Q&A: Pascal’s Wager in the book “God Plays Dice” and Forgetting (?) What Is Explicitly Written in the Pensées
Pascal’s Wager in the book “God Plays Dice” and Forgetting (?) What Is Explicitly Written in the Pensées
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I started reading the Rabbi’s book in recent days. In the second chapter the Rabbi deals with Pascal’s Wager. In my humble opinion, the Rabbi did not read, or was unable to read, the passage itself (“Infinity-Nothing,” fragment 397 in a new French edition).
The Rabbi writes in the brief claim: Pascal’s argument does not deal with faith but with observance of the religious commandments, end quote. That is a mistake in reading comprehension (fortunately in this case; it seems Dawkins too forgot the end of the passage, where Pascal answers his own question. If he did remember, then he simply ignored it without addressing it), and also in light of Pascal’s background: Pascal writes, as I will show below, that he is dealing with faith; the Rabbi got confused—how could there be commandments in Christianity? (Pascal is not Leibowitz!). In addition, he writes that even the religious rituals (the commandments?) are only meant to bring a person to simple faith.
There are two ways to rescue the Rabbi’s reading: either that the commandments are prohibitions, or that faith is not in some thing but that it leads to something (forced, but what can you do?).
At the beginning he writes that “you have two things to lose: the true and the good”… “If you lose, you lose everything; if you win, you win everything; therefore wager that He exists without hesitation.” At the end: “I am forced to wager… and I am so made [by nature/temperament] that I cannot believe. What do you want me to do?”… “You want to go by the way of faith”… “This will lead you to faith,” etc. etc.; see there.
Now regarding the essence of the wager, it seems to me that the probabilistic background is only an excuse for persuasion (like most outreach activists / experts in apologetics), but not its only foundation.
So this is, in my opinion, its second foundation: “What harm will come to you from choosing this? You will be faithful, yes, humble, grateful, benevolent…” (and apparently also closer to the truth). [Incidentally, this is related to your discussion regarding morality and theism].
With respect, and best wishes.
Answer
Indeed, I did not read it inside. Still, a few comments:
- There are commandments in Christianity too—duties of faith and inward religious obligations, and also a few practical commandments (the Eucharist, etc.).
- I was dealing with its application to Judaism. What is called Pascal’s Wager among us deals with commandments and the profit and loss that come from them.
- However, if he is speaking about the profit and loss of the true and the good, and not of reward and punishment, then you are indeed right. Still, of course, he is wrong about the probability.
- My discussion deals with the wager aspect, and there he assumes that there is a great loss in maintaining faith and the commandments, and wants to prove that it is still worthwhile to observe. The other side that you brought assumes there is no great loss, and that is a different discussion. The probabilistic background is not correct, and if it only comes to persuade people to repent, that does not exempt it from criticism.
Thank you for the correction.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand—what needs to be changed in the book?
Sorry, also regarding point 1.
The matter of commandments is not clear to me (from my knowledge and experience with Christians); I’ll leave that to the experts (since I am not one of them). However, regarding the example, I disagree, because Pascal says explicitly that it is not a value in itself, but rather that it will bring him (the atheist by temperament) to faith.
With respect
There are parts that are not meaningful for non-Israeli gentiles (and since we’re talking about a French audience, the overwhelming majority of readers would be secular, so that makes it even more problematic). In any case, I can’t start this now. If I find suitable time for it, I will get back to the Rabbi.
*The Mass is not a value…
Thank you for the quick reply.
I agree, but regarding point 2 it would have been appropriate to mention it in the book, and regarding point 3 I will get back to you when I finish reading the whole book (the matter is not clear in the passage under discussion).
[If at some point I find it worthwhile to translate it into French, what would need to be changed in the book?]
With respect