Vous avez deux choses à perdre, le vrai et le bien, et deux choses à engager, votre raison et votre volonté, votre connaissance et votre béatitude, et votre nature a deux choses à fuir, l'erreur et la misère. Votre raison n'est pas plus blessée, puisqu'il faut nécessairement choisir, en choisissant l'un que l'autre. Voilà un point vidé. Mais votre béatitude ? Pesons le gain et la perte en prenant croix que Dieu est. Estimons ces deux cas : si vous gagnez, vous gagnez tout, et si vous perdez, vous ne perdez rien ; gagez donc qu'il est sans hésiter.
Formulation simplifiée :
Si Dieu n’existe pas, le croyant et le non croyant ne perdent rien.
Si Dieu existe, le croyant gagne tout, c'est-à-dire le paradis, la béatitude, le non croyant va en enfer, donc perd tout.
Il est donc plus avantageux de croire en Dieu.
Le Pari de Pascal tente par un raisonnement quasi mathématique de convaincre qu'il y a tout à gagner à croire en Dieu, et rien à perdre.
C’est une des meilleures tentatives pour concilier la logique (fondée sur la démonstration et rationnelle) et la foi (fondée sur la croyance, et peu rationnelle).En gros, allier science et foi. C’est un argument pour convaincre l’athée. Cela va de soi que la foi d’un croyant ne peut être juste un choix de joueur ou une simple question de probabilité .Cette foi ne peut être que sincère et désintéressée …
Pascal, Blaise. 1910. Pascal's « Pensées »
za: pari-pascal
A teraz angielskie tłumaczenie umieszczone na serwerze Uniwersytetu Stanford:
“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...
B. Pascal – "Pensées”
Stanford.edu
