Hi all,

I decided to repost this because it was worthwhile to some
before and might be again, and also as a useful tool to
anyone who is annoyed by the "Pascal's Wager" nonsense.

Aside from a few spelling corrections, the removal of some
unnecessary exclamation marks, and deletion of a pompous
sentence at the end, this is unchanged in content from
when I first posted it.  

Hopefully you find it useful.  (And why the hell did I stop
using that sig...?)

Bob Dog

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I.  Introduction

  "The last thing one knows when writing a book is what
   to put first."

Too true.  In writing this, deciding how to present and
arrange it was much more difficult than formulating the
opinion and collecting the references.  

    "I cannot judge my work while I am doing it.  I
     have to do as painters do, stand back and view
     it from a distance, but not too great a distance.  
     How great?  Guess."
          - Pascal, quoted in "The Viking Book of
            Aphorisms", W H Auden and L Kronenberger
            (New York 1966)

Having seen a number of recent threads on Blaise Pascal
and his "wager" about the alleged existence of a god, I
noticed a total absence of the original text, that people
seemed to speak from hearsay, not the original document.  

    "Let no one say that I have said nothing new... the
     arrangement of the subject is new.  When we play
     tennis, we both play with the same ball, but one of
     us places it better.

I decided to read Pascal's "wager" in his own words and
was surprised, both at his real intent and how people
have misread it, both theists and atheists.

    "We are usually convinced more easily by reasons we
     have found ourselves than by those which have
     occurred to others."

If you believe "Pascal's Wager" is a pro-theistic view,
I suggest you read on and find out for yourself.

[Note: except where stated otherwise in the following
 essay, all quoted text is taken from Blaise Pacsal's
 book, "Pensees", published in 1670.]

------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Did Blaise Pascal believe in a god?

Did Pascal actually believe that a god exists?  Reading his
own words, it is clear he did.  From his book, Pensees:

    "We know then the existence and nature of the finite,
     because we too are finite and have extension.  We
     know the existence of the infinite, but not its
     nature; for, like us, it has extension but no limits
     such as we have.  But we know neither the existence
     nor the nature of God, because He has neither
     extension or limits.

     But by faith we know His existence; in the light of
     glory we shall know His nature.  I have already
     shown that there is nothing to prevent our knowing
     the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature."

His argument is that we can conceptualize the infinite,
but not experience it.  For Pascal, this is enough proof
that a god exists and so he believes.

But what about his feeling regarding others' belief in a
prime mover?  Pascal also said:

    "Religion is so great a thing that it is right that
     those who will not take the trouble to seek it if
     it be obscure, should be deprived of it."

Men who do not want religion should be "deprived" of it?  
Is that not contradictory to xianity of any kind?  Do not
all xians see non-xians as needing to be "saved"?  

Pascal's statement is not selfishness; it is sarcasm.

    "Reason is the slow and tortuous method by which
     these who do not know the truth discover it.  
     The heart has its own reason which reason does
     not know."

Blaise Pascal was not a stupid man.  Rather, he was an
exceptional thinker for his and any time, being compared
even to Aristotle.  (That he was not compared to Plato
or Socrates is telling; Aristotelian science still held
sway during Pascal's lifetime.)  A man of his intellect
who wanted to spread xianity would not willingly make
statements suggesting logic would leave someone without
faith.  

Unless, of course, that was his intent.

------------------------------------------------------------

2.  Did Blaise Pascal believe we could argue for a god?

In previous paragraphs, I quote Pascal as saying that "by
faith we know His existence"; those without faith do not
know it.  I submit that Pascal knew that to demonstrate a
god, appealling to faith would not work for nonbelievers.  
Logic and reason must be the means of argument.

    "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible,
     since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no
     affinity with us.  We are incapable, therefore, of
     knowing either what He is or if He is.  That being
     so, who will dare undertake to decide this question?  
     Not we, who have no affinity with Him.

     Who then can blame the Christians for not being able
     to give reasons for their belief, professing as they
     do a religion which they cannot explain by reason.  
     They declare, when expounding to the world, that it
     is foolishness, stultitiam (1Cor.i.18); and then you
     complain that they do not prove it!  If they proved
     it they would give the lie to their own worlds; it
     is in lacking proofs that they do not lack sense.

     'Yes, but while this is an excuse for those who
     offer it as such, and frees them from blame for not
     basing their beliefs upon reason, it does not excuse
     those who accept what they say.'"

"The christians"?  If Pascal was a xian, why did he
not speak of himself as one by saying "we xians"?  It
is doubtful he would make so glaring an error.  Either
he is speaking of xians and not including himself,
which might make him a deist, or using the term as
derision for those who see non-xians as irrational.

    "Let us examine this point of view and declare:
     'Either God exists, or He does not.'  To which
     view shall we incline?  Reason cannot decide for
     us one way or the other: we are separated by an
     infinite gulf.  At the extremity of this infinite
     distance a game is in progress,where either heads
     or tails may turn up.  What will you wager?  
     According to reason you cannot bet either way;
     according to reason you can defend neither
     proposition."

Was Pascal suggesting standard xian arguments hold no
weight?  I believe he was, in which his "wager", as
most people know it, would be weakened and pointless.  

Pascal says reason cannot bet either way, but in the
very next paragraph says "do not attribute error to...
choice".  Error is not attributable, but he says
nothing about a lack of reason in making the choice.

    "So do not attribute error to those who have made
     a choice; for you know nothing about it.

     'No; I will not blame them for having made this
     choice, but for having made one at all; for
     since he who calls heads and he who calls tails
     are equally at fault, both are in the wrong.  The
     right thing is not to wager at all.'  Yes; but a
     bet must be laid.  There is no option: you have
     joined the game.  Which will you choose,then?"

Blaise Pascal is explicitly stating that choosing not
to believe in god is not the error, but that allowing
oneself to be forced to choose is the error.

Pascal is saying those who do not play do not err.

    "It is the heart which perceives God and not the
     reason."

------------------------------------------------------------

3.  What exactly IS Pascal's wager?

    "Perfect clarity would profit the intellect but
     damage the will.
          - Pascal, quoted in "The Viking Book of
            Aphorisms", W H Auden and L Kronenberger
            (New York 1966)

Now we come to the meat of his work, and I will dissect it
a piece at a time to make notes.  This will be rather long,
so bear with me.

    "You have two things to lose, the true and the good;
     and two things to wager, your reason and your will,
     your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature
     has two things to shun, error and unhappiness.  Your
     reason suffers no more violence in choosing one
     rather than another, since you must of necessity
     make a choice.  That is one point cleared up.  But
     what about your happiness?  Let us weigh the gain
     and the loss involved in wagering that God exists."

By choosing to wager, you risk losing your reason and
happiness.  This is not a guarantee you will regain them,
even if a god does exist.

    "Let us estimate these two probabilities; if you win,
     you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing.  Wager
     then, without hesitation, that He does exist. 'That
     is all very fine.  Yes, I must wager, but maybe I
     am wagering too much.'"

If Pascal's argument was written from the prejudiced view
of a god actually existing and that non-believers should
accept it, why would he have said the risk is too great to
wager on?  

    "[T]here is an infinity of infinitely happy life to
     win, one chance of winning against a finite number
     of chances of losing, and what you stake is finite.  
     That removes all doubt as to choice; wherever the
     infinite is, and there is not an infinity of chances
     of loss against the chance of winning, there are no
     two ways about it, all must be given.  And so, when
     a man is obliged to play, he must renounce reason to
     preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite
     gain which is just as likely to occur as loss of
     nothing."

If the non-believer chooses to play, then he must wager,
says Pascal, but the decision to play is not based on
reason.  

    "[E]very player risks a certainty to win an uncertainty,
     and yet he risks a finite certainty to win a finite
     uncertainty, without offending reason.  There is no
     infinite distance between the certainty risked and the
     uncertainty of the gain; it is not true.  There is,
     indeed, infinity between the certainty of winning and
     the certainty of losing, but the uncertainty of winning
     is proportionate to the certainty of what is risked,
     according to the proportion of the chances of gain and
     loss.  Hence, if there are many risks on one side as on
     the other, the right course is to play even; and then
     the certainty of the risk is equal to the uncertainty
     of the gain, so far are they from being infinitely
     distant.  Thus our proposition is of infinite force,
     when there is the infinite at stake in a game where
     there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the
     infinite to gain.  This is conclusive, and if men are
     capable of truth at all, there it is."

Since the wager is infinite both for gain and loss, it is
to one's benefit to play, if one chooses to participate
in such a Mugg's game.  

But Pascal says, "there are many risks on one side as on
the other"; if the alleged god is loving and merciful,
how does wagering upon its side provide any risk?  Such a
wager could only be a risk if there were no god to bet on,
a statement at odds with the assertion it is based on.

    "'I agree, I admit it; but is there no way of
     getting a look behind the scenes?'  Yes, Scripture
     and the rest, etc.

     'Quite; but my hand are tied and my mouth is gagged;
     I am forced to wager, and am not free; no one frees
     me from these bonds, and I am so made that I cannot
     believe.  What then do you wish me to do?

     That is true.  But understand at least that your
     ability to believe is the result of your passions;
     for, although reason inclines you to believe, you
     cannot do so.  Try therefore to convince yourself,
     not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your
     passions."

The desire to look behind the scenes, or to "concern
yourself with what is behind the curtain," is based
upon reason.  Since Pascal's wager is based upon reason
being cast aside, he is admitting that the rational and
reasonable cannot put aside their ability to think.  
Pascal is admitting that scripture is the only basis
for theist claims, that they cannot produce another.

The rational thinker is only bound and gagged, but this
has not impaired nor imprisoned his mind, Pascal's subtle
way of saying that theistic dogma cannot penetrate the
rational and intelligent mind.  It is not the wagerer
that is bound, but the theist who is denied entry.

    "Now, to what harm will you come by making this
     choice?  You will be faithful, honest, humble,
     grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful.  
     Certainly you will not enjoy these pernicious
     delights - glory and luxury; but will you not
     experience others?

     I tell you, you will thereby profit in this life;
     and at every step you take along this road you
     will see so great an assurance of gain, and so
     little in what you risk, that you will come to
     recognize your stake to have been laid for
     something certain, infinite, which has cost you
     nothing."

Is this the theist suggesting that giving up pleasures
of the Earth accepting god will guarantee eternal life,
or is it Pascal asking "If there is no god, how can
you experience others?"

    "'Oh, your discourse delights me, carries me away!'"

Taken in the context of doubt, not as an alleged "proof"
of a god, this statement cannot be anything but sarcasm.

    "If it pleases you and appears convincing, know it
     has been uttered by a man who has knelt, both
     before and after its delivery, in prayer to that
     Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he
     submits all that is his, begging Him to subject to
     Himself all that is yours, for your own good and
     for His glory; and thus strength is made consistent
     with lowliness."

Carefully read Pascal's words again, this time submitting
the names "Pascal" and "God" for the respective pronouns,
with capitalization noted:

    "If it pleases you and appears convincing, know it
     has been uttered by a man who has knelt, both
     before and after its delivery, in prayer to a God,
     infinite and without parts, before whom I submit
     all that is mine, begging God to subject to God's
     self all that is Pascal's, for Pascal's own good
     and for God's glory; and thus strength is made
     consistent with lowliness."

Pascal is making it clear what he thinks of those who
"spread the word of god": they are doing it for their
own benefit, not those to whom they proselytize.

I say it clearly: Pascal was not asserting a proof that
there is a god, but that the rational are not wrong in
denying belief without proof.  The answers he found in
religion were satisfactory for him, Blaise Pascal, but
that he did not arrogantly expect them to satisfy non-
believers.  And so it should be.

------------------------------------------------------------

4.  How was Pascal's intent been misread for this long?

When dealing with religion and theists, there is a long
tradition of selective reading for their own benefit, not
the benefit of others.  Be it selfishness, ignorance,
fear, or whatever reason, twisting the meanings instead
of carefully examining them for their real intent has
been standard practice for these people.  Those who have
used "Pascal's Wager" to justify belief in a god follow
that inglorious tradition.

In a biography of Blaise Pascal, found in his book 'A
Short Account of the History of Mathematics', Mr. W. W.

    "In effect, he puts his argument that, as the value
     of eternal happiness must be infinite, then, even
     if the probability of a religious life ensuring
     eternal happiness be very small, still the
     expectation (which is measured by the product of
     the two) must be of sufficient magnitude to make
     it worth while to be religious.  The argument, if
     worth anything, would apply equally to any religion
     which promised eternal happiness to those who
     acceptedits doctrines.  If any conclusion may be
     drawn from the statement, it is the undersirability
     of applying mathematics to questions of morality of
     which some of the data are necessarily outside the
     range of an exact science."

It appears that those who take the time to critically
read Pascal's words will notice his real message and
intent: not support for xianity, but support for those
who choose to apply logic and reason to their arguments.

Mr. Ball continued:

    "It is only fair to add that no one had more contempt
     than Pascal for those who change their opinions
     according to the prospect of material benefit."

As do all atheists, I should assume.

------------------------------------------------------------

5.  Conclusions

Atheists should take a page (or perhaps and entire book)
from Mr. Ball and read exactly what Blaise Pascal meant
in his remarks.  It's clear that an intelligent person,
especially one inside a religion-stained country like
France or continent like Europe, is not likely to state
his remarks plainly for fear of reprisal.  

Read this passage from Shakespeare's "Henry VI" which
contains his famous quote about the legal profession:

     Dick the Butcher:
    "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

     Jack Cade:
    "Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable
     thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should
     be made parchment?  That parchment, being scribbl'd
     o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings;
     but I say 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal
     once to a thing, and I was never mine own man
     since.  How now!  Who's there?

     Enter some, bringing in the CLERK OF CHATHAM    

     Smith the Weaver:
    "The clerk of Chatham.  He can write and read and
     cast accompt."

     Cade:
    "O monstrous!"

     Smith:
    "We took him setting of boys' copies.

     Cade:
    "Here's a villain!

     Smith:
    "Has a book in his pocket with red letters in't.

     Cade:
    "Nay, then he is a conjurer.

     Dick:
    "Nay, he can make obligations and write court-hand.

     Cade:
    "I am sorry for't; the man is a proper man, of mine
     honour; unless I find him guilty, he shall not die.  
     Come hither, sirrah, I must examine thee. What is
     thy name?"

     Clerk of Chatham:
    "Emmanuel."

     Dick:
    "They use to write it on the top of letters; 'twill
     go hard with you."

     Cade:
    "Let me alone. Dost thou use to write thy name, or
     hast thou a mark to thyself, like a honest plain-
     dealing man?"

     Clerk:
    "Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up
     that I can write my name."

     All:
    "He hath confess'd.  Away with him!  He's a villain
     and a traitor."

     Cade:
    "Away with him, I say! Hang him with his pen and
     inkhorn about his neck."

Read in the context of the play, it becomes clear that
this is not a condemnation of lawyers, but a defense of
them.  It is through ignorance and misuse that the real
intent of Shakespeare's words have become twisted and
perverted, so oft- and ill-repeated they have lost their
original meaning.

So it is with Pascal's Wager.  It should not be shunned
and ignored by atheists, but instead embraced and used
as a tool and weapon against theological (the-illogical?)
ignorance.  We should use it to our benefit and show what
Pascal's real message was, not allow his thinking to be
twisted to the benefit of theists.

If we ignore it, we are insulting Blaise Pascal and our
own ability to behave rationally, not the theists.

------------------------------------------------------------

If you want the original text of Pascal's Wager and read
what he said without interruption, download this file:
<http://www.stat.ucla.edu/history/pascal_wager.pdf>

Bob Dog

+---------------------------------------------------+
|\Read widely, think deeply, but don't speak lengthy.\
+ +---------------------------------------------------+
 \|Religion...when facts and reality aren't enough.   |
  +---------------------------------------------------+