A genius mathmatician, Blaise Pascal, better known for the Pascal Triangle, had an epiphany one evening saying he saw Jesus Ghost and talked with him for 2 hours (many said he lost touch with reality.) Anyways, after this experience, he composed a thoery or interesting wager if you will.......
Pascal’s Wager: "Suppose you concede that you don’t know whether or not God exists and therefore assign a 50 percent chance to either proposition. How should you weigh these odds when deciding whether to lead a pious life?
If you act piously and God exists, Pascal argued, your gain - eternal happiness – is infinite. If on the other hand, God does not exist, your loss, or negative return, is small – the sacrifices of piety. To weigh these possible gains and losses, Pascal proposed, you multiply the probability of each outcome by its payoff and add them all up, forming a kind of average or expected payoff. In other words, the mathematical expectation of your return on piety is ½ infinity (your gain if God exists) minus ½ a small number (your gain if God doesn’t exist). Pascal knew enough about infinity to know that the answer to this calculation is infinitely positive, and thus the expected return on piety is infinitely positive. Every reasonable person, Pascal concluded, should therefore follow the laws of God." (The Drunkards Walk).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Interesting theory, however I think that it may have overlooked a few minor details...While a life of piety is what christianity says that we should strive for, it is not a measure of who does and does not get into heaven. If you believe in God and that he sent Christ to die for humanities sins, then it follows that you believe that even the lowliest person can be forgiven for what he has done if he chooses to believe these things and ask for forgiveness. And if this is true, then weighing the pros and cons of living by "Gods law," or not living by "Gods law" and reasoning out which is the lesser of two evils really has no relevance. If you choose to do the "right thing" for the wrong reasons, does it really mean anything at all?
Following "Gods Laws" can enhance ones life. I try to follow most of what i consider just "Human Laws" Most of these "Human Laws" are in the bible. Being a good person and being good to others is simply the best way that I have chosen to live my life. Trying to think up an equation to see if its worth it to live by "Gods Laws" is just non-sense. To each there own.
Pascal was a pretty intelligent man, yes I think he turned toward insanity after he, "talked with Jesus," wearing a spiked belt and lashing himself, ridiculing his old friends, etc. However, he was fairly intelligent in terms of probability, and to think mathematics could justify belief in a supreme maker is a crazy but interesting concept.
Living by human laws, you have done the same probability in your own head Mr. Jones, you know living by these "human laws," is worth it whether there is an eternity of not, so your gains could be great, while you sacrifices are minimal. Pascal said the same, only named his laws as Gods.
On the great subject of religion:
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Timothy Keller
As a professed Catholic (much to a certain someone's dismay) this book was not exactly recipe for a dramatic faith crisis as it would perhaps be for someone of a non-existent religious background, but I believe the material to be universally valuable, speaking in the vernacular of both camps. Keller makes the strong, obvious claim for believing in some sort of god, but furthermore makes a case for a Christian God in specific.
Regardless of where you're coming from faith-wise, read it. For those of us who are secure in a Christian background, its nothing but friendly reaffirmation. For those who aren't so sure, perhaps it will sway you. And for those who blatantly reject organized religion, hopefully it will at least give you some sort of means for understanding why so many smart and reasonable people have chosen the said path.
As far as jeanneret's comments:
I've heard Christian scholars define heaven simply as 'being with God' versus hell as, obviously, 'being separated from God.’ One of the wonderful things about the modern Christian faith stems from the idea of free will versus the archaic predestination theory. I think that the afterlife isn't so much a matter of weighing your sins/good deeds as much as it is your choice - the choice you're making now on earth - to be with God, figuratively speaking, or not. It’s like the famed television series ‘The Bachelor.’ God, aka any one of the eligible bachelorettes, is always picking you, but in the end it is you, aka the bachelor, who has to pick in return. Even the lowest of the lowly can choose in the end to 'repent' for lack of less overly evangelistic term. And, as you have cited, he will be forgiven. You might be interested in Keller’s Chapter 5: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
I think it’s easy for people to¬ take either a route of apathy or adopt the ‘do unto others’ lifestyle, but I do believe that there is great value in recognizing one god that fits you. It would be ridiculous to assume that one organized religion fulfills this requirement for all people. Luckily, the options are endless. Its one thing to acknowledge a higher power – that’s the easy part (see section 5 of Voltaire’s essay On Religion). But its another thing entirely to shed the egotistical part of yourself that doesn’t fit into the act of worship. I think its important to foster good relationships not only with people, but additionally to cultivate an individual relationship with a god who you acknowledge to be greater than you; one who you see reflected in other people, and one who you devote your time and energy to. This isn’t merely accepting the belief that a god exists, but rather that you justify your belief through questioning and exploration of all forms: prayer, worship, texts, etc.
I'm sure your friend is not dismayed that you claim to be catholic, but rather he may think you are not a catholic but instead have chosen a path of comfort, a group if you will. Its as Rousseau said, "Good social institutions are those that know best how to strip a man of his nature, to take from him his real existence and give him one which is only relative, and to add his personality to the common unity: to the end that each individual will no longer think of himself as one, but as a part of the whole, no longer a thinking being except in the group."
Belief in a higher power was not so easy for Voltaire or Thomas Paine, it got them both excommunicated. Had they professed Catholicism or Chistianity they could have lived in the home countries with less problems and ridicule.
I just find it hard to see one god in someone else, as all religions are different. Re-incarnation does not mention a heaven in which "we are with God,"as these Chrisitan scholars mention." Also what about those who believe or believed in multiple Gods?
I will read this book by Keller, not to be swayed of course, but to learn.
Post a Comment