Pascal's Wager: Is It Morally Permissible To Believe In God

The provocative question of whether it is morally permissible to believe in God solely for practical advantages, continues to be controversial, as it directly confronts challenges of genuine faith and ethical reasoning. Blaise Pascal argued that belief in God real or not is a rational choice and advantageous to us because if he exists, we gain infinite happiness and if he does not, we lose nothing (Vaughn, 2021, p.112). Therefore, participating in the simple act of believing has no downside because there is nothing to lose, only potential to gain. However, believing in God solely for personal gain raises many concerns. This essay will explore the perspective of believing in God solely for personal advantages because it raises a moral problem as it undermines the authenticity of faith and raises ethical concerns. It

Thus, this superficial approach undermines the potential of genuine faith. Such insincerity affects religious communities as the presence of those solely there for self-gain dilutes the authenticity of these religious practices. Therefore, insincere belief, belief motivated by personal gain, does not tract the kind of meaningful engagement that is essential for true religious experience. Pascal’s argument for belief in God, is known as Pascal’s Wager, based on the idea that it is a rational choice to believe in God because the positive outweighs the negative of believing in a deity that may not exist (Vaughn, 2021, p.112). The pragmatic approach that Pascal suggests seems as though blindly believing in God is a safer bet compared to atheism or agnosticism, as it carries the risk of missing out on partaking in infinite happiness. It provides those with uncertainty about God’s existence justification to use faith as a strategic decision-making tool to allow themselves to gain more than they