What do you think?
Rate this book
Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life
Since we can't know with absolute certainty that God exists, each of us in a sense makes a bet. If we believe in God and are right, the benefits include eternal life. If we are wrong, the downside is limited. On the other hand, we might not believe in God. If we are right, then we will have lived in line with reality. If we are wrong, however, the consequences could be eternally disastrous. This was the challenge posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal over three hundred years ago. But Michael Rota contends that Pascal's argument is still compelling today. Since there is much to gain (for ourselves as well as for others) and relatively little to lose, the wise decision is to seek a relationship with God and live a Christian life. Rota considers Pascal's wager and the roles of uncertainty, evidence, and faith in making a commitment to God. By engaging with themes such as decision theory, the fine-tuning of the universe, divine hiddenness, the problem of evil, the historicity of the resurrection and the nature of miracles, he probes the many dynamics at work in embracing the Christian faith. In addition, Rota takes a turn not found in many books of philosophy. He looks at the actual effects of such a commitment in three recent, vivid, gripping examples―Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jean Vanier and Immaculée Ilibagiza. Like Pascal, Rota leaves us with a What wager will we make?
255 pages, Paperback
Published April 14, 2016
32 people are currently reading
231 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
May 12, 2024
I have never been that impressed with the persuasive power of Pascal’s wager. It always felt to me to be too cerebral. Too calculating. Too mercenary. Surely the move toward God should begin in the heart, rather than through a self-serving probabilistic calculation?
But here Rota makes the wager more muscular, combining it with the Anthropic Principle, to make a very powerful argument against those who claim to be influenced only by evidence and facts, and see no need for a creator-God.
The multiple mathematical constants that govern the interactions between the particles that make up our universe have to be very finely-tuned for life to even be a possibility. Using Bayes Theorem one can calculate the probability that we live in such a universe by design rather than random blind luck. See chapter 7 for the math, but even if you begin with the presumption that there is only a 1 in 10,000 chance that a creator exists, given the degree of fine-tuning of just one of these constants (the cosmological constant), the equation calculates the odds that a designer exists to be 0.999999 out of 1 (or 9,999.99 out of 10,000).
The chances that this universe would arise by randomness alone is so astronomically remote, that the multiverse hypothesis had to be invented to give atheists some hope that there wasn’t actually a designer fiddling with the physics to give us a chance to exist. Of course there is no physical evidence for a multiverse (nor can there be, by definition), but this doesn’t seem to dampen the hopes of these materialists who otherwise claim to believe only in what can be sensed and measured. It really is a pretty embarrassing dodge.
But anyway, if you don’t already feel in your gut that God makes sense, this statistical calculation doesn’t change your mind does it? See what I mean? It’s just hard to change minds with these arguments. Perhaps a better approach is that of Tim Keller’s “Making Sense of God,” or CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” which seem to speak to both the heart and to the mind. Or better yet, meet Jesus through the Bible, where He may speak to your heart directly.
[Edit 5/11/24]:
I’d like to tack on Paul’s review (of a different book) that explains the stunning magnitude of the mathematical problem that the Anthropic Principle presents for those who would prefer to believe that the universe arose through purposeless chance:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
But here Rota makes the wager more muscular, combining it with the Anthropic Principle, to make a very powerful argument against those who claim to be influenced only by evidence and facts, and see no need for a creator-God.
The multiple mathematical constants that govern the interactions between the particles that make up our universe have to be very finely-tuned for life to even be a possibility. Using Bayes Theorem one can calculate the probability that we live in such a universe by design rather than random blind luck. See chapter 7 for the math, but even if you begin with the presumption that there is only a 1 in 10,000 chance that a creator exists, given the degree of fine-tuning of just one of these constants (the cosmological constant), the equation calculates the odds that a designer exists to be 0.999999 out of 1 (or 9,999.99 out of 10,000).
The chances that this universe would arise by randomness alone is so astronomically remote, that the multiverse hypothesis had to be invented to give atheists some hope that there wasn’t actually a designer fiddling with the physics to give us a chance to exist. Of course there is no physical evidence for a multiverse (nor can there be, by definition), but this doesn’t seem to dampen the hopes of these materialists who otherwise claim to believe only in what can be sensed and measured. It really is a pretty embarrassing dodge.
But anyway, if you don’t already feel in your gut that God makes sense, this statistical calculation doesn’t change your mind does it? See what I mean? It’s just hard to change minds with these arguments. Perhaps a better approach is that of Tim Keller’s “Making Sense of God,” or CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” which seem to speak to both the heart and to the mind. Or better yet, meet Jesus through the Bible, where He may speak to your heart directly.
[Edit 5/11/24]:
I’d like to tack on Paul’s review (of a different book) that explains the stunning magnitude of the mathematical problem that the Anthropic Principle presents for those who would prefer to believe that the universe arose through purposeless chance:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
June 19, 2018
Part 1 of this book is somewhat mathematical and analytical. For me as a believer it was accurate but I really had little desire to follow it as I knew the conclusion and believed I o be true.
However 30 years ago when I was a sophomore in college struggling with the concept of believing in God this book would of been extremely useful to me. I would highly recommend this book for someone who is analytical struggling to determine the existence of God and Christianity.
I greatly enjoyed part 2 and 3 better.
However 30 years ago when I was a sophomore in college struggling with the concept of believing in God this book would of been extremely useful to me. I would highly recommend this book for someone who is analytical struggling to determine the existence of God and Christianity.
I greatly enjoyed part 2 and 3 better.
April 12, 2018
Pascal's wager is usually so mis-characterized that I cringe, so I welcomed Rota's effort to rehabilitate and update the wager, which he does well. Rota summarizes the argument: "It is rational to seek a relationship with God and live a deeply Christian life, because there is very much to gain and relatively little to lose" (12)." Thus the wager is about seeking God and not about trying to force oneself to believe as is commonly assumed. Pascal talks about applying oneself to the things that lead to faith like fellowshipping with Christians. Rota adds to this seeking evidence as he spends quite a few pages arguing quite convincingly that God's existence is more likely than not. Pascal himself warned about multiplying arguments for God (so you're not just trying to force faith) but instead realizing that our problem with God is not a lack of evidence but our passions. This doesn't stop Rota from using the arguments and evidences (as Pascal does elsewhere) but he doesn't delve so much into our moral problem like Pascal does.
Another point in Pascal that isn't emphasized by Rota is that the wager is unavoidable. Pascal says that we are already embarked. In other words, you and I are already betting our lives on God's existence or non-existence, so this is not about mere fire insurance. It's a life defining question. The wager is usually criticized for focusing on self-interest, not something worthy of being called a reason to believe. But Rota points out that Jesus is not above using self-interest as in the parable of the prodigal son who came home because he was hungry (See also Mk. 10:28-30). God wants us to seek our best. Thus we should look at what's at stake.
What about the other Gods objection? Doesn't the wager just plunge us into the endless task of determining which religion is more likely to be true before we can even apply the wager? Rota admits that the wager is most helpful for those who think that Christianity is more likely than any other religion. This, I think, is one reason why Rota multiplies evidences for Christianity. I would also point out that Jesus simplified comparative religion by claiming to be God. If Jesus is God then there's really only two religions: those that claim man uses good works to raise himself to God to be saved and the one that says God descended to man in Christ to save him.
I've also wondered if the wager is incompatible with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 17, 32: if Christ be not raised ... eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul doesn't say wager just in case Christ is raised. That's true, but, Rota points out (p. 78), Paul is actually saying if the resurrection can be disproven and it's not at all possible that God exists, then we might as well go back to being pagans. Pascal is appealing to those who think that there is evidence that Christ has been raised and thus Christianity may be true. If he may have been raised you have everything to gain by faith in Christ. Thus wager with all that you are that he is!
Another point in Pascal that isn't emphasized by Rota is that the wager is unavoidable. Pascal says that we are already embarked. In other words, you and I are already betting our lives on God's existence or non-existence, so this is not about mere fire insurance. It's a life defining question. The wager is usually criticized for focusing on self-interest, not something worthy of being called a reason to believe. But Rota points out that Jesus is not above using self-interest as in the parable of the prodigal son who came home because he was hungry (See also Mk. 10:28-30). God wants us to seek our best. Thus we should look at what's at stake.
What about the other Gods objection? Doesn't the wager just plunge us into the endless task of determining which religion is more likely to be true before we can even apply the wager? Rota admits that the wager is most helpful for those who think that Christianity is more likely than any other religion. This, I think, is one reason why Rota multiplies evidences for Christianity. I would also point out that Jesus simplified comparative religion by claiming to be God. If Jesus is God then there's really only two religions: those that claim man uses good works to raise himself to God to be saved and the one that says God descended to man in Christ to save him.
I've also wondered if the wager is incompatible with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 17, 32: if Christ be not raised ... eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Paul doesn't say wager just in case Christ is raised. That's true, but, Rota points out (p. 78), Paul is actually saying if the resurrection can be disproven and it's not at all possible that God exists, then we might as well go back to being pagans. Pascal is appealing to those who think that there is evidence that Christ has been raised and thus Christianity may be true. If he may have been raised you have everything to gain by faith in Christ. Thus wager with all that you are that he is!
October 20, 2024
A decent and clear update of Pascal’s wager. Good outline of important arguments and I liked including the biographies at the end.
Problems:
- I don’t feel like he dealt with the issue of religious trauma enough. Surely many people would wish to continue in religion, but they experience too much social or psychological pain to do so, making the wager look very different for them.
- Doesn’t directly deal with the objections to the existential resonance of Christian revelation. The Bible is more than the sermon on the mount and Romans 8. What should people do with the extensive biblical passages that seem to champion ideas that are not loving?
- Doesn’t take the problem of many religions or divine hiddenness seriously enough in my mind.
I think my basic frustration with Pascal’s wager is that it just cannot do justice to the complexity of life. Trying to fit the most basic and existential decision a person makes into a decision matrix is inevitably reductionistic.
Problems:
- I don’t feel like he dealt with the issue of religious trauma enough. Surely many people would wish to continue in religion, but they experience too much social or psychological pain to do so, making the wager look very different for them.
- Doesn’t directly deal with the objections to the existential resonance of Christian revelation. The Bible is more than the sermon on the mount and Romans 8. What should people do with the extensive biblical passages that seem to champion ideas that are not loving?
- Doesn’t take the problem of many religions or divine hiddenness seriously enough in my mind.
I think my basic frustration with Pascal’s wager is that it just cannot do justice to the complexity of life. Trying to fit the most basic and existential decision a person makes into a decision matrix is inevitably reductionistic.
October 24, 2024
I think I can count myself as having finished this book. About three-fifths of the book (Part Two) consists of familiar apologetic arguments that I skipped. I guess the author figured he didn’t have enough material with just writing about Pascal’s wager, and decided to fill up the rest with textbook apologetics material. Part 1 is a good treatment of the Wager and several objections, including the objection from selfishness and the many gods objection.
June 3, 2024
AN “UPDATING” OF PASCAL’S ARGUMENT
Michael Rota is Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2016 book, “Is it rational to believe in God? Is it reasonable to… live a deeply religious life? And how much certainty does one need before the time has come to decide? If you’ve pondered these questions before, this book is for you… When contemplating the choice to commit to living a Christian life, one might suppose that one should refrain from making a commitment in the absence of rock-solid evidence for the truth of Christianity… [But] even if the evidence for God left some room for doubt, considerations about the possible value of a relationship with God might favor the decision to make a religious commitment. Seventeenth-century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascel gave an argument that expands upon this insight…
“It is rational to seek a relationship with God and live a deeply Christian life, because there is very much to gain and relatively little to lose. As the wager is usually presented, what’s to gain is eternal happiness for the wagerer. An alternative and more powerful version of the argument, however, focuses not just on self-interest but also on goods that go beyond self-interest… On the other hand, if Christianity is false, the committed Christian has still lived a meaningful life, has pursued moral excellence and has enjoyed the many empirically and well-attested benefits of belonging to a religious community. Much to gain, relatively little to lose.”
In the first chapter, he outlines, “The overarching question of this book is… whether there is a good reason to make a serious commitment to living a Christian life... As I’ll try to show in part one, a serious Christian commitment is recommended by reason even if there is as little as a 50 percent chance that Christianity is true… Indeed, if you’re in ordinary circumstances, it is irrational for you not to.” (Pg. 22)
He explains, “By ‘commit to God’ I do not mean ‘decide to believe that God exists, right now!’ … What one can choose to do is to seek God, to pursue a relationship with God… Committing to God is therefore a course of action that can be undertaken by one who already believes or by an inquiring agnostic… For the person who already believes, committing to God will involve seeking a closer relationship with God and, indeed, putting one’s goal of closeness of with God at the center of one’s life plans… For an agnostic, to seek a relationship with God is to seek a relationship with a being whose existence is in doubt… For the agnostic, committing to God will involve prayer, likely in a … conditional form; for example, ‘If you’re there, God, please forgive me for that, and help me with this,’ and so on.” (Pg. 30-31)
He acknowledges, “religious commitment … also may have significant costs… A first possible cost is lost time: time spent in prayer, time spent in church, time spent studying religious teachings, etc. … A second cost is psychological… The theist believes that God has authority over us. Some find that idea unpleasant. Also worth considering is the possible disruption in one’s personal relationships that might result from the transition to a seriously religious lifestyle. A person… may find out that not everyone she cares about approves of the change.” (Pg. 42-43)
He suggests, “Pascal’s suggestion is that if you seek God you may gradually come to believe. And this won’t necessarily be irrational. It may well be that because you are seeking God you will be given evidence. Perhaps God will give you an intuitive awareness of this presence, at least some of the time. Or perhaps you will have some other sort of religious experience that provides evidence for God. Or maybe you will simply come to see that there are good arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity… So even your love for truth might give you a reason to seek God---maybe you have to seek in order to get the evidence needed to know the truth.” (Pg. 58)
He admits, “Still, what of the case where commitment to Christianity brings a high risk of martyrdom, whereas lack of such commitment really does leave one safe? I grant that the force of the wager is less evident in such cases. But even so… one must balance the negative of a life needlessly cut short by martyrdom (if Christianity is false) with all the negatives of ignoring God (if Christianity is true)… Since it’s rational to choose to face a high risk of a great cost in order to avoid a higher risk of a greater cost, it’s still rational for the one at risk of martyrdom to take the wager, so long as he or she judges, after careful consideration, that the epistemic probability of Christianity is 50 percent or higher.” (Pg. 64)
He notes, “On what basis could one confidently conclude that one religion is considerably more credible than another? In brief: on the basis of the available evidence… It is possible to consider available evidence and assess the credibility of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, and so forth. Relevant questions to ask will include: Is the moral content of this religion consistent with the claim that the religion is revealed by God?... Are there strong arguments (historical, scientific or philosophical) against the truth of this religion?... Is there positive evidence for the truth of this religion?” (Pg. 68-69)
He argues, “Contingent beings always need causes because both existence and nonexistence were real possibilities. Since they exist BUT MIGHT NOT HAVE, we rightly think there must have been some cause of their existence… But in the case of a necessary being, there were never two possibilities in the first place… So we needn’t seek some reason or cause that explains why it exists rather than not… Why then does such a necessary being exist? Because it’s impossible for it not to.” (Pg. 96)
He states, “If we exist in an atheistic multiverse, then the proportion of life-permitting universes will be VERY small. But if we exist in a multiverse created by God, we should expect the proportion of life-permitting universes to be not nearly so small… So if there are many universes, the evidence of fine-tuning favors theism over atheism… Three main ideas lead support to this claim, First, God might very well want to create many universes. Second… [there] are reasons to think that a significant proportion of universes created by God would be life-permitting universes. Third, this fact about proportions implies that it is much more likely that the universe we are in in fact would have a life-permitting cosmological constant … than an atheistic multiverse hypothesis.” (Pg. 128)
He points out, “If it were nearly certain that God does not exist, then it would be correct to reject the historical argument for Christianity on the grounds that the resurrection is simply too improbable to accept. But it’s not nearly certain that God does not exist… So the crucial question becomes: If God does exist, is it plausible that Jesus would have been resurrected?” (Pg. 166) He continues, “if God exists, God would have reasons to become incarnate and Jesus lived and died in a way that we would expect of the incarnate God. It is therefore not implausible that if God exists, Jesus would indeed be raised from the dead… The improbability objection therefore fails, and the argument for the resurrection remains in force.” (Pg. 168-169)
He notes, “the presence of inconsistencies in the Gospels … does raise a problem… namely that the best explanation of the early disciples’ claims was that Jesus was resurrected. Three points should be made concerning this problem. First, while the lack of perfect reliability should make us cautious about the DETAILS of an eyewitness account, it remains the case that when several witnesses agree ln the major outlines of what happened, we can have good reason to be confident in those major outlines…. Second, sometimes what appears to be an inconsistency at first glance really isn’t… Third, and most importantly… the three core facts on which the argument depends are sufficiently well established by the letters of Paul, the testimony of Clement and Polycarp, and other ancient sources.” (Pg. 175)
He concludes, “If Christianity has at least a 50 percent probability of being true, then it is eminently reasonable to commit to living a devout Christian life… But does Christianity have a 50 percent or higher probability of being true? … I argued that it does… Christian commitment is rational, and the abundant life to which Jesus calls us it beautiful… But each must judge by his or her own lights.. IN the end, these are the only two options: to do nothing is to place one’s bet on the possibility that God does not exist. To which view will you incline?” (Pg. 222)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying Christian Apologetics.”
Michael Rota is Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas. He wrote in the Introduction to this 2016 book, “Is it rational to believe in God? Is it reasonable to… live a deeply religious life? And how much certainty does one need before the time has come to decide? If you’ve pondered these questions before, this book is for you… When contemplating the choice to commit to living a Christian life, one might suppose that one should refrain from making a commitment in the absence of rock-solid evidence for the truth of Christianity… [But] even if the evidence for God left some room for doubt, considerations about the possible value of a relationship with God might favor the decision to make a religious commitment. Seventeenth-century French mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascel gave an argument that expands upon this insight…
“It is rational to seek a relationship with God and live a deeply Christian life, because there is very much to gain and relatively little to lose. As the wager is usually presented, what’s to gain is eternal happiness for the wagerer. An alternative and more powerful version of the argument, however, focuses not just on self-interest but also on goods that go beyond self-interest… On the other hand, if Christianity is false, the committed Christian has still lived a meaningful life, has pursued moral excellence and has enjoyed the many empirically and well-attested benefits of belonging to a religious community. Much to gain, relatively little to lose.”
In the first chapter, he outlines, “The overarching question of this book is… whether there is a good reason to make a serious commitment to living a Christian life... As I’ll try to show in part one, a serious Christian commitment is recommended by reason even if there is as little as a 50 percent chance that Christianity is true… Indeed, if you’re in ordinary circumstances, it is irrational for you not to.” (Pg. 22)
He explains, “By ‘commit to God’ I do not mean ‘decide to believe that God exists, right now!’ … What one can choose to do is to seek God, to pursue a relationship with God… Committing to God is therefore a course of action that can be undertaken by one who already believes or by an inquiring agnostic… For the person who already believes, committing to God will involve seeking a closer relationship with God and, indeed, putting one’s goal of closeness of with God at the center of one’s life plans… For an agnostic, to seek a relationship with God is to seek a relationship with a being whose existence is in doubt… For the agnostic, committing to God will involve prayer, likely in a … conditional form; for example, ‘If you’re there, God, please forgive me for that, and help me with this,’ and so on.” (Pg. 30-31)
He acknowledges, “religious commitment … also may have significant costs… A first possible cost is lost time: time spent in prayer, time spent in church, time spent studying religious teachings, etc. … A second cost is psychological… The theist believes that God has authority over us. Some find that idea unpleasant. Also worth considering is the possible disruption in one’s personal relationships that might result from the transition to a seriously religious lifestyle. A person… may find out that not everyone she cares about approves of the change.” (Pg. 42-43)
He suggests, “Pascal’s suggestion is that if you seek God you may gradually come to believe. And this won’t necessarily be irrational. It may well be that because you are seeking God you will be given evidence. Perhaps God will give you an intuitive awareness of this presence, at least some of the time. Or perhaps you will have some other sort of religious experience that provides evidence for God. Or maybe you will simply come to see that there are good arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity… So even your love for truth might give you a reason to seek God---maybe you have to seek in order to get the evidence needed to know the truth.” (Pg. 58)
He admits, “Still, what of the case where commitment to Christianity brings a high risk of martyrdom, whereas lack of such commitment really does leave one safe? I grant that the force of the wager is less evident in such cases. But even so… one must balance the negative of a life needlessly cut short by martyrdom (if Christianity is false) with all the negatives of ignoring God (if Christianity is true)… Since it’s rational to choose to face a high risk of a great cost in order to avoid a higher risk of a greater cost, it’s still rational for the one at risk of martyrdom to take the wager, so long as he or she judges, after careful consideration, that the epistemic probability of Christianity is 50 percent or higher.” (Pg. 64)
He notes, “On what basis could one confidently conclude that one religion is considerably more credible than another? In brief: on the basis of the available evidence… It is possible to consider available evidence and assess the credibility of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Scientology, and so forth. Relevant questions to ask will include: Is the moral content of this religion consistent with the claim that the religion is revealed by God?... Are there strong arguments (historical, scientific or philosophical) against the truth of this religion?... Is there positive evidence for the truth of this religion?” (Pg. 68-69)
He argues, “Contingent beings always need causes because both existence and nonexistence were real possibilities. Since they exist BUT MIGHT NOT HAVE, we rightly think there must have been some cause of their existence… But in the case of a necessary being, there were never two possibilities in the first place… So we needn’t seek some reason or cause that explains why it exists rather than not… Why then does such a necessary being exist? Because it’s impossible for it not to.” (Pg. 96)
He states, “If we exist in an atheistic multiverse, then the proportion of life-permitting universes will be VERY small. But if we exist in a multiverse created by God, we should expect the proportion of life-permitting universes to be not nearly so small… So if there are many universes, the evidence of fine-tuning favors theism over atheism… Three main ideas lead support to this claim, First, God might very well want to create many universes. Second… [there] are reasons to think that a significant proportion of universes created by God would be life-permitting universes. Third, this fact about proportions implies that it is much more likely that the universe we are in in fact would have a life-permitting cosmological constant … than an atheistic multiverse hypothesis.” (Pg. 128)
He points out, “If it were nearly certain that God does not exist, then it would be correct to reject the historical argument for Christianity on the grounds that the resurrection is simply too improbable to accept. But it’s not nearly certain that God does not exist… So the crucial question becomes: If God does exist, is it plausible that Jesus would have been resurrected?” (Pg. 166) He continues, “if God exists, God would have reasons to become incarnate and Jesus lived and died in a way that we would expect of the incarnate God. It is therefore not implausible that if God exists, Jesus would indeed be raised from the dead… The improbability objection therefore fails, and the argument for the resurrection remains in force.” (Pg. 168-169)
He notes, “the presence of inconsistencies in the Gospels … does raise a problem… namely that the best explanation of the early disciples’ claims was that Jesus was resurrected. Three points should be made concerning this problem. First, while the lack of perfect reliability should make us cautious about the DETAILS of an eyewitness account, it remains the case that when several witnesses agree ln the major outlines of what happened, we can have good reason to be confident in those major outlines…. Second, sometimes what appears to be an inconsistency at first glance really isn’t… Third, and most importantly… the three core facts on which the argument depends are sufficiently well established by the letters of Paul, the testimony of Clement and Polycarp, and other ancient sources.” (Pg. 175)
He concludes, “If Christianity has at least a 50 percent probability of being true, then it is eminently reasonable to commit to living a devout Christian life… But does Christianity have a 50 percent or higher probability of being true? … I argued that it does… Christian commitment is rational, and the abundant life to which Jesus calls us it beautiful… But each must judge by his or her own lights.. IN the end, these are the only two options: to do nothing is to place one’s bet on the possibility that God does not exist. To which view will you incline?” (Pg. 222)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying Christian Apologetics.”
May 1, 2017
Pascal's Wager is this:
We can not know with absolute certainty that God exists. If we choose to believe in God and we are right the benefits include eternal life and relationship with Him, if we are wrong and God does not exist the downside is fairly limited (we lived a fallacy but live fully with virtues of love, grace, self-sacrifice, charity, and forgiveness).
On the flip side if we chose to not believe in God and we are right we have lived true to the precepts of the world. However, if we are wrong we suffer eternal conscience torment in Hell.
Portions of this book are excellent. Rota offers outstanding apologetic arguments addressing the topics of evidence for the resurrection of Christ, evidence for a fine tuned Universe, philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and also biographical stories of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who were Martyr's for standing for their faith.
Other portions of this book read like a long algebra problem with philosophical proofs that seem non-understandable.
In the end Pascal's wager (if you take it) seems like a poor form of cosmetic life insurance rather than a faith someone like Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, or William Wilberforce would stand for to lift them up to try to change the world.
We can not know with absolute certainty that God exists. If we choose to believe in God and we are right the benefits include eternal life and relationship with Him, if we are wrong and God does not exist the downside is fairly limited (we lived a fallacy but live fully with virtues of love, grace, self-sacrifice, charity, and forgiveness).
On the flip side if we chose to not believe in God and we are right we have lived true to the precepts of the world. However, if we are wrong we suffer eternal conscience torment in Hell.
Portions of this book are excellent. Rota offers outstanding apologetic arguments addressing the topics of evidence for the resurrection of Christ, evidence for a fine tuned Universe, philosophical arguments for the existence of God, and also biographical stories of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who were Martyr's for standing for their faith.
Other portions of this book read like a long algebra problem with philosophical proofs that seem non-understandable.
In the end Pascal's wager (if you take it) seems like a poor form of cosmetic life insurance rather than a faith someone like Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, or William Wilberforce would stand for to lift them up to try to change the world.
May 5, 2020
Whether you want to or not, you will wager.
If you were to speak to the average theist or atheist one would think Pascal’s Wager is an argument for the existence of God-it isn’t.
It is an argument why one should consider spiritual matters and the reality claims made in the Bible in comparison to a naturalistic worldview. Either God exists or he does not; either way, I should look into it and wager on his existence rather than his non-existence; I have more to lose with one than the other.
Given that traditional understanding of the wager, one will find that this book not only understands the existential nature of Pascal’s Wager, but formulates it well for a modern audience.
The primary thesis for Dr. Rota’s book is that, if there is at least a fifty-one percent chance that Christianity is true, wagering on Christianity is the most rational position everyone should take. In an updated formulation of Pascal’s Wager Rota presents the wager’s relevance to life and why it should be taken seriously.
To further strengthen the proposition that there is at least a fifty-one percent chance that Christianity is true Rota fairly gives arguments from natural theology-like design and cosmological arguments- and weighs those arguments in light of probability theory. Rota’s book ends with three very short but illustrative biographies of exemplary Christians.
To be pithy, Rota’s book builds a strong case for why wagering on Christianity is not only a fifty-one precent chance at being true but also argues why we should want it to be true.
If you were to speak to the average theist or atheist one would think Pascal’s Wager is an argument for the existence of God-it isn’t.
It is an argument why one should consider spiritual matters and the reality claims made in the Bible in comparison to a naturalistic worldview. Either God exists or he does not; either way, I should look into it and wager on his existence rather than his non-existence; I have more to lose with one than the other.
Given that traditional understanding of the wager, one will find that this book not only understands the existential nature of Pascal’s Wager, but formulates it well for a modern audience.
The primary thesis for Dr. Rota’s book is that, if there is at least a fifty-one percent chance that Christianity is true, wagering on Christianity is the most rational position everyone should take. In an updated formulation of Pascal’s Wager Rota presents the wager’s relevance to life and why it should be taken seriously.
To further strengthen the proposition that there is at least a fifty-one percent chance that Christianity is true Rota fairly gives arguments from natural theology-like design and cosmological arguments- and weighs those arguments in light of probability theory. Rota’s book ends with three very short but illustrative biographies of exemplary Christians.
To be pithy, Rota’s book builds a strong case for why wagering on Christianity is not only a fifty-one precent chance at being true but also argues why we should want it to be true.
August 31, 2022
“At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.” - Blaise Pascal
Rota makes a compelling case in favor of what has become known as Pascal’s wager. God is either real, or he isn’t— we are wagering, and we ought to be careful how we do so.
There’s lots of good material in this book, but some of it is also a bit dry. The material Rota grapples with is scientific, historical, and philosophical— there’s something most readers can connect with. I didn’t find the mathematical equations very intriguing, but going over the gospel accounts from an viewpoint that both atheists and theists agree on was extremely enlightening.
Rota makes a compelling case in favor of what has become known as Pascal’s wager. God is either real, or he isn’t— we are wagering, and we ought to be careful how we do so.
There’s lots of good material in this book, but some of it is also a bit dry. The material Rota grapples with is scientific, historical, and philosophical— there’s something most readers can connect with. I didn’t find the mathematical equations very intriguing, but going over the gospel accounts from an viewpoint that both atheists and theists agree on was extremely enlightening.
February 26, 2022
This is a relatively accessible presentation of Pascal's Wager, followed by a rather comprehensive exploration of reasons for Christian belief. In this sense, it is designed less as a deep inspection of the wager, and more as a path to openness to belief that could start with and/or utilize the wager as needed. For this reason, I am glad for this book as a resource that I could share with seeking friends.
November 30, 2020
I've always liked Pascal's Wager. It has a ring of truth. Before people get to poking holes, it seems really reasonable. Rota has written a good book. Sure, there are holes to be poked, but he pokes back. The result is rewarding. If there is a good chance that Christianity is true, and there is, then the wise man acts accordingly.
July 9, 2020
There are some good aspects of this book and there are some terribly boring and dry sections. I was not looking for mathematical equations to be part of my learning of apologetics. I highly do not recommend this book for Sunday School class or as part of a group discussion. But, I do believe some individuals would find this of use.
June 14, 2016
The book is broken into three sections each of which help target a part of the human soul: distorted or weak will? Then part one and the wager begin their work; up persuaded mind? Then parts one and two should be of some help; disordered or weak heart? Part three tells three of the most moving stories of Christian courage, nobility, forgiveness, sacrifice, and beauty.
I am a big fan of Pascal's Pensees, and this book does a good job of updating the wager. I highly recommend the book.
I am a big fan of Pascal's Pensees, and this book does a good job of updating the wager. I highly recommend the book.
December 12, 2018
Michael Rota is associate professor of philosophy at the University of St. Thomas and obviously a brilliant philosopher and apologist. He has determined in this book to modernize and defend the so-called Pascal’s wager, developed by the 19th century French mathematician and theological Blaise Pascal. In essence the wager is this: “It is rational to seek a relationship with God and live a deeply Christian life, because there is very much to gain and relatively little to lose” (pp. 12, 23). I really enjoyed the book and it made me think at a deeper level.
Rota's main argument is that if Christianity has at least a 50% of being true, it is worth your time to convert to Christianity.
Rota's main argument is that if Christianity has at least a 50% of being true, it is worth your time to convert to Christianity.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews