Blaise Pascal's Wager: Does God Exist?

Moreover, philosopher William Clifford states in his piece, The Ethics of Belief, that "it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation." The Wager provided no confirmation on God's existence or that believing in him is the right way of life. Since God is all knowing, he will know that the basis of your belief is exclusively "not going to hell." Pascal took no account of God's power in knowing of and about his beings. In this case, it is useless to believe that he exists since he will know that deep down in your heart, you do not believe in him for the right

Most philosophers saw their work as contributing to a deeper knowledge of the divine; therefore, most scientific thinkers supported religious belief. Many people believed the most important thing about the scientific revolution was to tie it in with religion to understand nature more (Doc. 3). This effort of synthesizing both religion and science was a major fundamental factor in the spread of science and its widespread acceptance in Europe. Blaise Pascal was one of the most influential men who tried reconciling faith and the new science. For Pascal, religion was not the domain of reason and science. He saw two truths in the Christian religion, which were that God exists and human beings are unworthy of God because they are corrupt by nature. To Pascal, reason alone was not enough to resolve the problems of human nature. Pascal also believe he was not losing anything if God didn’t actually exist, but if God did exist he would gain

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

Since there are only two choices a person can make Pascal believes a person should choose to believe in God. Pascal comes to this conclusion based on what he believes are the four possible outcomes of a person’s choice. Pascal believes believing in God is the best possible choice because between placing a wager on God’s existence and placing one on God’s non-existence, placing a wager on his existence offers the best rewards. Pascal explains that if a believer is wrong about God’s existence then they only suffered while they are alive, however, if a nonbeliever is wrong about God’s existence then while they did enjoy their life on Earth they will suffer forever in the afterlife. Since the possible rewards are greater than the possible suffering that a theist can experience it is in everyone’s best interest to believe in God’s existence.

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

Pascal acknowledges that a belief in God's existence cannot be supported by argument or evidence, but claims that religious belief is a rational necessity. This essay will address how Pascal presents his argument, and how it is in our interest to believe in god. I will argue that Pascal’s Wager has weaknesses due to its reliance on an overly-simplistic judgement, and will contemplate how Pascal may reply to such criticisms. I will conclude with an evaluation that questions why a believer is superior to a disbeliever, and whether one can truly coerce themselves to believe in god’s existence. Pascal’s Wager is the attempt to justify belief in the Christian God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest.

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

Pascal doesn’t understand that the atheist or the believer would be persuaded by his argument. Instead, he handles the Wager to the curious and unconvinced. I have a choice to either believe in god exist or believe that doesn’t exists. First, if I believe in God, and God exist, then I will gain happiness; but if I don’t believe in God, and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. Second, if I don’t believe in God exist and God does exist, then I will gain pain; but if I believe God doesn’t and God doesn’t exist ill pay the consequence. So, I have everything to earn, nothing to lose by believing in God, and I have everything to lose and nothing to earn by not believing in God. Pascal’s wager is at first intent for believing, but not a proof. Yet, the wager assumes many conditions for the wager to fit a rational theory.

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

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?

nothing’ (Rohmann, 299). Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a more original solution to Pascal’s problem. He believed that human beings are not born of and in original sin but are born good and are corrupted by society (Rohmann, 347). ‘Thus salvation comes through the social contract. Man must save himself’ (Rempel).

In his work Meditations on First Philosophy, published in 1641, René Descartes sets out to establish a set of indubitable truths for the sciences. He begins by discarding all of his beliefs, then works to rebuild his beliefs based on careful thought. Descartes clearly states this goal, saying in the First Meditation, “I will work my way up… I will accomplish this by putting aside everything that admits of the least doubt” (I, 17). He is able to establish his own existence, but struggles to move beyond his internal thoughts to discuss external objects. Descartes decides that the Christian God is the bridge he needs to escape the confines of his own mind, and argues for the existence of God in the Third Meditation in order to move on to discussing the physical world. In this paper I will argue that Descartes’ rationalistic project would have been improved without an appeal to the Christian God, although I will also argue that Descartes thinks this appeal is necessary.

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.

Does God exist? This burning, three-word question has been argued over since the beginning of man kind. Everyone has their own opinion about religion, and Martin Luther and Réne Descartes were no exception to that statement. Both men, born in the 15th century and 16th century respectively, had a desire to seek out the truth and answer to that question. Whether it was from diligently studying scripture, or going out into the expansive world, each man found what they were looking for. In Luther’s book, On Christian Liberty, and in Descartes’ book, Discourse on the Method, each author wrote of their findings. While Luther and Descartes both concluded that God did exist, each man had a different means of getting to the truth. Thesis: which was better?