Chris Archuleta

English 2010
Persuasive essay
The Unvirtue of Faith and Pascals Wager

It is not often proposed that the search for knowledge is a gamble, that we

should throw in with whichever side offers the greater reward. Blaise Pascal,

proposes that we should do exactly this. Pascal puts forth the idea that because

the reward is so great if ones belief in God turns out to be true, and the

punishment so severe if ones disbelief in God turns out to be false, that one

should believe in God on merit of consequence. Pascal also proposes that the

gains of a disbelief in God being true, are far less in quality or number than the

gains of a belief in God being true. Believing something on merit of their

consequence is not grounds to justify a real belief (one held as if true by the

believer) , and a real belief can only be justified on the merit of its evidence.

Pascal admits that reason cannot lead one to a belief in God, he states

also however, that it cannot lead us to a disbelief (Atkinson). Pascal sets up the

dilemma as if it were a coin toss, saying that there is an equal chance of either

side of the coin landing on top. One would be hard pressed to provide a

compelling and convincing argument as to why one side would come up as

opposed to the other. The proposition seems simple enough, either God exists,

or he doesnt. Pascal is stating, that like a coin toss, reason cannot justify or

defend one position over the other. Instead of using reason, Pascal posits that

we should weigh the risks of taking either position, the risks of betting on which

side of the coin will come up.

 Let us examine the risks of the wager as proposed by Pascal. In an

excerpt from his writings, Pascal had the following to say about the risks of the

wager:

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us

estimate the two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose

nothing. Wager then without hesitation that He is. (Pascal, 497)

In the quote above, Pascal puts forth the basis for his wager. This is based upon

the Abrahamic notion that disbelief in God constitutes damnation, while belief

constitutes salvation. If a person is put into a situation where he stands to gain

the infinite, while risking only the finite, Pascal proposes that one is required to

take the wager in favor of the side in which one stands to gain the infinite.

Referring back to the coin example before, imagine as if in this cosmic coin toss

that heads is equivalent to God existing, while tails is God not existing. You are

asked to bet on which side of the coin comes up, the consequences are as

follows: (a) If you take tails (God does not exist) and you win, the gain is finite.

(b) If you take tails (God does not exist) and you lose, the loss is infinite,you gain

eternal punishment. (c) If you take heads (God exists) and you win, the reward is

infinite, you gain eternal reward. (d) If you take heads (God exists) and you lose,

the loss is finite.

From the example above, Pascal believes it to be intuitive, to bet on the side in

which you stand to gain the most, and likewise stand to lose the least. If you bet
on God, you stand to gain the infinite, while only risking the finite. Betting against

God, you risk the infinite, while standing only to gain the finite. Pascal not only

believes that we should take a side in this wager, he believes that it is impossible

to avoid it. Pascal views humanity as embarked (Pascal, 497) in this wager.

That is to say that ones inaction in this wager is in fact action. By deciding not to

bet, you have in fact bet against God by not taking his side, it is the absolutist

idea of If you are not with me, than you are against me.

This idea of being embarked, or unable to refrain from decision, seems

to be true. Imagine that you are on a train (as in the Trolley Dilemma first

proposed by Phillippa Foot) with two paths ahead. On one path there are five

people, on the other path, there is a man by himself. On the course that the train

is taking, it will run over and kill the group of five. However, you have before you

the switch to change paths, you are the only one able to do so. If you flip the

switch, the train will take the second path, but as a consequence, the man

standing alone will die. There is no time to stop the train, and so a decision must

be made. Many people, might say that the decision is not theirs to make, that

they have no right to throw the switch; that they have no right to kill one to save

many.

It seems however, that because one might not think it their right to throw

the switch, and that if they refrain from doing so, that they are in fact allowing the

group of five to die. In cases such as this, where one is embarked on the

dilemma, it is impossible to not make a choice. By saying that you will not
decide, one in fact decides on the course already underway. This is equated to

Pascals wager in the sense that the path of the five, is the path of disbelief. By

deciding to take a back seat, you have decided against throwing the switch,

against believing in God.

While it seems true that one is embarked, and incapable of refraining from

a decision, Pascal neglects to give a compelling reason to take the side of belief.

The reason that he does give, that disbelief poses greater risks, is no real reason

to make a decision on belief claims. Some would argue (W.K. Clifford, a

prominent philosopher of the 19th century, being one) that the reason in which

someone believes something, or the origin of their belief (rather than the reward

of that belief ) is what determines the rightness or wrongness of that

belief.(Clifford, 498-499)

Clifford provides several examples detailing this notion. One of these

examples is an example detailing a fictitious court case. In this example, one

group of people accuses the teachers of a certain religion of a crime. The

accusers tarnished the reputation of the teachers by slandering them and publicly

announcing the crimes they were accused of. After going through a trial, it is

found that not enough evidence is present to convict the teachers for the crimes

of which they were accused. It is also found that the evidence for their innocence

was so great that if the accusers had done any actual investigation they would

have found them to be innocent as well. (Clifford, 499)

 Clifford goes on to alter the example slightly, in saying that a second trial

was held, in which evidence was presented that proved the guilt of the teachers.

While it is true, that the original belief of the accusers was true, it cannot be said

that they were correct in holding that belief at the time in which they first

accepted that belief (Clifford, 499) . Evidence is the most important aspect of a

belief. If a belief is not grounded on the merit of its evidence, then one does not

have the right to hold it.

Not only is it wrong to hold an unjustified belief because of its effects on

others, but because of its effect on the self. Holding a belief without evidence,

damages our capacity to learn. All beliefs that are truly held by a person, affect

the whole of who that person is. If we accept one belief, it leads us to judge the

soundness of other ideas against the amount of proof it took us to accept beliefs

we already hold. If we take one belief without evidence, it potentially pollutes our

ability to doubt, leading us to in turn accept other beliefs without taking into

account their legitimacy. Clifford had the following to say on this topic:

No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly

insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those

which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a

stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into

overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character forever...Every time

we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of

 self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence.

(Clifford, 500-501)

As I stated before, and in line with the quote from Clifford, holding unjustified

beliefs is detrimental to our ability as rational beings to weigh evidence and to

genuinely find truth.

Faith on its own, is not grounds enough to justify a belief. Faith, by

definition, is belief without justification. It can lead one to something true, but at

the same time to something that is not. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, all

have faith, their faith leads many of them to their beliefs, yet this in and of itself is

an issue. One of these beliefs is true, or all of them are false, and because faith

can lead someone to a false belief at the same time it could lead them to a true

one, (Or at least to multiple and conflicting conclusions, with no way to reconcile

one over the other) it cannot be trusted as a reasonable path to truth.

In examining the wager as presented by Pascal, it seems unfair to agree

with him in saying the risks of taking an unjustified belief are insignificant.

Accepting belief without evidence, poisons our ability to examine truth claims and

grow in knowledge. In doing this, we risk also the integrity of the only existence

we are certain to have. Doubt is one of the most important tools we as thinkers

have, and to subdue this ability, is to stifle our ability to learn. If we do as Pascal

wishes, and stifle our doubt, then, we can be convinced of anything on the basis

of faith. We can be led to believe anything based on the reward associated with
that belief. This it seems, is a dangerous notion indeed, and should be rejected

wholeheartedly.

Works Cited
Atkinson, Shannon. "Handout 4-5." Philosophy 2350. Salt Lake Community

College. Apr. 2014. Lecture. (Atkinson)

Clifford, W. K. "The Ethics of Belief." Philosophy of Religion. 6th ed. N.p.: Clark

Baxter, 2012. 498-502. Web. (Clifford)

Pascal, Blaise. "The Wager." Philosophy of Religion. 6th ed. N.p.: Clark Baxter,

2012. 496-97. Print. (Pascal)