Pascal's Wager is not a proof of God. He, like I, think God cannot be proven. We cannot even understand God To quote:
"If there is a God, he is infinitely beyond our comprehension, since, being indivisible and without limits, he bears no relation to us. We are therefore incapable of knowing either what he is or whether he is. That being so, who would dare to attempt an answer to the question? Certainly not we, who bear no relation to him."
Instead of attempting (and inevitably failing) to prove God, Blaise Pascal asks us to consider that believing in God is the best option if there is an afterlife. Under his assumptions this seems logical. Well, minus three.
Firstly, Pascal assumes that God is a God of rewards and punishments. Since he states that God is "infinitely beyond our comprehension" he contradicts himself from the very beginning. From the get go this appeal to our reason seems unreasonable, but let us continue.
Secondly, Pascal's assume God is the Christian God. This also cannot be assumed simply because his wager opens up with the understanding that we cannot understand that which is God. Self thwarted a second time, the shame transfers from him to us if we continue to agree. Still, this is not where I chose to concentrate. The worst is still to come.
Because we cannot understand the nature of God, we cannot prove or disprove Pascal's assumptions. They are just as likely to be true as they are to be false. Pascal's Wager still applies here for it is still the best option as long as the real God allows Christians into his kingdom (or whatever it really is). I don't want to argue this. I stand by Pascal when I say no one would dare argue they know the real nature of what is not comprehensible. Pascal got this right, but not much else.
His third basic assumption to me is the most troubling one. This assumption is not one of the nature of God, but the nature of man. With modern science and philosophy very little is assumed that hasn't been or cannot be proven in a physical sense. By experimentation we can understand the human condition with incredible accuracy. If by any means you find the following troubling, perverse, or blasphemous, my only plead is you serve yourself and do your own experiments with an open mind. I urge you to prove me wrong if you can do so without violating basic morality.
Pascal's third assumption is that belief is not a choice. He thinks you could act like you believe by going through the motions, but choosing Christ was not the same as believing in Christ.
My retort is thus: show me how to believe without choice.
Belief seems to be solely a choice. Among an infinite explanations of why we're here, each person for his or her own sake chooses an unproven theory in which they invest belief. As likely as any explanation is for what created the universe (for example), you've chosen a specific direction even if that direction is the path of uncertainty. Belief is only a choice for there is no other way to believe.
There are those who would argue very strongly against this. A person of this inclination might believe in Predetermination, the space-time-continuum, or maybe that free will exists but only to a certain extent. This is fine and those persons may choose to continue existing in that paradigm, but it would be in ignorance that they do so.
Predetermination is the theory that God has created the world as it is and always will be, that God acts directly through you, that your will is the direct will of God. This is to say that you have no choice in the matter of your decisions for they are ultimately not your choices to make. This makes the human conscious a victim of God's supreme power and gives the believer the illusion that he or she has God's grace to do whatever he or she chooses to do, for it's not a choice; it's God's will.
If it is God's will that you've read this, then this is God's will as well: Experiment with your will. Try being under the illusion that your will is your consent. Try changing your belief about something. You'll find that you're in complete control of your beliefs because your belief is God's will and He will want you to have these experiences.
If you think I've overlooked the Devil, I haven't. I've just realized that the existence of the Devil must be a creation of God for all things are. Anything outside of the creation of God could not exist under the terms you assume God to be, including these words.
As for the space-time-continuum, it's essentially the same point. This universe exits as it is and will be. There is a very concrete law of destiny and you cannot escape this. This means if you choose to experiment with belief, you were meant to experiment with your belief and you're just acting out your fate. Again, you cannot fully know something until you have experience with it and receive the correlated understanding from that understanding.
Let's say you don't believe in predetermination or the space-time-continuum. Let's say you think that you have free will, but not completely free will. Let's say you think a belief is something that just happens to you, like a tree getting hit by lightning. In your time of existence you've grown to the sky in search of energy until, by no direct doing of your own, you've hit by a surge of complete, overpowering energy. This is where we must discuss the nature of belief. In order to understand belief, we must experiment with it. Let's use this example:
"Santa Claus is real."
Now you and I both know that this isn't so, so this kind of question doesn't apply to us. But let us consider the children who are just starting to think about the logistics of the Christmas Crusader. There is so much logic standing between truth and Santa, but a little child believes it nonetheless. Why? It is because they choose to. Just as they will when they decide to believe their parents later when the parents admit to the children that they were lying all this time. To a child, your parent is always right. Your parent is infallible. But then, your parent contradicts his or herself, and you have to choose either to believe the original idea or the new opposing one. They choose to follow the parent, regardless of logic at this time.
That example isn't the best one because we know that Santa isn't real. Now consider this:
"If you experiment with beliefs you will find you have complete control over it. To not believe this choose not to, for you can believe it if you want."
Many people, particularly those who are afraid to question their faith, disagree with this and at times fervently. I do not mean to offend, only to offer you tools of enlightenment. Though I know not of previous experiment pertaining to this (I am after all a first semester college student) I would hypothesize that the parts of the brain that light up when we decide between going left and going right on a dark night in unfamiliar territory also lights up when we ask people to chose to believe in something else. If this is not so, I am very open to scientific proof that my belief is incorrect. Fortunately, we don't even have to go there. If you've already thought about what your stance is on the choice of belief, then you've proven my point.
The question is asked to you, "Is belief a choice?" You subconsciously consider the two basic outcomes; it is or it isn't a choice. Based on your thought, opinions, and emotions you come up with an answer and say it to yourself or aloud for other to hear you. You've come up with an answer you believe in and thus make it truth. Already, again, you've proven my point. To think about the question is a choice in and of itself. You choose to think about the nature of belief. You choose to have a belief on the subject. You choose to believe that your belief is true. You choose a belief, making belief a choice. You cannot make a belief without a choice, therefore making a belief at the very minimum some form of choice.
Inquiring minds might want to know, "What if your brain didn't aid you in your belief process and you just naturally believe like how you breathe? What if the only choice in belief is to choose to declare a belief?" This means that there's some magic belief train that hits you and there's nothing you can do about it other than mention it's there. This would make it a natural law, like gravity. The thing is gravity affects everyone on earth the same way. This magic belief train does not hit everyone the same way. If it did, we'd all have the same beliefs, or at least not apposing beliefs. Since this is clearly not so, neither is the magic belief train.
For the sake of argument, I'll continue. Let's suppose the magic belief train hits different people differently and it's not a natural law. This would mean that the magic belief train has a will of it's own. Some might argue that this is an aspect of God. This would return us to predetermination. This would mean that it's God's will that I write this and inform other that God doesn't control their belief.
This magic belief train could also just be a proponent of fate that exists because of the space-time-continuum. This also means that all of this couldn't not happen. You're still meant to read this and experiment if your beliefs, but it's not God telling you to, it’s your physical destiny.
Again, both still give you the opportunity to choose for yourself for nothing that happens is outside of what can happen. It might be an illusion of choice, but that choice is just as real as anything else you do in life. It cannot be a sin to do the will of God and the universe doesn't take it personally if you think it works in a way that it doesn't. Essentially, there's nothing stopping you from thinking you choose your beliefs.
So, please, for your own sake, experiment with your ability to choose. See if there's something you can choose that you thought you couldn't choose before. Play with it. See if it works for you. If not, that's good! You've learned more about yourself and you've strengthened your previously established beliefs. If so, great! You are now unlimited in what you can choose to believe in and not.
This is how Pascal figures how belief isn’t a choice. This is a theoretical conversation between him and an Atheist. The atheist with be italicized.
"I am forced to wager and yet I am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
"...True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe . . . Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are the people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and dead your acuteness. --"
"But this is what I am afraid of."
"--And why? What have you to lose?"
Pascal says you cannot believe by simply choosing to believe. In order to believe, you must act like you believe, and then you will grow to believe. You do not have to choose to in order to believe.
Minus the fact that in order to believe you have to act like, and in order to act like you believe you have to choose to act like you believe in order to believe. So in order to believe you must first make a choice. That means a belief is dependent on making a choice. This would disprove Pascal’s argument again.
Unless what he describes as belief is something else entirely. It is as though the end result of choosing to believe is belief. I think that Pascal was describing something else. In eastern religion, this sensation of full spiritualization is known as Moksha, Nirvana, or Enlightenment. We don’t have this sort of concept in western religions, including Christianity, the chosen faith of Pascal. Pascal wouldn’t have been taught this in any form of church, so unless he went against his faith and explored eastern religions, he wouldn’t have any way to learn this.
This sense of full realization of belief that is the goal of eastern religions is not that just happens. It takes years and years of religious practice to achieve this, but it happens in an instant. Confucius, an eastern religious and philosophical figure, famously said, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." This can be applied to a spiritual journey as well. You must first choose what journey you want to take and then you must choose to follow that journey. Even in religious where there is a final belief experience, you must first choose to believe in that religion to receive enlightenment. The same can be said about western religions.
There is no proof that belief is not a choice, but there is plenty of reason to support the opposite. Belief is a choice, a choice you cannot avoid. Your belief is your choice and to not believe this is to choose not to believe this.
