Pascal’s Wager

Paper instructions:
1. When Pascal argues about gaining two lives, and then three, what is his main point? How does the number of lives gained change whether one bets?
2. Explain Kreeft’s argument regarding red chips and blue chips. What is his main point (conclusion), and how does he support it (premises)?

3. According to the authors, agnosticism seems impossible. Why do they think so, and do you agree? Make sure to first define “agnosticism.”
4. Does Pascal’s argument depend on human’s acting selfishly in order to believe in God? Why? What is Kreeft’s response to this accusation?

Hájek, Alan, “Pascal’s Wager”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/pascal-wager/>.

Pascal’s Wager
Blaise Pascal
Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

The Argument from Superdominance
“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.
There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this
infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see.
Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true
and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your
happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more
shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your
happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all;
if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

The Argument From Expectation
He continues:Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain
two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when
you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk
of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.

The Argument From Generalized Expectations: “Pascal’s Wager”

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of
chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win
two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three
at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of
an infinitely happy life to gain. But 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. It is all
divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of
gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all…