mavii

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument advanced by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, ... they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all." Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us ...

The author argues that Pascal’s wager, a game theory argument for believing in God, is flawed because it oversimplifies the choices, conditions, and outcomes of people. The author cites examples of different religions and practices to show the complexity and diversity of human decisions.

1 st Critique: the Wager does not work as a demonstration of the advantages of Christianity, over other religions.. I agree with this critique. Think about it for a second. You could run the ...

The Wager as Simple and Misleading. Here is where the popular (and misleading) understanding of Pascal’s Wager ends. Why is it misleading? Because it gives the impression that saving faith in God is a choice we make without seeing God as true and compellingly beautiful. The Wager says, You do not know if God is really there.

4. Ignoring the Role of Evidence. Critics claim the Wager ignores evidence for or against God. However, Pascal assumes that evidence alone cannot resolve the question and argues that practical considerations guide decision-making under uncertainty.. John Polkinghorne writes: “The Wager acknowledges the limits of evidence and invites exploration of deeper reasons for belief.”⁷

The many gods objection is one of the oldest challenges to Pascal’s wager, aimed against its second premise. Its earliest form can be attributed to Enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot. According to this objection, Pascal’s wager implies that belief in a multitude, possibly even an infinite number, of different gods is a rational choice.

The second thing wrong with the wager is the issue of the reward. Pascal simply assumes believe and the associated behaviors only harbor an upside potential with no downside, apart from some slight inconveniences. On the other hand he assumes no upside for non-believe, but a considerable downside. This is hardly correct.

Pascal’s wager, practical argument for belief in God formulated by French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.In his Pensées (1657–58), Pascal applied elements of game theory to show that belief in the Christian religion is rational. He argued that people can choose to believe in God or can choose to not believe in God, and that God either exists or he does not.

you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.” Pascal is here expressing a kind of skepticism about the ability of human reason to tell us whether there is a God. But, as Pascal notes, this fact does not remove the necessity of our having to decide to believe, or not believe, in God: “Yes, but you must ...

Combining the chart’s values with the assumption that we should pick the action with the highest expected value yields Pascal’s Wager. While the Wager has its advocates, there are many objections. Let’s review some of the most important. 2. The Many-Gods Objection. An initial objection is that Pascal’s wager is too simplistic.

Pascal’s Wager is one of the most famous thought experiments in history. Conjured by the 17th century polymath Blaise Pascal, on the surface it provides a neat solution to all the troubling questions about God that were springing up as the period known as the Enlightenment led to a revolution in European thought.

Pascal’s Wager is about twenty pages in length, so even though I’m attempting to expand upon the argument above, it will still be a simplification. Pascal’s actual wager (with quotations) ... If you read the Wager or Pensees and think I’m wrong, please reach out and tell me. I write these blogs mostly in the hope that they would begin a ...

reveals one's uncertainty, which could potentially be better than having spent an entire life praying to the wrong God. Finally, Pascal's Wager stated that those who believe in God have nothing to lose if God does not in fact exist, a highly doubtful claim. One that spends the majority of their life following religious instruction and devoting their life to God could very likely rather have ...

“Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single section of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents four such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’—it is only the third of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”.

Given that there is such a diverse choice, there is a very high probability that you might pick the wrong one, so its not a safe bet at all. Decision theory (the basis for Pascals wager) is fine and sound until you introduce eternity (infinity). Once you add infinity into the mix, decision theory breaks down.

Pascal’s Wager about God. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational. The super-dominance form of the argument conveys the basic Pascalian idea, the expectations argument refines it, and the dominating expectations ...

The Essence of Pascal’s Wager: Pascal, a 17th-century polymath, proposed a seemingly pragmatic approach to belief in God: if God exists and one believes, the reward is infinite — eternal bliss ...

“Pascal's Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as ...

A reply to the response. Why the assignment of probability 1/2 is dispensable. 4 Objections to Pascal’s wager. 4.1 The impossibility of believing at will. The difference between deciding to believe and deciding to pursue some ordinary course of action. The intuition behind the thought that it is impossible to decide to believe.