Pascal’s argument “The Wager” says that it is more reasonable to believe in God than to not believe in god. There are many objections to “The Wager” argument, but William G. Lycan and George N. Schlesinger defend Pascal’s argument. This response will give a brief overview of Pascal’s wager and an overview of Lycan and Schlesinger’s argument while it is being evaluated. Pascal starts with a situation that human reasoning cannot be proven if God does or does not exist. Because reason cannot be used then a person must bet on the choice if God does or does not exist. Pascal also says that a choice must be made because not making a choice is the same as making a choice. He also says that to make a choice that your happiness must be wagered. The only two things that can be wagered according to Pascal are reason and happiness, because these only the only two things in which there are equal risk and gain. Pascal’s wager gives four options to choose from. The choices are as follows: to believe and act like it, to not believe and act like you do, to believe and act like you do not, or to not believe and act like you do not. Pascal says that if you believe in God and he is real than the gain is infinite because eternal happiness waits for you after death. He also says that if you do not believe and God truly does exist then you will have infinite sorrow. He goes on to say that if you do not believe and God does not exist then you have neither won nor lost. Pascal says that in not believing you have everything to lose because you can have eternal unhappiness. Lycan and Schlesinger give the five most common objections to Pascal but they focus on the two most common and important objections. The first most important objection: is ... ... middle of paper ... ... god he is talking about as the Christian God. His wager says there is his god or there is not a god. The Wager does not allow any other god but that of the Christians. This view also condemns anyone who does not believe to a life of eternal unhappiness. Seeing as Pascal thinks of the Christian God in this argument and not that there may be multiple gods then that increases the risk of suffering. This risk is increased because if there is multiple Gods or even one God but they are not the one that you put your faith it then that could lead to endless and eternal suffering on the part of the believer. It can also be argued that if the person that holds the beliefs find out that they have been trusting in the wrong god or Gods this whole time that their spirits could be crushed and suffer more pain than they would if they did not put their faith in any deity.
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.
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 the name given to an argument that was present by Blaise Pascal who was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. Pascal had a strong belief for God’s existence. The argument hypothesizes and attempts to prove that there is more to be obtained from venturing on the existence of God rather than the rejection of the existence of God. Pascal’s wager states that man loses nothing in believing in God instead of reason through a game of chance. “You must either believe of not believe that God is – which will you do?” (Bailey, 99). Here, Pascal argues that reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not. Therefore, it makes logical sense to choose the option that would benefit us most even if it were considered to be right. Pascal states four options: one may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness; one may live a pleasure – seeking life and be denied eternal happiness; one may live a holy live but there is actually no God or eternal life; and one may live a pleasure-seeking but it makes no difference because there is no God. The first of these options is the most important one because it represents the maximum gain and loss. If the turn out proves that there is no God, then the sheer risk of deciding against such a possibility warrants that we should take that option (99).
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.
The pure fact alone that Pascal’s Wager appeals to our common human traits of logic and self-interest allows it to be a persuasive argument. Through this, the Wager can appeal to a much larger audience because it entices one’s self-interests over their religious state. While one can raise the argument that believing in God may not be the only way to make it to the afterlife, one could refute that what was loss that would make attending church during your lifetime such a regrettable experience. All in all, Pascal’s Wager provides a pretty convincing argument in why one should believe in God and does it in a way both simple and concise.
Unlike a lot arguments for the existence of God, Pascal’s Wager requires a lot less faith than most of the other ways. You do not have to be born and raised in that religion, follow every custom strictly, or dedicate your life to the church. Pascal’s wager suggests that one needs to believe in God to receive the benefits of afterlife and that belief comes through practice. In response to people who do not believe in God, but want to, Pascal states, “Follow the way by which they [previous non-believers] began; acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will make you naturally believe, and deaden your acuteness” (Pensèes, 2). With many people often fearing deep involvement, this is a less drastic way
Our purpose in this life is a question that has been asked countless times and answered in various ways. One of the central rational arguments for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This argument focuses in on how intricately designed aspects of life that could not have just fallen into place on their own, they must have had a creator. One of the central practical arguments for the possible existence of God is Pascal’s Wager. This argument is based on weighing the consequences that result from the gamble of believing in God or not believing in God. These arguments can be viewed as comparable and also as diverse.
In “The Gambler” by Palo Bacigalupi, many interesting ideas and issues are raised in the context of The Media today. In “The Gambler,” Bacigalupi refers to the inner workings of The Media as “the maelstrom.” I found this metaphor to be extremely accurate for a few reasons. The metaphor also brings to light some key issues with our relationship to The Media today.
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
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.
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?
In today’s society people often gamble simply because it is what they want in order to satisfy a sense of liberation, increase their gratification and purely for the reason that they can and nobody is to stop them. If you were to think of it the game of luck are games in which the results be contingent, either to some extent or entirely, on luck. Practice does not increase a person’s probabilities of winn...
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.
... is 0.125, four .0625, five 0.03125, six 0.015625. Therefore, even with as little as 6 consecutive bets there is more than a 98% chance that the strategy would be successful. What is missing in this information is the pain that would be experienced in the 1.5% chance that all six bets are lost. If the better had planned on winning $100, by the time he fails six consecutive bets with 2:1 odds, the amount of money lost is already over $1,000.
Pascal's Wager takes this angle: You must wager. There is no choice, he says, you are already committed. I liked the example he used of the toss of the coin, he wants us to see this choice as the gamble that it is. Before you put your money on either, examine the odds, says Pascal: One on side of the coin, heads: God exists and there is an eternal heaven to be gained and an eternal Hell to be avoided. On the flip-side of the coin: God does not exist, no heaven and hell to look forward to or fear, no rewards and no wrath. Choose God, says Pascal, If you win you win everything if you lose you lose nothing, though the odds are even, the rewards are not. Choose heads and win, and in the words of Willy Wonka, you win the "grand and glorious jackpot."