Modern debates over religion, more specifically God, focus primarily on whether or not sufficient evidence exists to either prove or disprove the existence of a God. Disbelievers such as biologist Richard Hawkins tend to point to the indisputable facts of evolution and the abundance of scientific evidence which seem to contradict many aspects of religion. Conversely, believers such as Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith describe the controversial aspects of science, and how the only possible solution to everything is a supreme being. However, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal refused to make either type of argument; he believed that it was impossible to determine God’s existence for certainty through reason. Instead, he suggested that rational individuals should wager as though God does indeed exist, because doing so offers these individuals everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Unfortunately, Pascal’s Wager contains numerous fallacies, and in-depth analysis of each one of his arguments proves that Pascal’s Wager is incorrect.
Pascal originally proposed his idea in the Pensées, a collection of fragments of his work, primarily written to defend the Christian religion. Although Pascal clearly supports the existence of a supreme being, he is relatively unimpressed by attempted justifications of a God at the time, and he concedes that “we are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is” (Pascal 233). Instead, he formulates different arguments, which can be framed as the following:
1. If God exists, belief in him results in eternal bliss and happiness (heaven)
2. If God exists, disbelief in him results in annihilation or eternal torment (hell)
3. If God does not exist, belief in him results in moral benefits
4. If God...
... middle of paper ...
...xistence of a Sun God.
Works Cited
Bendz, Fredrik. "Pascal's Wager." Update.uu.se. Update Computer Club, 12 Dec. 1998. Web. 04
Dec. 2011. .
Drange, Theodore M. "Pascal's Wager Refuted." Infidels.org. Secular Web: Atheism,
Agnosticism, Naturalism, Skepticism and Secularism, 22 Jan. 2011. Web. 05 Dec. 2011.
.
Hájek, Alan. "Waging War on Pascal's Wager." Jstor.org. Duke University Press, Jan. 2003. Web.
5 Dec. 2011. .
"Pascal's Wager." plato.stanford.edu. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 June 2008. Web.
04 Dec. 2011. .
Pascal, Blaise, and Gertrude Burfurd. Rawlings. Pascal's Pensées: Or, Thoughts on Religion.
Charleston, SC: Bibliolife, 2009. Print.
–since Christianity is the largest religion globally, it has the most people behind it meaning that the probability of God existing is higher with that many people in the religion, and with the belief you gain infinitely if God does exist.
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
In today’s culture, the idea of there is perfect and divine designer that made the earth and everything that entails with it, really pushes people away. Not only has this idea been conflicted about in today’s culture. It has been especially trivial in past decades, an example of this is seen by H.J. McCloskey. McCloskey wrote an article about it called “On Being an Atheist”, which attempts to defeat the notion that there is a God. McCloskey first addresses the reader of the article and says these arguments he is about to address are only “proofs”, which should not be trusted by any theist. He then goes and unpacks the two arguments that he believes can actually be addressed, the cosmological and teleological argument. McCloskey also addresses the problem of evil, free will, and why atheism is more comforting than theism.
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
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.
Blaise Pascal wrote numerous books throughout his lifetime, but one was published after his death call the Pensées. The Pensées are a collection of smaller notes and thoughts Pascal had when going through his life, they were gathered in the time after his death and put together and in included in them was the Wager. Pascal’s Wager is #233 of the Pensées and talks about how one can decide on whether or not they should believe in God, and the outcome of their beliefs because God either does exist, or he does not. He says that you have to choose one side to be on, you cannot be partial to both sides. With wagering, you have gains and losses, which Pascal explains in the Wager: “You have two thi...
In paragraphs three through six the concept addressed is immorality, and how it is embedded into those who choose to believe and to not believe in the divine. However, the difference in immorality between the two sides are broad. Each side must make the choice every day to seek not only around them but also in themselves for the light of the divine or the darkness of immorality. Pascal is conveying to his audience that the one who does not think of the end of life will not be
In his argument for the existence of God, or for the reason to believe in existence of God Blaise Pascal brings up an idea of “Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal’s Wager is an argument which states that believing in God is just like gambling, in which if the product of possibility and outcome outweigh the risk, person should take it. In his argument Pascal says that if a man ought to believe in God, and he turns out to be right, the reward of eternity in heaven outweighs the loss (which is insignificant comparing to eternity in heaven) which man suffers when he spends his life believing in God, and God turns out not to exist. On the other hand, if a man does not believe in God, and he turns out to be right, the gain which he acquires is again insignificant to the eternity in hell, if God turns out to exist.
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
When looking at Pascal’s arguments that emerge in Pensees; the history, ideas, and people that influenced Pascal must be examined. Many of Pascal’s arguments involve the unity of both religion and science. This can be very controversial at a time where an absolute monarch challenges and tries to destroy other faith practices. Along with introducing scientific ideas others may misinterpret as trying to disprove God’s existence. Pascal was heavily influenced by the Christian church and was a firm believer in God. In fact, Pascal’s discoveries and experiments only solidify his faith even more. Pensees is Pascal’s thoughts on God and some other subjects that tie philosophy and the nature of man.
Pascal’s Wager was a major strength of his theory on God and Religion. The argument made in Pascal’s Wager is an example of apologetic philosophy. It was written and published in Pensées by the 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal. Pascal’s Wager claims that all humans must bet their lives on whether God exists. He argues that rational people should seek to believe in God. If God does not exist the loss is minimal, but if God does exist there is an infinite gain, eternity in Heaven. It was a ground-breaking theory because it utilized probability theory and formal decision theory. Pascal’s Wager is applicable both to atheists and theists. While other philosophies may
Science and Religion dialogue has been a bitter-sweet topic for many people over the years. The controversy is not only common between one sole community, but affects a variety. The beliefs held about these topics has the potential to personally effect an individual, whether it be positively or negatively. In the United States, we draw only a fine line between religion and science, often failing to realize that the two benefit each other in copious ways but are not meant to interpreted in the same way. Due to this perspective, people seem to be influenced to pick one or the other, when in reality we should treat both science and religion with the same respect and recognize that they are completely separate from one another, along with having individual purposes. John F. Haught, a distinguished research professor at Georgetown University, published a book titled, “Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation”. In it he evaluates each side, persuading the reader that the truth is that both realms may benefit from each other despite the differences emphasized. John F. Haught introduces his audience with four approaches on Science and Religion. Haught’s third approach, contact, is of major significance to aid in the response of: “Does Science Rule out a Personal God?”
Many atheists have used science as a way to disapprove the existence of God. Science is not an accurate way of disapproving the existence of God(2). Scient...
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.