A philosopher of the 17th century, Blaise Pascal, focused on religion, math, and science. One of his most famous arguments in philosophy is Pascal's Wager, a debate over whether or not God exists. Not only does it provide another proof, it brings in a new light in a debate that has been going over for a long time.
To give a brief background, Pascal’s wager wasn’t necessarily a major topic of his. The wager was actually just a small portion in one of his works, The Pensées. The book itself, wasn’t necessarily a book, but just fragments and scraps of his works. Pascal did want to make it a book, but passed away before he could finish it. Out of it came Pascal’s wager which is dealing with the existence of God. Pascal says that whether or not
…show more content…
You can either choose heads or tails, believing in God or not believing in God. Rather than showing fault for the choice that was made, he looks at the outcomes. Pascal says it’s not about the choice made but for having made a decision with the least bit of wagering at all. “Let us weigh the gain and loss involved in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two possibilities: if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist” (Lafuma 94). The difference is Pascal’s two-sided coin has either two heads or two tails, according to Patricia Topliss, who wrote The Rhetoric of Pascal: If we are to be persuaded to call heads or tails on the spin of a coin, we must have no doubt that it really has a head and a tail, so that it can fall either side uppermost. This is not true for Pascal’s coin; for if God exists, it must fall heads, and if He does not it must fall tails. (Topliss 195)
The reason Topliss says this is because of the way the outcome is set up. Pascal’s coin is betting eternal bliss in heaven to damnation in hell if God does exist. While saying there is “no loss” the part of going to hell is left out because he is only comparing life here on earth, not the afterlife, to the chances of winning an eternal living in
Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of
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.
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
Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of
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’.
Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.” [Pascal, p53]. If we believe in God, Pascal suggests, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing, or in his words, a finite amount.
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
Ernest Nagel, born in 1901, was a bona fide prominent atheist of his time. At Columbia University, he was a Philosophy professor. One of his many works was an essay that considers the existence of God. In his essay, Nagel gives his readers three basic arguments presented by Blaise Pascal on the existence of God. One altercation stated is, since we have an interpretation of God as an impeccable being, God must 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
The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the
In the gambling world bets are made based on odds, the probability or likelihood that something would happen. In the court of law, cases are decided upon by the weight of evidence presented by the respective parties. The common link between these general scenarios is that decisions are made based on some outside evidential factor. The more probable something is likely to happen, or the more evidence presented in favor or opposed to something, the greater the tendency that a decision will coincide with that probability or evidence. This kind of logic has also been used when arguing about the existence of God. It has been argued that God’s existence is necessary based on the logic
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.