Blaise Pascal was a 17th century French philosopher who was famous for proclaiming in Pascals Wager that proof of Gods existence was not needed when deciding to believe or not to believe in God. Pascal, however, does not provide a rational basis for believing in God. Pascal’s reasoning necessitates some understanding of God, constricts the available decisions into two choices and incorrectly presumes the cost of the wager. Pascal’s argument is not valid.
Pascals Wager in its basic form is an argument stipulating that the reward for believing in God is so great compared to its cost that not believing would be foolish. Pascal has no first-hand account of God and gains his understanding from the Bible. Pascal has been heavily influenced by
…show more content…
the Christian tradition which is based on the teachings of God contained within the Bible; however, this information cannot be verified so for Pascal to claim any understanding of Gods will or any event after death would be presumptuous. If another person were to come along today showcasing a book claiming to contain a new origin story and teachings of God it would have the same legitimacy as the Bible because until otherwise proven neither would have true knowledge. The Bible would still have a massive amount of veneration compared to the new book; however, one would not contain more verifiable truth than the other. Pascal argues that believing in God and adherence to Gods will makes you “faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend [and] truthful” (Pascal 3). Pascal describes these qualities because they are moral pillars in the Christian faith. Assume that a new book of God was found and in it contained information describing a second being as powerful and omnipresent who admits individuals into heaven based on how unfaithful, dishonest, pretentious, ungrateful, and greedy they were in life. Also assume that this God didn’t require an individual’s belief for admission into heaven. This book describes a being that has opposite beliefs as the Christian God, which by its mere thought causes a new possibility to emerge. Despite belief or disbelief, one must choose whether or not to accept this new book. At this point it would be appropriate to ask Pascal what logical argument he could present that would dispel belief in the new being without also dispelling belief in the Christian God. Neither book has verifiable proof to elevate one above another. Pascal is assuming that the Christian interpretation of religion is the only option available despite having no proof that his beliefs are in fact the right ones. Pascal claims that “Either God exists, or He does not” and one cannot abstain from choosing to believe or not to believe (Pascal 2). Pascal limits the decision to believe or not to believe in “two probabilities” (Pascal 2). In Pascals Wager, Pascal states that “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity with us. We are incapable, therefore, of knowing either what He is or if He is” (Pascal 1). Despite proclaiming that humankind can have no knowledge or true understanding of God, Pascal presumes that only his beliefs are correct and there are only two possible decisions that can be made. At first, Pascal seems to have a compelling argument claiming that it’s better to believe in God because of the possibility of infinite reward verses infinite pain. Pascal argues that even if you’re wrong you won’t lose much so it’s better to err on the side of the Christian Gods existence. Logically, however, reason can show that there are many possible Gods that can’t be disproven or proven just like the Christian God can’t be proven or disproven. Pascal is correct in stating that if there is an Omni-x being they are infinitely incomprehensible. Human understanding of an Omni-x being is not possible therefore that beings form could have infinite different possibilities of which the Christian God is only one. By now taking these infinite forms into account the odds of Pascals interpretation being the correct one is substantially less likely. Pascal has limited countless different possibilites into an A or B choice otherwise known as the black and white fallacy. In another thought experiment now assume that an individual was born into a South American tribe far within the deepest confines of the jungle.
This tribe would have zero contact with the outside world and lack any knowledge of the Christian God. It would be impossible for these people to take part in Pascals Wager because they would have no knowledge of it. These people would be unable to choose disbelief or belief. It’s not possible to categorize these people as non-believers because non-belief necessitates knowledge of an option. Further assume that this culture has the same moral beliefs as Christians but came to follow these morals by way of their own rule and not divine intervention. These people according to Pascal would be doomed to an infinite hell as …show more content…
non-believers. Now think of an atheist who reads Pascals Wager and decides to believe based on the possible reward; this former atheist who reshaped their beliefs because of a possible gain would be allowed into heaven over a member of the morally just tribe. We have no true knowledge of God but under the biblical understanding, it would be accurate to say that God cannot be fooled by self-serving belief and would not favor selfish action. Here it should be noted that Pascal has again assumed knowledge of God by claiming that non-believers would be cast into hell. This means that God would use unbreakable conditions for admittance into heaven rather than judgment. Pascal offers no explanation or special exemption but rather reduces his argument into belief or disbelief. One of the main viewpoints in Pascals Wager is the presumption that “if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing” (Pascal 2).
Pascal has incorrectly assumed that there will be no loss with a possible gain in his wager. The win that Pascal speaks of is the infinite win of bliss according to the Christian tradition. The loss that Pascal speaks of is believing in God and adhering to Christian teachings only for there to be no afterlife. The claim that there is no loss in this wager is false because there is a loss of time, energy, resources, and freedom. Most Christian sects require significant sacrifices of time, participation in rituals, worship, monetary contributions, sexual restrictions and could require disowning loved ones for religious blasphemy. Here the price begins to be seen. You may be demanded to live a life that you don’t want to live and if that life has been altered to please a nonexistent God it could be considered wasted. If people only have one life to live than even one second in a finite existence is immeasurably important and one second wasted is infinitely
careless. Rationality or reason is understood as “the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information” (Reason). Pascal makes assumptions of heaven, hell, human nature, the existence of immortal souls and what God likes and dislikes. Reason would tell us that an assumption is not logical, and Pascal himself claims to have no divine knowledge. If Pascal has no divine knowledge, then his assumptions are invalid. Pascals Wager has as much truth to it as The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson. Pascal believed that given the odds it was much more favorable to believe in God. Despite how compelling Pascal’s Wager may sound its invalid. Pascal presumes that the God he believes in is the only possibility. If true, Pascal’s reasoning would require some understanding of God that he does not have. If there is no proof or understanding of God, then the possibility of other forms of God must be entertained; these choices show that to claim belief or disbelief is far more complex than an A or B argument. Lastly, Pascal incorrectly described the odds of his wager as a massive gain for a small price. This could also be thought of as paying a massive price for an infinite loss because if you have one life and there is nothing after you don’t get a second try. Pascal attempted to persuade people to believe Gods existence by asking if we should believe in God; I believe it’s time to return to the question does God exist.
It is crucial that every belief must be thoroughly explored and justified to avoid any future repercussions. Clifford provides two examples in which, regardless of the outcome, the party that creates a belief without comprehensive justification ends up at fault. It is possible to apply the situations in The Ethics of Belief to any cases of belief and end up with the conclusion that justification is of utmost importance. Justifying beliefs is so important because even the smallest beliefs affect others in the community, add to the global belief system, and alter the believer moral compass in future decisions.
In order to be considered a non-evidentialist, one must believe that actual evidence is not required for all of our beliefs. Pascal believ...
Then he goes on to conclude by saying that, “The lessons learned from observing people and their beliefs support the position that I have defended: rational people may rationally believe in God without evidence or argument” (Feinberg 142). In schools today, students grow up listening to lectures that are subjective and then later are tested on what the teacher thinks and believes. Whether or not the taught perspective is factual or not, it teaches students from a young age to just take what the teachers, adults, and any authority says as truth, as a way to respecting authority. In the same way that it is reasonable to believe respectable authority, it is rational to have belief in God without specific evidence because we are created with the inclination that a higher being exists and God has shown Himself to be true to every generation. Furthermore, God has placed in every human the inkling to believe what is right or wrong, so when it comes to deciding whether to act a certain way, we can rely on our gut feeling if it is a good action or not. It is a very common and suggested thing to trust one's gut feeling when making a decision, even though it does not require any evidence to see if it is actually the right decision to
Thesis: Pascal’s Wager calls for the need for people to choose to believe in something, to allow them the chance of gaining more than ever, and with that your chances for gain will be higher with the belief of a god, but the highest with the belief in the God of the Bible.
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.
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
Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God, they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God. Pascal begins his argument by stating that everyone must make a wager. This wager everyone places is on whether or not God exists. Pascal believes everyone must make a wager based on two reasons, everyone eventually dies and God is a possible being.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Truth, what is truth? This question itself has a thousand answers, no person can ever be sure of what truth is rather, truth can be justified, it can checked for reliability with strong evidences and logic. If the evidence proves to be accurate then it can be established that a certain answer is the truth. However, have we ever tried to think about what intrigues us to seek the truth? To think about a question and set foot firmly on the path of knowledge. Definitely it has! That was the very cause itself which is why this world has witnessed some of the greatest philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates etc. along with the school of thought. The ability to think and reason is one of the greatest ability humans have, it is what distinguishes us from the animals. It is what gives us free will, the ability to control our own outcomes. However, it is that ability to ‘think’ itself which has caused men to rebel with the myths and statements established about the unseen and natural forces since the beginning of time. It gave rise to questions such as: Do aliens exist? Is there a world of the unseen? Life after Death and the most popular question since the beginning of times, Does God exists? And the answer is ‘yes’. Here is how I will justify my stance.
Many works of literature have been known to have their words wrap around a certain subject such as gender, politics, and experiences. But some works go into a more personal level such as religion. In Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” and Salman Rushdie’s “Imagine There’s No Heaven”, they talk about the strength in the relationship between individuality and religion. These two authors have written their stories based on how an individual’s life, choices, and beliefs can or can be altered by the religion that surrounds them. As one reads these stories, they might be able to notice that they have a lot in common but there are many difference on what the stories are actually about. These two authors have expressed the relationship between individuals and religion through the similarities, differences, and resolutions.
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.
The role of faith has been debated among many theologians, scientists, and philosophers. It has been greatly discussed and depicted throughout history as whether faith is logical when it comes to religion or whether faith is completely absurd. In this essay, I will focus on the role of faith through the lenses of Christian philosophers Sorean Kierkegaard and Paul Tillich. Faith plays an important role in Kierkegaard and Tillich theology; I will critically examine their depiction of faith and compare and contrast their passages. Kiergarrd view of faith is that it is completely absurd where as Ti
In today’s modern western society, it has become increasingly popular to not identify with any religion, namely Christianity. The outlook that people have today on the existence of God and the role that He plays in our world has changed drastically since the Enlightenment Period. Many look solely to the concept of reason, or the phenomenon that allows human beings to use their senses to draw conclusions about the world around them, to try and understand the environment that they live in. However, there are some that look to faith, or the concept of believing in a higher power as the reason for our existence. Being that this is a fundamental issue for humanity, there have been many attempts to explain what role each concept plays. It is my belief that faith and reason are both needed to gain knowledge for three reasons: first, both concepts coexist with one another; second, each deals with separate realms of reality, and third, one without the other can lead to cases of extremism.
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the