Pascal's Wager Argument

799 Words2 Pages

Several authors that we have studied have argued for and against the concept of believing in a higher power. It is a debate that has been argued over since the days of Plato and Aristotle, and it continues to be written about today. People have their own views on what happens after life and if it is or is not defined by a god, and these views essentially are the dogmas that define different religions. Blaise Pascal had his own opinion on whether a reasonable person should believe in God. Essentially, Pascal believed that there is no justifiable reason not to believe in God. Despite the counterarguments by several scholars against Pascal’s proposition, his proof still stands as a justification for a reasonable person to believe.
In Pascal’s …show more content…

Of these scholarly articles, Pascal’s Wager: A Critique, by Simon Blackburn, may hold the most weight. Blackburn argues against two critical points of Pascal’s theory: the concepts of metaphysical ignorance and religious pluralism. In Blackburn’s objection from metaphysical ignorance, he argues that a logical person cannot assume that there is an infinite gain or loss for believing or not believing in God, respectively. Pascal assumes a Christian viewpoint of heaven and hell. No human is in the position to declare his or her own destiny after death based on whether or not they believe. For example, God could have motives to punish those who believe in him by subjecting them to eternity in hell and nobody would know until after death. However, a reasonable person can disregard this theory because the prospect of God rewarding those who believe is much more likely than God rewarding those who do not. Also, believing that God would punish someone for believing is still a belief in God, and therefore, if that person truly believes that that is what God wants, then he should be rewarded if he is true. Nevertheless, he still justifiably believes in …show more content…

This argument simply states that there are too many religious affiliations nowadays to know confidently which one God wants us to believe in, and some of these are in conflict with one another. This prompts the question that any reasonable person would ask: which religion should we believe? In my personal opinion, I believe that God does not discriminate based on religion whatsoever. Similarly to Protestantism, I believe that faith and good works are all that leads to a life in heaven. If this is the case, whatever interpretation someone has of God or religion is not important when discerning whether or not to believe, and therefore is not important when determining the infinite utility of an

Open Document