a chance to define Pascal's wager for us first all right he probably will take about yes a check a minute Blaise Pascal was the very distinguished Catholic theologian of the 17th century and also very very very distinguished mathematician and and still is

considered to be one because he's one of the founders of probability theory and he's the author of a famous book called in French *Pensées* or say *Thoughts* which is addressed interestingly it's one of the reasons I'm so fond of it in a way it's

addressed to the man who is so made that he cannot believe Pascal knew that there were always people who would always be people who had been people who are constitutionally incapable of believing this stuff can't be brought to believe it and one of his cruder attempts to

break down the resistance of people that myself was this said look what are you got to lose say you believe in God and if he does exist you have a chance of his favor if you go ahead like this and say he doesn't what if he does exist you lose

everything that's it I don't think I've condensed it in any unfair way that's it that's why it's called Pascal's wager sometimes called Pascal's gambit in fact there are mathematicians but it has the correct echo to me precisely of the

huckster on the racetrack saying how can you lose how they got a bet for you can you imagine anything cheaper really or more sordid the two things that it assumes needs to assume are these one the fantastically cynical God who's also a bloody fool a nasty and

cynical person who's also so thick that he would be fooled by me saying, 'Tell you what, on the flip of a coin that you exist and I need a break, I'll say I believe in you.'  Said, 'I'm really impressed, now you've just undergone a moral transformation.'

This is this place trust cars considered in the first rank of Christian thinkers on my dad. The second thing it assumes of course is the most corrupt and rugged kind of consumer, the sort of person who'd fall for a deal like that. I would think that would be nice.

What I'll bet correctly I am. I hope you'll forgive me, ladies and gentlemen, mentioning this because I don't at all want to invoke my own particular case in attempt to gain your sympathy. I'll say this objectively as I can. You, some of you may have read that I'm not very well.

May not have very long to live. I find it particularly objectionable at this wager which Pascal offers to anyone at any time in their life. To be fair to him, it tends to be pressed on you all the time if you don't look as if you're gonna

last very long by people who say, 'Surely, that now you might be frightened and not feeling at your best and afraid of a smelly and disgusting end. Why, surely this would be the perfect moment to repudiate all the convictions of a lifetime for some reason that comes

naturally to a lot of people of faith. I think it's, I don't mind for myself, but I think it's the vilest kind of bullying to inflict on, on people in hospital and people who are in extremis anyway. Thus my curtain-raiser to the

Great to see the great Pascal, thank you. [Applause]

Christopher Hitchens on Pascal's wager

David Hepburn

17세기 신학자이자 수학자인 블레즈 파스칼은 '파스칼의 내기'를 제안했습니다.

파스칼의 내기는 그의 저서 *Pensées*에서 찾아볼 수 있으며, 믿음으로 어려움을 겪는 사람들을 위한 글입니다.

이 내기는 신을 믿으면 불신은 영원한 저주의 위험이 있는 반면, 신을 믿으면 불신은 최소한의 단점이 있다는 것을 암시합니다.

베팅은 잠재적 보상(신의 은총)과 최소한의 손실이 있는 계산된 위험으로 제시됩니다.

연사는 내기의 신에 대한 냉소적인 견해와 제안의 교묘한 속성을 비판합니다.

이 내기는 피상적인 믿음과 타락한 소비자 사고방식에 쉽게 속는 신을 가정합니다.

화자는 내기를 불쾌하게 여기며 조작적이고 진정한 믿음이 부족하다고 생각합니다.

발표자는 자신의 건강과 잠재적 사망률에 대해 언급하며 개인적인 관점을 공유합니다.

화자는 이 베팅이 죽음이나 질병에 직면한 사람들에게 적용될 때 특히 불쾌감을 느낍니다.

화자는 취약한 개인에게 신을 믿도록 압력을 가하는 것은 괴롭힘이라고 생각합니다.

연사는 파스칼의 내기에 대한 비판을 마무리합니다.