabilities there is a rational tendency to believe.

9. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING APPEAL BY PASCAL: “Now what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at least recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing” [Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Louis P. Pojman (Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth, 2003), 363].

10. Lastly, consider…what if we were to add classical proofs for God’s argument to this probability argument formulating a cumulative case for God’s existence. Would the probability in favor of God’s existence increase? • Cosmological Argument; • Kalam Cosmological Argument: • Moral Argument; • Religious Need Argument; • Innate Idea Argument; • Joy Argument; • Ontological Argument • Teleological argument: • Intelligent Design. • Anthropic Principle (fine tuning of the universe).

11. Discussion Questions: • How much evidence does one need to have in order to believe? • Are their weaknesses in Pascal’s argument in terms of probability? • Can I even choose to believe? • Would God reward me if I did choose to believe for the reasons Pascal gives for reasons for self-interest? • Is their a difference in believing “that” from “in”? • Does this wager presuppose “fear”? • Is this argument an exercise in “bad faith”?