Considering Pascal’s Wager

Photo by Michael Longmire on Unsplash

The philosophical argument known as “Pascal’s Wager” articulates a fruitful and pragmatic approach to life: that we may be enriched by openness to belief systems, even if we are not sure we “believe” them.

A rational relationship to the question of “god.”

Can one use rational means to “prove” the existence of God (aka the Irrational Divine)? Other philosophers had attempted this (notably, Anselm, Aquinas, and Descartes), but Pascal took a different tack. Pascal’s Wager is not a proof, but an argument for a rational response to the question of divinity, even without logical proof.

His argument is not without detractors, but Pascal makes a good point: in the absence of evidence, you have nothing to lose but stand to gain much by believing in God; whereas you have nothing to gain but stand to lose much by disbelieving. We find Pascal’s thinking at the foundation of probability and decision theory. You can read about it more fully, with additional context, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Why “belief in god” is considered irrational.

Not because it’s crazy, though some would say so. The term “irrational” is frequently used to mean “crazy,” but what is not rational can be beyond rationality: A thing is irrational when it cannot be defined, when it has no rational explanation, or it cannot be proven by logic or evidence. Much exists that is beyond rationality. If “god” is conceived as limitless and all encompassing, then logically “god” includes all things, rational and irrational, and cannot be defined.

If “god” is irrational, then is “belief in god” irrational? Some say yes, but Pascal’s Wager argues, no. There is a pragmatic rationale for belief in the divine.

So much is unknown! It was Jung’s view that ‘God’ and other terms for divine energies are synonyms for the unconscious—not to say that they do not exist, but: “that is to say, we know just as much or just as little about them as about the latter” (Memories 337). We don’t know what we don’t know. You can’t get around that. Shrug.

Explaining the unknown.

We do know that we like to make stories, theories, models, and more, to explain the unknown. We like to figure stuff out—I sure do! Problematically, though, we might start to believe that our beliefs are reality — when, as partial unknowns, they should remain in the category of possibility. Conceived as realities, beliefs are literalized; and then, they are prone to rejection because they don’t stand up to rational analysis. But, if not literalized, the value of such possibilities is ongoing. That is, if we can hold our beliefs gently—as guiding possibilities, allowing them to be loosely defined and unfolding—irrational—then they hold value which will be lost if we try to rationalize them.

I believe, by virtue of logic, that it’s beyond the capability of the human to know absolute truth. And I believe, by study and observation, that it’s not possible for the human to live without beliefs. Even if that belief is nihilism or existentialism or scientism or cynicism or beans.

In the spirit of disclosure, here’s my brief belief-bio: descended from Quaker stock, raised as an Episcopalian, I became a student of religious thought, philosophy, and cultural anthropology in college, and a practitioner of yoga, feminist spirituality and pantheism. I have been fascinated with spiritual practices all my life, and I followed that calling to earn my doctoral degree in Mythological Studies. I like to think I’ve never met a religion I didn’t like—and that’s almost true… (I get stuck on fundamentalism). I endeavor to stay agnostic and pragmatic. I have my beliefs AND I keep an open mind about them. Anything’s possible. Nothing’s certain.

I like to extend the logic of Pascal’s Wager to the practice of open-mindedness. In so many instances, you have nothing to lose, and much to gain.

Which brings me to:

The logic of studying astrology. Astrology is a brilliant model for understanding the myriad aspects of world and psyche. I always say, “It’s not a religion,” but it kind of is, because people tend to believe in it, or not believe in it. Yet, my point is, one needn’t believe in its predictive value to benefit from the practice of “seeing through” the lens of the zodiac. The signature characteristics of the 12 signs and 10 “major planets,” in all their permutations, are recognizable in each of our lives. Within this system, any one of us can identify our strengths, weaknesses, gifts, and challenges; and, what’s more, develop strategies for balancing our energies and working beneficially toward desirable outcomes. To do this type of work with astrology doesn’t require belief, but pragmatic open-mindedness. Chances are, though, that if you allow yourself to practice it for a while, you will start to believe in it. In my 50+ years of study, it is my firm belief that astrology works; I’ve seen far too many synchronous events to think otherwise.

Check out Myth Makers: a monthly subscription service, featuring creative exploration of archetypal astrological themes, with online community gatherings.