% LaTeX source for Pascal's Wager

\documentclass{article}

\usepackage{times}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
PASCAL'S WAGER \\
\medskip
\textbf{343} [6--233]
\end{center}

\setcounter{page}{1}

\textit{Infinity.  Nothingness.}  Our soul has been cast into the body,
where it finds number, time and dimension.  It reasons thereupon, and calls
it nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity added to infinity adds nothing to it, any more than does one
foot added to infinite length.  The finite is annihilated in presence of the
infinite, and becomes pure nothingness.  So does our mind before God; so does
our justice before divine justice.

There is not so great a disproportion between human and divine justice
as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be as vast as His mercy.  But his justice
done upon the reprobate is not so vast as, and should shock us less than,
His mercy shown towards the elect.

We know that the infinite exists, but we are ignorant of its nature.
Since we know it is false to say that number is finite, it must be true that
there is infinity in number.  But we do not know what it is.  We cannot say
that it is even, or that it is odd.  Yet it is a number, and every number
is either even or odd (this is certainly true of every finite number).
So we may perfectly well know that God exists, without knowing what He is.

Is there not one substantial truth, seeing that there are so many
things which are not truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we too
are finite and have extension.  We know the existence of the infinite, but not its nature; for, like us, it has extension but no limits such as we have.  But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension or limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in the light of glory we shall
know His nature.  I have already shown that there is nothing to prevent
our knowing the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us speak now according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having
neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity with us.  We are incapable,
therefore, of knowing either \textit{what} He is or \textit{if} He is.
That being so, who will dare undertake to decide this question?  Not we,
who have no affinity with Him.

Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons
for their belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain
by reason.  They declare, when expounding to the world, that it is
foolishness, \textit{stultitiam};\footnote{1 Cor.\ i.\ 18} and then you
complain that they do not prove it!  If they proved it they would give the
lie to their own worlds; it is in lacking proofs that they do not lack sense.

Yes, but while this is an excuse for those who offer it as such,
and frees them from blame for not basing their beliefs upon reason, it does
not excuse those who accept what they say.'

Let us examine this point of view and declare: Either God exists, or
He does not.'  To which view shall we incline?  Reason cannot decide for us
one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf.  At the extremity
of this infinite distance a game is in progress, where either heads or tails
may turn up.  What will you wager?  According to reason you cannot bet either
way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition.

So do not attribute error to those who have made a choice; for you know

No; I will not blame them for having made this choice, but for having
made one at all; for since he who calls heads and he who calls tails are
equally at fault, both are in the wrong.  The right thing is not to wager
at all.'  Yes; but a bet must be laid.  There is no option: you have joined
the game.  Which will you choose, then?  Since a choice has to be made, let
us see which is of least moment to you.  You have two things to lose, the
knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error
and unhappiness.  Your reason suffers no more violence in choosing one rather
than another, since you must of necessity make a choice.  That is one point
cleared up.  But what about your happiness?  Let us weigh the gain and the
loss involved in wagering that God exists.  Let us estimate these two
probabilities; it you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist.

That is all very fine.  Yes, I must wager, but maybe I am wagering
too much.'

Let us see.  Since there is an equal risk of winning and of losing,
if you had only two lives to win you might still wager; but if there were
three lives to win, you would still have to play (since you are under the
necessity of playing); and being thus obliged to play, you would be imprudent
not to risk your life to win three in a game where there is an equal chance
of winning and losing.  But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
That being so, if there were an infinity of chances of which only one was
in your favour, you would still do right to stake one to win two, and you
would act unwisely in refusing to play one life against three, in a game
where you had only one chance out of an infinite number, if there were an
infinity of an infinitely happy life to win.  But here there is an infinity
of infinitely happy life to win, one chance of winning against a finite
number of chances of losing, and what you stake is finite.  That removes
all doubt as to choice; wherever the infinite is, and there is not an
infinity of chances of loss against the chance of winning, there are no two
ways about it, all must be given.  And so, when a man is obliged to play,
he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for
infinite gain which is just as likely to occur as loss of nothing.

For it is no use alleging the uncertainty of winning and the certainty
of risk, or to say that the infinite distance between the certainty of what
one risks and the uncertainty of what one will win equals that between the
finite good, which one certainly risks, and the infinite, which is uncertain.
That is not so; every player risks a certainty to win an uncertainty, and
yet he risks a finite certainty to win a finite uncertainty, without
offending reason.  There is no infinite distance between the certainty
risked and the uncertainty of the gain; it is not true.  There is, indeed,
infinity between the certainty of winning and the certainty of losing, but
the uncertainty of winning is proportionate to the certainty of what is
risked, according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss.  Hence,
if there are many risks on one side as on the other, the right course is
to play even; and then the certainty of the risk is equal to the uncertainty
of the gain, so far are they from being infinitely distant.  Thus our
proposition is of infinite force, when there is the infinite at stake in
a game where there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the infinite
to gain.  This is conclusive, and if men are capable of truth at all, there
it is.

I agree, I admit it; but is there no way of getting a look behind the
scenes?'  Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc.

Quite; but my hand are tied and my mouth is gagged; I am forced to
wager, and am not free; no one frees me from these bonds, and I am so made
that I cannot believe.  What then do you wish me to do?

That is true.  But understand at least that your ability to believe
is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe,
you cannot do so.  Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up
proofs of God, but by subduing your passions.  You desire to attain faith,
but do not know the way.  You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and
you ask for remedies.  Learn of those who were bound and gagged like you,
and who now stake all they possess.  They are men who know the road you
desire to follow, and who have been cured of a sickness of which you desire
to be cured.  Follow the way by which they set out, acting as if they already
believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc.  Even this will
naturally cause you to believe and bunt your cleverness.

But that is what I fear.'  Why?  What have you to lose?

But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things

\textit{End of this discourse.}  Now, to what harm will you come by making
this choice?  You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a
sincere friend, truthful.  Certainly you will not enjoy these pernicious
delights---glory and luxury; but will you not experience others?

I tell you, you will thereby profit in this life; and at every step you
take along this road you will see so great an assurance of gain, and so
little in what you risk, that you will come to recognize your stake to have
been laid for something certain, infinite, which has cost you nothing.

Oh, your discourse delights me, carries me away!'

If it pleases you and appears convincing, know it has been uttered by a
man who has knelt, both before and after its delivery, in prayer to that
Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he submits all that is his,
begging Him to subject to Himself all that is yours, for your own good and
for His glory; and thus strength is made consistent with lowliness.

\medskip

\begin{center}\textit{From:} Blaise Pascal, \textit{Pens\'ees}
(trans.\ John Warrington),  London: Dent \\
(Everyman's Library No. 874) 1932.
\end{center}
\end{document}

%