Pascal's Wager

It seems you're at a Pascal's wager sort of scenario.

As one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point.

Because I'm not cynically cashing in my chips with the 'better had' side of Pascal's wager?

Noted for Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is not a wager in the sense used in this article, nor is it scientific.

However, perhaps they do believe, but their belief is a function of the practice of the rituals of belief - a variant on Pascal's wager.

Von Neumann reportedly said in explanation that Pascal had a point, referring to Pascal's wager.

"It's Pascal's wager," Kristin said suddenly.

A common objection to Pascal's wager was noted by Voltaire, a Deist, known as the argument from inconsistent revelations.

In the Sanskrit classic Sārasamuccaya, Vararuci makes a similar argument to Pascal's wager.

Whether we are talking about Pascal's wager or Newman's venture, we are always talking about a commitment made after weighing evidence.

Pascal's wager, an argument that, given neither theism nor atheism has an evidential advantage, theism is the wiser position.

In the famous tragedy of Euripides Bacchae, Kadmos states an early version of Pascal's wager.

They discuss religion with Muriel, condemning High Church affectations, and moralising which relies on Pascal's Wager.

"The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus".

This sounds a lot like Pascal's wager: it's smart to believe in God because if you are right, the payoff is great, and if you are wrong, you suffer no loss.

Newman's 'venture', like Pascal's wager, identified belief as a commitment undergone without the certainty of God's existence - indeed a commitment that makes sense only without that certainty.

He would not have approved of Pascal's wager since it was based on a purely subjective experience, though his own demonstration of the existence of God depended upon another type of subjectivity.

Comments in several papers have presented this policy as akin to Pascal's wager, a kind of philosophical joke which the 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal used to prove the existence of God.

James begins by restating Pascal's wager, which urges us to place our bets on the existence of God, since there's everything to win if he does exist and not much to lose if he doesn't.

More importantly, "The Will to Believe" ends by endorsing a smartened-up version of Pascal's wager, insisting that considering the pay-off of a belief is not "a last desperate snatch" after all, but rather broaches justification.

The second formulation suggests that, instead of rewarding belief as in Pascal's wager, a god may reward disbelief, in which case one would risk losing infinite happiness by believing in a god unjustly, rather than disbelieving justly.

This was as revolutionary in its own way as Pascal's wager, especially since Descartes's proof rejected the witness of the external world that Paul had put forward in favour of the reflexive introspection of the mind turning in upon itself.

In honor of his scientific contributions, the name Pascal has been given to the SI unit of pressure, to a programming language, and Pascal's law (an important principle of hydrostatics), and as mentioned above, Pascal's triangle and Pascal's wager still bear his name.