If the prize is infinite, then the “expected value” of the ticket is infinite, no matter how small the chance of winning. It can be rational to buy a lottery ticket with a low chance of winning, provided the prize is of enormous value to you. The conclusion is a recommended action: you ought to believe (or to strive to believe) in God, even if you think that the probability of God’s existence is very low. Pascal’s Wager is instead a prudential or “pragmatic” argument. Other theological arguments - ontological, cosmological, and teleological - aim to establish that God’s existence is necessary or probable. If you happen to think, as I do, that the probability of God’s existence is far higher than 10%, then that just makes the rationality of the Wager all the more convincing.Pascal’s Wager is one of the great classic arguments for belief in God, and one of the most famous arguments in all of philosophy. If the probability of God’s existence is 10%, for example, then 0.1 * Infinity is still Infinity – a number which makes incredible sense to pursue from the perspective of personal utility. ![]() Thomas Aquinas’s Cosmological and Teleological arguments come immediately to mind, for example. I have no problem saying that I think that there are other arguments which do a good job of demonstrating that the probability of God’s existence is greater than 0. It is a secondary, dependent argument for God’s existence in the sense that other arguments must first be made in order to demonstrate that the probability of God’s existence is greater than 0. The Pascal Wager ought not to be seen as a stand-alone argument for God’s existence. This is because I do not think that the probability of God’s existence is 0. the infinite upside one might experience in the afterlife), the number is still 0 – which doesn’t make sense to pursue from the perspective of personal utility.īut I do not think that this is a knock-down argument. Mathematically speaking, if you multiply 0 by Infinity (i.e. I agree here that if the probability of God’s existence is really 0, then the Wager is unsuccessful. So the Pascal Wager is limited by these considerations, in my view.ģ rd Critique: if the probability of God’s existence is 0, then the Wager doesn’t work. They ought eventually to learn to love God for the sake of glorifying Him, and not just in order to obtain the best benefits for themselves. Instead of just staying at the level of self-centeredness for one’s whole life, Christians ought to venture further and learn to appreciate their faith for other, more substantive reasons. My own view is that the Pascal Wager is only useful as a starting point, and that persons of faith (like myself) ought not to just stay there their whole lives. That’s probably a pretty bad reason for obeying God, if in fact that is your sole reason. I agree that it’s not good for your character if the only reason you choose to obey God is in order to obtain better rewards in the afterlife. The traditional reason that Christianity has offered for why we ought to obey God is that we should do so because we love Him and, out of gratitude for all He’s done for us we are eager to obey Him. The reason why it is inconsistent is that it promotes self-interest and it does not incentivize us to obey God for more legitimate reasons. By betting that God exists you are covering your bases and opening yourself up to infinite upside (while avoiding infinite downside).īut this, so the cynicism critique goes, is a bad motive that is inconsistent with Christian views of character change (note that the cynicism critique only works from a Christian perspective – it presumably does not work from certain other religious perspectives). Basically, as I understand the Wager, the suggestion is that you should bet that God exists so that you can obtain the best possible outcome in the afterlife. Think for a moment about the reasons that the Wager suggests for why you ought to bet that God exists. 2 nd Critique: the Wager is cynical and encourages bad motives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |