More handpicked essays just for you.
Blaise pascal contribution for today
Blaise pascal contribution for today
Blaise pascal contribution for today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
–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.
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
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.
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.
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?”
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
Instinctually, humans know that there is a greater power in the universe. However, there are a few who doubt such instinct, citing that logically we cannot prove such an existence. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, wrote of five proofs for the existence of God. The Summa Theologica deals with pure concepts; these proofs rely on the world of experience - what one can see around themselves. In these proofs, God will logically be proven to exist through reason, despite the refutes against them.
I believe that purpose is not tied to the existence of God and that people can have purpose without religion. He may say “look at the positive effect ‘God’ can have on an individual, whether existent or imagined”. In response I would remind Pascal that religion has also done a lot of harm to people. Consider homosexuals, who’s nature is considered a sin in the Bible, Qur’an and various other religious texts. Surely they lose value of life by believing in God, rather than being able to accept their sexuality without feelings of guilt or self-hatred.
In this book, he took several positions, including that supernatural grace enables every good work (Gelpi, 380). In other words, he emphasized that without God’s grace, humans cannot want to be saved, to have faith, to be morally good (Wood, 8:25). After his conversion, Pascal became a Jansenist. Pascal had some kind of a deep felt conversion on November 23, 1654, and he wrote that he had become certain of God, specifically the God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ and not the god of philosophy and scholarship (Beeck, 95). From that time on, he devoted himself to theology and having joined the Jansenists, wrote strongly against the Jesuits (Gonzalez, 168).
It has been claimed that religion was born in a time where there was little knowledge of the world, therefore, mankind needed something to believe in. God was then an idea that allowed everyone to sleep at night with a sense of purpose and comprehension. Yet, Albert Einstein was known to be one of the most exceptional thinkers of this century, as well, as a believer in God. He famously stated, “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” This contradicts the idea that reason and religion cannot coexist.
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...
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience. The mere claim, that there could be a "Proof for the Existence of God," seems to invite ridicule. But not always are those who laugh first and think later. Remember how all-knowing doctors/scientists laughed at every new discovery?
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.