Skip to main content

Pascal's Wager and Being Able to Think!

 +

JMJ

The Intro

Pascal's Wager is an argument to pursue virtue and according to Wikipedia, was published post-posthumously with the basic structure: 

  • God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives"
  • "A Game is being played ... where heads or tails will turn up"
  • "You must wager; it is not optional"
  • "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. ... There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."
  • "But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves."

The Risk

I have been a risk manager and like to put things in that frame. However, before that we need to examine quickly the possible end-points of our mortal existence:

  1. Heaven: We die in a state of grace and are saved for eternity.
  2. Hell: We die in a state of mortal sin and are damned for eternity.
  3. Dissolution: We dissolve into nothing.

Its either good, bad or nothing.
Most religions have some version of #1 and #2, whereas atheists etc believe that death is just the end as opposed to the beginning of eternity.  Some religions believe in a version of Heaven and Hell that are temporary way-stations until they are ready for reincarnations again. 

So, the wager wouldn't make sense to them - unless they had been exposed to the Catholic / Christian and were presented with an argument that if the Catholic / Christian belief is correct. Then the wager would make sense.

... moving on ...

So, no matter what, you are now alive and nothing can alter the fact that you are making decisions and will die. Death, that first of the last four things that is a surety. 

The uncertainty surrounds the existence of God and the wager (what you give up) to attain salvation should He exist.

 “Because of <one or more causes>, <risk> might occur, which would lead to <one or more effects>.” Risk Meta Language - David Hillson

  • Because
    • It is possible that God exists,
    • you have been born,
    • are making decisions every day between
      • virtue 
      • and vice
    • and will eventually die, 
  • a judgement of your actions might occur
  • which would lead to either receiving
      • eternal reward (Heaven), (Purgatory being a temporary state - even measured in 100's of years),
      • or eternal punishment (Hell).

The Wager

So, what are you willing to bet that God doesn't exist?
  • If God exists and
    • you live a life of virtue, you stand to gain Heaven - i.e. eternal happiness,
    • you live a life of vice, you will almost certainly lose Heaven,
  • If God does not exist, 
    • you live a life of virtue, you will lose nothing,
    • you live a life of vice, you will lose nothing,
A rationale betting man or woman would chose to live a life of virtue

Following Pascal's wager, every rational unbeliever would live a life of virtue on the chance that a much greater reward awaits those who practice virtue.

Death, Judgement, Heaven, or Hell

The wager isn't an argument for the existence of God, it is simply a bet that we are each making by our decisions.  

In this case, he was making the case of the wager that the Christian God exists, I obviously am making it that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity,and is God.

Catholic Teaching states that there are four last things - as mentioned earlier death is a certainty for all of us.

Next comes judgement - in which souls in the State of Grace and State of Mortal Sin are judged and their reward or punishment determined. In other words Heaven and Hell are not the same for everyone.

Then comes Heaven or Hell, depending if you are in the former or latter group.

For ever.

Conclusion

What you stand to gain by living a virtuous life is Heaven. 

What you lose in exchange for an eternity in Heaven, are the pleasures and vices that you gave up in the short years of your life here on Earth.

That is infinite vs finite aka ∞ / 0 = ∞ (Infinity divided by zero still equals infinity).

Said another way, is living a life of vice comes with the price of a lost opportunity.

The scales tip towards living a life of virtue.


P^3

Pascal's wager - Wikipedia



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin - July 6, 1988

There has been some discussion (read lots) about the term 'Conciliar Church'. I have posted this letter written by the Superior General and District Superiors of the SSPX after the 1988 Consecrations. Of particular interest is that the 'Conciliar Church' being referred to as a system. My paraphrase would be that the SSPX regards the 'conciliar Church' as an error within the Church. Source Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

 + JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...

How is the SSPX prepared to accept the Second Vatican Council??? - Reblogged and Updated.

+ JMJ The Archbishop remained steadfast. In the 1980s, in his correspondence with then-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises three elements: 1) He and the SSPX would accept anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with Tradition; 2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. 3) Anything in the Council that cannot be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised. The Archbishop laid this out explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985. CF News: Rome-SSPX: Background to the Doctrinal Discussions CF News: The April 15 Deadline A few years ago Tony La Rosa (aka ecclesia militans a Toronto based 'resistor') had a difficult time accepting this approach to the council. He held that it must be completely tossed as...