Pascal's Wager


Pascal’s wager asks us to consider that either God is, or He is not. Provided that reason cannot decide for us which is true, we must wager which is true. To not wager is not optimal. The die is cast, in virtue of being alive and finding ourselves in this situation where we will experience the consequences of our beliefs. If we wager that God exists and thus act on that, and it happens to be that God does indeed exist, then whatever sacrifices we may have made in this life are minimal compared to the infinite glory that we will experience with God. If however, we wager that God exists but God happens to not exist, then we only have a finite amount to lose anyway. Analyzing the possible consequences if we were to wager that God does not exist, we would experience an infinite loss, the loss of an infinite God in our lives, and only a finite amount of worldly gain if it happens to be that God does indeed exist. Finally, if we wager that God does not exist, and it happens to be that God does not exist, you will have some overall finite gain. Now, given this cost-benefit analysis, which is the best choice to make? Clearly wagering that God does exist.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is
Read more