Pascal’s Wager

986 Words2 Pages

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.

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. Of the two choices a person can make there are four possible outcomes that could happen to a person as result of the choice they made.

The first possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God does exist. If this is true then the believer will suffer some harm in this life but they will be rewarded with salvation in the afterlife. The second possible outcome is that a person chooses to believe in God and God does not exist. If this true then the believer will suffer some harm in this life and they will not be rewarded with anything when they die but they will not be punished either. The third possible outcome is that a person chooses not to believe in God and God does exist. If this is true then while the non-theist will be rewarded in this life they wil...

... middle of paper ...

...nown reason Pascal seemed to think it was not necessary to acknowledge that there are more belief systems then Agnosticism, atheism, and Christianity. It is this lack of reasoning of why we should make a wager on the existence of the Christian god over the gods of Hinduism or the god of Islam that makes Pascal’s argument so weak. The only conclusion I think one could reach from Pascal’s argument is that it is more beneficial for one to believe in at least a higher power than it is to be an agnostic or atheist. Even if one did acknowledge the existence of some sort of higher being or beings it would still not benefit an individual because the chance of selecting the true belief system out of an infinite number of possible belief systems makes it very unlikely for someone to ever make the right choice. In conclusion I feel that Pascal’s Wager is a very weak argument.

Open Document