those, like William Paley (1734–1805), who employed the design argument to argue for a
divine designer, and then used the argument from miracles to identify that designer.
end p.171
A Family of Wagers
About a third of the way into Pensées 680 a dialogue commences. Along with most
commentators, I assume that Pascal formulates the wager arguments in response to
questions and comments from the unnamed interlocutor.
Prior to presenting his wager arguments Pascal sets the stage with certain observations.
The first is that neither the nature nor the existence of God admits of rational proof:
“Reason cannot decide anythingReason cannot make you choose one way or the other,
reason cannot make you defend either of two choices” (1995, 153). This should not be
taken as asserting that evidence and argument are irrelevant to philosophical theology.
Pascal did not think that. While certain kinds of arguments and evidence are irrelevant,
other kinds are relevant. Furthermore, Pascal clearly thought that his wager arguments
were not only relevant but also rationally compelling. Second, wagering about the
existence of God is unavoidable: “You have to wager” (154). Wagering is a forced
decision: to refuse to wager is tantamount to wagering against. A forced decision between
alternatives occurs whenever deciding nothing is equivalent to one of the alternatives. We
can understand wagering on God as taking steps to inculcate theistic belief. Pascal was
not, and no Pascalian need be, a doxastic voluntarist. A Pascalian wager does not assume
that belief is under our direct control. What is necessary is that we can bring about belief
in a roundabout, indirect way. For those making a pro-wager Pascal suggests a regimen
of imitating the faithful by “taking holy water, having masses said” (156). Wagering
against, then, is failing to take steps to bring about theistic belief. It is not anachronistic to
note the Jamesian similarities here: wagering about God arises because argument and
evidence and reason are inconclusive. Moreover, wagering is forced, and, clearly, the
matter is momentous and involves, for most of Pascal's readers, living options.
Be that as it may, Hacking (1972) identifies three versions within the Pensées fragments.
The first, which Hacking dubs the “argument from dominance,” is conveyed within the
admonition to “weigh up the gain and the loss by calling that heads that God existsIf you
win, you win everything; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager that he exists then, without
hesitating” (Pascal 1995, 154).
Rational optimization requires adopting a particular alternative among several mutually
exclusive and jointly exhaustive options, whenever doing so may render one better off
than not doing so, and in no case could doing so render one worse off. According to
Pascal theistic belief dominates.^2 Consider:
end p.172