Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pascal's wager criticism
Pascal's wager criticism
Pascal's wager criticism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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
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 use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
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...
This paper will examine the argument put forward by William Paley in 1802, in his Natural Theology. Paley offers an argument from design that purports to show a clear and distinct reason why one should hold a belief in God, due to the inherent features of the world. It is attempted in this paper to firstly: show that the argument should be rejected on the grounds of lacking a rationally flowing set of premises and conclusions; and secondly: that the criticisms made by David Hume concerning the argument hold more weight than is generally granted by other philosophers, and should have convinced one even before the advent of Darwinian theory. Added to this, it will be considered as to whether or not Darwin actually did destroy teleological arguments forever.
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’s theory would make sense if it were based on anything other than religion. Theology depends more on personal motivations than a desire for some unknown reward that may or may not exist. Pascal seems to be merely covering his own ass with this wager, telling himself that he is believing in anticipation of his eventual reward. This is not a satisfactory justification for believing in a God for which one has no evidence.
In the first two paragraphs of Pascal’s “Of the Necessity of the Wager” the idea addressed is that one must seek God in order for God to seek them. There are those who only say they seek God, making an artificial effort through attending church, and reading the bible only to say they are still blind to his glory. Then there are those, who sincerely seek God with their whole heart in interest of all that is them and the world they live in. These beginning paragraphs carry a condescending tone. The author does this by addressing the ignorance of the unbelievers, and a counter argument to their disbelief.
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.
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
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.
By having faith in God, or strong beliefs one is able to convince any individual that experiences in life or reasons events happen is based solely upon what they believe in. In having such a strong faith the difference between what is real and what might seem unimaginable conflict with one another. The reason being is that others see unexplained events as faith taking its course, and to others it is just considered luck or a phony story all together. In having a strong belief and having faith in something a story has more meaning to an individual than just any ordinary story being told. If an individual lacks having faith, it also affects the validity of having a reason to believe in supernatural, or unexplained things happening. In the Life of Pi, author Yann Martel displays to his readers how one’s strong belief and faith is able to help an individual through life’s most difficult times and overcome any challenges that lie ahead of you. Also authors Wael Khairy and Moses Ma shed some light onto this particular subject by providing readers with both sides of whether a story is solely based on faith or rather a reason behind what can really be explained. The story Life of Pi mainly focuses around an individual’s faith in God and one’s religion. Reasons being is that it explains the way unexplained events are validated, how it strongly impacts individuals view point, and directly affects the way in which our faith leads one to have certain reasons to believe the way things are.
The first reason focuses on the belief of faith. The following passage is taken from the Bible. It has excellent meaning because it shows that everyone has faith. Having faith is the first sign that shows everyone believes in a religion. There are two good definitions of religion. The first is belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. The second is a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. The passage shows that everyone has an institutionalized system that has belief. The passage is as follows, ?Everyone believes in something. No one can endure the stress and cares of life without faith in God. Atheists cannot prove there is no God. Pantheists cannot prove that everything is God. Pragmatists cannot prove that what will count for them in the future is what works for them now. Nor can agnostics prove that it is impossible to know one way or the other. Faith is unavoidable, even if we chose to believe only in ourselves. What is to be decided is what evidence we think is pertinent, how we are going to interpret that evidence, and who or what we are willing to believe in.? (Luke 16:16)(4) The passage is great proof that there is a God. It shows that everyone has faith. Faith is a big aspect in religion. With every religion, there is likely to be a single holy being, a god.
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?
Swami Vivekanando, a teacher of Vedanta philosophy and a famous leader of Hinduism, once said, “You cannot believe in God until you believe in yourself.” Throughout the history of any people, it is a common belief that there must be a higher power. This higher power is usually referenced in a book and is prized with the creation of the world and mankind. Another common conception with any higher power is the rules set forth for people to follow. For example, the Christian religion has the Ten Commandments, which every person is to follow if he or she would like to be accepted into God’s great kingdom. However, what happens if someone does not follow these rules? In the story, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, a sermon is