Blaise Pascal Fideism

Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of

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 Kelly James Clark’s Article “Without Evidence or Argument”, Clark argues that belief in God, does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational. Clark’s argument is against W.K. Clifford’s article “The Ethics of Belief”, in which Clifford claims that everything must be believed only on the basis of sufficient evidence (139). Throughout Kelly Clark’s article he states many things that support his conclusion of belief without evidence or argument, however, my paper will only discuss what Clark says on p.139 starting with the paragraph “The first problem with Clifford’s…” and the following paragraph, ending with the words “...to see why.”

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.

In this philosophical paper I will be referencing the works of Blaise Pascal’s, “The Wager”, Simon Blackburn’s “Pascal’s Wager”, and Linda Zagzebski’s “Pascal’s Wager: An Assessment”. I will be comparing Pascal’s beliefs with the beliefs of Blackburn and Zagzebski as they discuss different ways to believe in God and if believing in God is a gamble on ones after-life, or simply just religious preference. I will discuss the works of these three philosophers and explain how their works may correlate and differ. The question presented in Pascal’s work is still relevant, being over 350 years old, and still left unsolved. Even though times are much different and technology is much more advanced than when Pascal presented this work in the mid 1600’s.

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence. He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions

There are three powers or virtues of faith that Martin Luther describes. Firstly, justification through faith alone, which means we are free from the law and works as regards our justification and salvation. Secondly, unity of man and Christ like bride to bridegroom which means faith unites the soul to Christ, and lastly, the ability to "ascribe to [God] truthfulness, righteousness, and whatever else should be ascribed to one who is trusted." (Luther, The Freedom of a Christian, p. 103)

After giving his first proof for the existence of God Descartes concludes by mentioning that this proof is not always self-evident. When he is absorbed in the world of sensory illusions it is not quite obvious to him that God’s existence can be derived from the idea of God. So to further cement God’s existence Descartes begins his second proof by posing the question of whether he could exist (a thinking thing that possesses the idea of an infinite and perfect god) if God itself did not exist.

In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.

Both the idea of God and the existence of God play a major role in the writings of Descartes and Pascal. Both certainly appear to believe in him though they argue the case for his existence very differently and they also give Him a very different sort of role in their works. Whilst Descartes claims that he is certain of the existence of God, using a large part of his Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire la raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences to prove the supreme being’s existence, Pascal’s approach to philosophy cannot allow anything to be certain. He instead asserts that he knows God and that, through the use of his famous Wager, it is better for anyone

Descartes makes an attempt to prove God’s existence throughout his third meditation. In his first premise he states that he has an idea of an infinitely perfect being. He uses the Principle of Sufficient reason to advance his argument; it states that everything must have a reason or cause. This put forth his second premise; that the idea of god must have a

Pascal starts off his essay by stating that, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible…He has no affinity to us.” (Pascal, 78) This already poses a problem with the argument he is about to present in support of believing that God exists. The main question becomes, if there is a god and that this god is incomprehensible, then what is the point in believing whether or not such a being a actually exists? It would obviously follow that we would never come to a full understanding of this god, and any efforts to believe in or worship him would be in vain. Are we just to believe that this god exists and that’s all, or is there a code of conduct that is to follow this belief? How do you act in a manner that is pleasing to being that you do not and never will wholly understand?

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.