Blaise Pascal's Argument Essay

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 this paper, I will evaluate blackburn's objection to how he deems Pascal’s use of notion "metaphysical ignorance" as a problematic starting position to arrive the conclusion of Pascal's Wager argument. In “Metaphysical ignorance”, which refers to the idea that Pascal posits in the beginning of his Wager argument, that we know neither what God is nor what kinds of attributes and properties God has. As a result of this knowing, Pascal sets out four options to wager, which is four possible consequences of belief or disbelief whether God exists or not, by implying us to choose the one which offers eternal happiness and gains; However, the options are flawed since Blackburn thinks Pascal can not assume there is an eternal gain or loss especially

In the article,” comment”,Pat Lancaster, an editorial writer, argues let them discard that they should have the choice to do so but a personal one,as well as needing to uphold personal freedoms. She believes that without liberty,egality and fraternity France wouldn't be the same. She or he supports the claim by giving evidence about equality and emancipation. People culture and who they are being taken away by the government and people of the same culture supporting the ban. She follows this with reasons why they shouldn't ban the hijabs and how other ethics including muslims contribute leading european power .

Groups criticize Pascal’s wager and try to argue that it is an insufficient way to believe in god if you are doing it out of self-interest. They believe if an individual chooses to live a spiritual life it should be with pure intentions. Who are these people to judge if the intentions are acceptable? The only qualified being to decide if the reason for believing is adequate enough is the god one chooses to believe in. He explains to people that god is inconceivable, “So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is”

Martin Luther King Jr. was an extraordinary communicator and spiritual leader during the Civil Rights Movement. For example, he once stated: “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are who you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.” He also said: “We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” And: “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

The 1920s marked a time of American women’s changing gender roles. Although women gained the right to vote in 1920, legislation still controversially prohibited women from smoking. The American Tobacco Company sought to create economic opportunity by dramatically changing smoking’s illicit status. Edward Bernays, “the father of public relations,” utilized advertisements to alter the taboo against women smoking (Hinchey). In his 1920’s Torches of Freedom campaign, Bernays manipulated women's Pandora box of desires to capitalize on America's consumer culture, demonstrating an early example of how modern day advertising exploits women for corporate profit.

The true course is not to wager at all.”. He responds to this question by saying that you must wager, that it is not optional to not take a stance on the matter at hand. If you wager that God does exist, but turns out that He does not, you lose nothing. If He does indeed exist, you gain all. If you do believe in God, you will receive infinite reward, if He does not exist, you will receive finite loss. If you do not believe in God, and he does exist, you will gain nothing. If He does not exist, you will have finite gain. Not believing in God has a finite gain, but believing in God has a much higher expected utility. A weakness to this position is that this may not be true, and if it is, it is not something that Pascal has any right to claim. Another weakness is that we should not adopt beliefs on the basis of

According to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so he suggests that the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist. The reasoning behind this is that, a life like that has everything to gain and nothing to lose. He believes that, if we live as though god exist, and God does indeed exists, we will have infinite happiness(heaven). Even if the God doesn’t exist at the end, we have not lost anything. Pascal then states, if we live as though God doesn’t exist and God really does exist, we will be in infinite torment (hell and punishments). If we weigh the two options, it is quite clear that the obvious choice would be to live as if the God exists. He essentially concludes that the potential benefits of believing in God outweigh the potential of not believing in God. There are many objections to this argument and the one of the famous one is, we cannot force ourselves to believe in God. This argument denies the Pascal’s Wager, because believing in God isn’t something we chose, and a person cannot make himself/herself to believe in God if he/she doesn’t. This objection

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

Victoria Lonergan Philosophy 1000 Blaise Pascal tries to convince people to believe in god by extorting their fears of hell. The wager goes as follows: It is better to believe in God than to not believe because if he is real one may walk alongside him while receiving an eternity of happiness. If one chose to not believe in god and they happen to be wrong, they may find themselves in hell.

Pascal argues that it is irrational to not believe in God. This claim is made by first stating that God either exists or does not exist. Those are the only two options. Logically, one cannot prove that either of the propositions are undoubtedly true. One must wager whether to believe that God does exist or God does not exist.

Benjamin strongly argues that being a being a “true collector,” specifically a book collector, involves more than just accumulating a collection of books. Benjamin states that “the relationship of a book collector to his possessions [involves] collecting rather than a collection” (Benjamin 60). One of his most passionate arguments is that the way you collect books is very important to the collection itself. If a collector searches for books that are hard to obtain, they might value the rarity of specific books. If a collector only buys books when traveling, they might value books as souvenirs of where they have been. If a collector holds on to stories that they write themselves, they may value their ability to write and the originality

Pascal’s Wager, which is Pascal’s most potent philosophical argument in favor of “reasons of the heart” is based on probability theory , and uses decision theory , to argue that during the process of making religious choice, humans are better off using faith to believe in God rather than using rationality and choosing otherwise. In his book Pensées in which Pascal identify “wagering” with “believing,” Pascal is found to have stated: ‘We discover truth, not only by reasoning, but by feeling; and it is in this latter manner that we discover the first principles;’ and reasoning, instead of helping in matters of faith complicate these simple principles. To confuse humans. Pascal using this argument for faith conclude heart can supplement all

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 helplessness man endures during times of unjustified suffering is an something that we all dread, but one that, inevitably, every single person experiences to many volatile lengths and magnitudes. In the Book of Job, an innocent and righteous man endures torment passed onto him by God by clinging to his faith and his belief in himself. By contrast, the grand inquisitor in Dostoevsky 's The Brothers Karamazov offers a solution that seeks to overcome the doubt and hardship that afflict mankind by choosing instead to suppress what the inquisitor believes is its cruel source: free will. Both texts oppose each other in their attempt to deal with the problem of evil, but both provoke questions and provide insight into the problem of theodicy. While existentialism isn 't in the immediate scope of theodicy, it is essential to it in that evil is a natural element in the world, and to question why evil happens, and why God would so allow it, is to revert to questioning why God would allow for anything to even exist. The situations in both texts prove that evil is a pervasive but necessary force, just as chaos is, and to assume evil as an anomaly in God’s grand design or as the opposition to his status as the embodiment of absolute good is merely man’s own prosecution of elements that cannot easily be answered by our self-established morals and constructs, and if we believe that evil is not inherent in God’s nature and his intended nature of the world, then neither should be good