Hidden Meaning In Blaise Pascal's Wager

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

Pascal’s Wager is an argument that tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in the existence of the Christian god. Pascal thinks non-theists should believe in God’s existence because if a non-theist is wrong about the existence of God they have much more to lose than if a theist is wrong about the existence of God.

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.”

Pascal spends much of his argument refocusing discussion and putting appropriate context on different situations. The question of God is a much more pressing question in relation to human mortality. We are much more inclined to draw toward or push away from faith when we are facing unfavorable situations out of our control. We tend to look harder at the meaning of life and our moral values when we are found staring death straight in the

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, argued that to believe in God, or not to believe in God is a gamble on ones after-life. Pascal believed that we, as human beings on planet Earth are wagering our eternity, after we die, by what we believe during our current, existing life. Pascal implies there is a heaven and hell. He explains that if one believes in God and God exists they are granted eternity in heaven and much is gained. However, if God does not exist and one believes in God, nothing is lost. One would be sent to the same place whether they believed in a God, or not. Pascal explains that if one does not believe in God and God does exist that person is doomed for all of

Pascal’s wager is indeed a unique piece of philosophical argument and it sure has an enormous impact on countless philosophers as well as believers. Its historical achievement can never be unrecognized. However, after having read through and analyzing his wager, I actually found it less persuasive in a logic manner and somehow discriminatory from my personal point of view.

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.

Pascal’s Wager is often considered one of philosophies weakest religious arguments to date. Pascal invents a wager to persuade the one who questions God into attending church, following the Ten Commandments, and following any other traditions in the Catholic Church. The wager is, if a person is a believer and after departing from this earth they find that they are correct, then their rewards are infinite. They will receive eternal life and a relationship with God in heaven. On the other hand if a person is a non-believer and after death they find that they are incorrect, then their loss is infinite. Meaning they have the possibility of eternal damnation and separation from God. There are another two possibilities, in which God does not exist and the believer is incorrect and the non-believer is correct. Both of these scenarios have finite rewards or finite losses. Depending on matter of opinion, one could say that a life doing good works and being part of a community is a reward in itself whether or not God actually exists but to someone else it could be a restriction or a loss of freedom. None the less, if God turns out to not exist the atheist and the theist would only have finite consequences. Pascal’s Wager is rooted in Catholicism and the Christian God. Making the wager apply to much broader terms would take away the “many Gods” criticism and make the argument stronger. Restructuring the Wager and offering the possibility of evidence, which is what Pascal should have

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.

Some people want to believe in God because it is convenient, or because they have seen Pascal’s Wager. But they truly have to desire to believe for them to see the light. Likewise, in today’s society, there is a common belief that in order for something to exist or be true that we must be able to prove it with science. Anselm is reminding us that this is not always true.

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 claimed betting on his existence was irrational. That if you bet on the existence of God that there stands of an infinite reward (gain) that he does exist that can be represented by an eternity in paradise, and the uncertainty of a miniature risk that can be represented by whatever physically causes your happiness would waive during your life. A

Gambling, whether for life or money, is risky and success is not guaranteed, even if you ‘win’. Two different tales both involving risk.

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?

Gambling in the words of McLean and Yoder (2005) "means risking something of value, usually money, on an event that has an unknown outcome." In the opinion of the authors, gambling can assume various forms including but not in any way limited to "casino games, betting on sporting events, playing bingo, buying raffle tickets, and playing lotteries" (McLean and Yoder, 2005). Over time, gambling has grown in popularity with the same being legalized in many jurisdictions across the world. However, those opposed to gambling and the legalization of the same continue to cite various reasons in an attempt to backup their assertions. One of the reasons cited by those opposed to gambling according to McLean and Yoder (2005) is that the costs of gambling easily outweigh the benefits associated with the same. This argument advances the idea that the interests of the society override those of an individual. Thus the