Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Haworth's 10 Ways #3: Floody's Wager
This is a very famous proof originally formulated by Blaise Pascal. Normally it is referred to as Pascal's Wager for this very reason. Once a week I meet Gerald Flood ("Floody"), a guy who lives around the corner from Immanuel church, where I work. We meet up over coffee and read through a portion of Scripture. It just so happened that today we happened to be discussing the positive things that come with believing in God. He proceeded to outline what basically follows below. I told him that a guy called Pascal had come to the same conclusion a few hundred years ago and presented the very same wager, but he was having none of it. "It's Floody's Wager now!" he declared. So, here it is, Haworth's 3rd Way: Pascal's (aka. Floody's) Wager.
Pascal's Wager does not appeal to reason in the same way as the traditional proofs. Instead, Pascal simply argues that we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet. Pascal’s Wager runs as follows:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument from probability; mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. In other words, to believe in God and God does not exist only leads to a finite (limited) loss. However, to believe that God does not exist risks an infinite loss. To believe that God does exist and God does exist, infinite gain is our reward. Therefore, it is a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.
This argument is like a third way. For those who have not got the gift of faith and for those who do not trust an appeal to reason, the wager offers an alternative ladder to the knowledge of God. Of course, in a sense, it is a low ladder. However, as Peter Kreeft has written:
“If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."Pascal wrote: “a game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance(death) where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?”
Pascal decisively shows up atheism as a foolish wager. But, that is not all. Pascal also shows that agnosticism is impossible. Many people maintain that a skeptical, uncommitted attitude is the most reasonable option when it comes to the existence of God. The agnostic insists that the best option is not to wager at all; “ignorance is bliss”, “I’ll find out when I die”. Pascal replies to the agnostic: “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked (committed).” The reality is we are not outside observers of life, but participants. Peter Kreeft continues:
“We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late.”
The Wager works because of the fact of death. The ship of life is moving forward and there will come a point of no return. We cannot remain implacable and undecided in the face of death. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or a fake. He has to take a chance on this port or some other, or he will never get home.
Every one of us must wager. Once it is decided that there are only two options (theism or atheism) and not three (theism or atheism or agnosticism) then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. As Pascal writes:
“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. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
If God does not exist then it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.
If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
But, is believing worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever must be given up is only finite; personal independence perhaps, or illicit pleasures - but you gain infinite happiness and eternal joy. Furthermore, in this life, belief brings purpose, peace, hope and joy. Pascal concludes his argument with these words that underline the gravity with which he has presented his Wager:
“If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.”
Many often object to the wager by claiming that they refuse to believe for the low motive of saving their own skin and avoiding eternal punishment. In response, we can simply change the motive. Peter Kreeft writes:
“Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.”
Pascal imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. In response, Pascal simply suggests some practical psychology:
“True...Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God...Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions...Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed... Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”
In other words, behave just as if you do believe and belief will follow.
Pascal’s wager is a simple, practical argument that haunts the atheist with the abiding question, but can you be sure there is no God?
Pascal's Wager does not appeal to reason in the same way as the traditional proofs. Instead, Pascal simply argues that we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet. Pascal’s Wager runs as follows:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument from probability; mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. In other words, to believe in God and God does not exist only leads to a finite (limited) loss. However, to believe that God does not exist risks an infinite loss. To believe that God does exist and God does exist, infinite gain is our reward. Therefore, it is a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.
This argument is like a third way. For those who have not got the gift of faith and for those who do not trust an appeal to reason, the wager offers an alternative ladder to the knowledge of God. Of course, in a sense, it is a low ladder. However, as Peter Kreeft has written:
“If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."Pascal wrote: “a game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance(death) where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?”
Pascal decisively shows up atheism as a foolish wager. But, that is not all. Pascal also shows that agnosticism is impossible. Many people maintain that a skeptical, uncommitted attitude is the most reasonable option when it comes to the existence of God. The agnostic insists that the best option is not to wager at all; “ignorance is bliss”, “I’ll find out when I die”. Pascal replies to the agnostic: “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked (committed).” The reality is we are not outside observers of life, but participants. Peter Kreeft continues:
“We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late.”
The Wager works because of the fact of death. The ship of life is moving forward and there will come a point of no return. We cannot remain implacable and undecided in the face of death. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or a fake. He has to take a chance on this port or some other, or he will never get home.
Every one of us must wager. Once it is decided that there are only two options (theism or atheism) and not three (theism or atheism or agnosticism) then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. As Pascal writes:
“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. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
If God does not exist then it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.
If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
But, is believing worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever must be given up is only finite; personal independence perhaps, or illicit pleasures - but you gain infinite happiness and eternal joy. Furthermore, in this life, belief brings purpose, peace, hope and joy. Pascal concludes his argument with these words that underline the gravity with which he has presented his Wager:
“If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.”
Many often object to the wager by claiming that they refuse to believe for the low motive of saving their own skin and avoiding eternal punishment. In response, we can simply change the motive. Peter Kreeft writes:
“Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.”
Pascal imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. In response, Pascal simply suggests some practical psychology:
“True...Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God...Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions...Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed... Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”
In other words, behave just as if you do believe and belief will follow.
Pascal’s wager is a simple, practical argument that haunts the atheist with the abiding question, but can you be sure there is no God?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
More ad hoc apologetics: The Ontological Argument
Haworth's 10 Ways #2: The Ontological Argument
Will anyone ever be converted to Christ by the ontological argument? Probably never. But, having said that, it does make for a puzzlingly convincing proof for God's existence.
The ontological argument moves from the conception of a Perfect Being or Necessary Being to the existence of such a Being. The first philosopher to develop this form of argument was Anselm (1033 – 1109) who set it forth in his Proslogion (Discourse on the Existence of God). Simply put, Anselm argued from the idea of God to the existence of God. Hence, part of his argument went something like this (the following is an extract from the Proslogion):
“God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.
And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being you are, O Lord, our God.
So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. 1), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?”
Major thinkers and philosophers since Anselm have come up with variations on the ontological argument. To this day, it remains both compelling and controversial. Essentially, the simple concept of God as an absolutely Perfect Being (“that, than which nothing greater can be conceived”) actually demands that he exist. Briefly put, the argument goes like this:
God is by definition an absolutely perfect being.
But existence is a perfection.
Therefore, God must exist.
If God did not exist, he would be lacking in one perfection, namely, existence. But if God lacked any perfection, then he would not be absolutely perfect. But God is by definition and absolutely perfect Being. Therefore an absolutely perfect Being (God) must exist.
Convincing? The jury's out.
Will anyone ever be converted to Christ by the ontological argument? Probably never. But, having said that, it does make for a puzzlingly convincing proof for God's existence.
The ontological argument moves from the conception of a Perfect Being or Necessary Being to the existence of such a Being. The first philosopher to develop this form of argument was Anselm (1033 – 1109) who set it forth in his Proslogion (Discourse on the Existence of God). Simply put, Anselm argued from the idea of God to the existence of God. Hence, part of his argument went something like this (the following is an extract from the Proslogion):
“God cannot be conceived not to exist. --God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. --That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.
And it assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist; and this being you are, O Lord, our God.
So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you can not be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms xiv. 1), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?”
Major thinkers and philosophers since Anselm have come up with variations on the ontological argument. To this day, it remains both compelling and controversial. Essentially, the simple concept of God as an absolutely Perfect Being (“that, than which nothing greater can be conceived”) actually demands that he exist. Briefly put, the argument goes like this:
God is by definition an absolutely perfect being.
But existence is a perfection.
Therefore, God must exist.
If God did not exist, he would be lacking in one perfection, namely, existence. But if God lacked any perfection, then he would not be absolutely perfect. But God is by definition and absolutely perfect Being. Therefore an absolutely perfect Being (God) must exist.
Convincing? The jury's out.
Prayer (I)
By George Herbert 1593–1633
Prayer the church's banquet, angel's age,
God's breath in man returning to his birth,
The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage,
The Christian plummet sounding heav'n and earth;
Engine against th' Almighty, sinner's tow'r,
Reversed thunder, Christ-side-piercing spear,
The six-days world transposing in an hour,
A kind of tune, which all things hear and fear;
Softness, and peace, and joy, and love, and bliss,
Exalted manna, gladness of the best,
Heaven in ordinary, man well drest,
The milky way, the bird of Paradise,
Church-bells beyond the stars heard, the soul's blood,
The land of spices; something understood.
By George Herbert 1593–1633
Prayer the church's banquet, angel's age,
God's breath in man returning to his birth,
The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage,
The Christian plummet sounding heav'n and earth;
Engine against th' Almighty, sinner's tow'r,
Reversed thunder, Christ-side-piercing spear,
The six-days world transposing in an hour,
A kind of tune, which all things hear and fear;
Softness, and peace, and joy, and love, and bliss,
Exalted manna, gladness of the best,
Heaven in ordinary, man well drest,
The milky way, the bird of Paradise,
Church-bells beyond the stars heard, the soul's blood,
The land of spices; something understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)