Pascal's Wager
The argument from generalised exceptions is a combination of all of Pascal's previous points. The first premise states that you can either wager for or against God, but the most useful decision for faith is if you choose to believe he exits and then he does exist. All of the other utilities except one are finite. Premise two states that a prudent person would choose the option which gives them infinite utility. Premise three says that you should wager for God as this is the only expectation where one will get infinite utility.
Explain the argument from generalised expectations.
This is where Pascal's interest in Mathematics drives his attempt to include a probability theory. He said that we can calculate the relative expected values of believing in God and show how it would be imprudent not to wager in favour of God.
Explain this argument.
How did Pascal begin his argument?
He said that God is or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Since reason cannot tell us this we must wager and consider what the most prudent/wise decision is.
What was Pascals first argument?
The argument from super dominance. We are given 2 choices but with this argument he wanted to prove that one choice dominates the other. Reason cannot help us so we must make a decision based on utility.
What did Pascal firmly believe ?
The faith CANNOT be based upon a reasoned argument.
-you can wager for or against god. -a prudent person would choose that which gives them the best outcome. -wagering for god provides the best possible outcome.
What are the three premises ?
He concluded that you should wager for God as it is the only expected outcome where you will get infinite utility. Theism is a more sensible wager than atheism.
What did Pascal conclude ?
It is evident that wagering for God super dominates wagering against God. We gain the most utility (benefit) from believing in God.
What did he conclude from this argument?
The argument from expectation.
What is Pascal's next argument?
The argument from generalised expectation. This is a combination of all three points.
What is his final argument?
This is an example of fideism- faith cannot have support from reason. Faith should be accepted without the need to resort to reason. He didn't think reasoned arguments could convert the agnostic. Instead, he wanted to convince people of the usefulness of belief.
What is this an example of ?
Pascal was a voluntarist. This means that he thought faith was superior to reason, he saw faith as a free act of will, it is not something which should be forced by a rational argument.
What was pascal ?
He said there is a 50:50 chance of God existing. Our calculation of expectations has been shown in the above matrix showing that we gain most utility from believing as the expectation is for infinite reward.
Why is this ?
Pascal's God was one which....
was REVEALED and not discovered through reason.
How did Pascal prove that wagering for God is the best decision?
-if you wager for God and God exists then you gain eternal life. If he doesn't then nothing happens. If you wager against God and he exists then you gain eternal damnation, if he doesn't then nothing happens.
What did pascal believe ?
. He said that our life is a gamble since we cannot use reason we have to take risks. Pascal said that we can bet our lives that God exists and gain eternal life if we are right and lose very little if we are wrong. We must wager- which means to gamble.
