Pascal 's Wager : A Prayer, But Let The Good Times Roll

When you go into the bookies tomorrow you will be walking out with a very big smile on your face, the example below is of the type of bets i do now, but as its your 1st time maybe you might want to try £5/£10 just so you know it works, either way after reading this you will see it DOES WORK and there is NO GAMBLING involved ...

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.

to one on a sure thing from every man of them, some of them betting up to twenty

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.

Subsequently, he builds his wager argument by assuming four outcomes on the basis of four options since we do not know whether God is essentially in existence. He offers four choices: First, If we believe in God, and God in fact exists, then we will be rewarded by infinite happiness. Second, If we believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, then I will have no payoff. Third, If we do not believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, then we will get infinite pain. Forth, If I do not believe in God, and God in fact does not exist, I will have no payoff too. Pascal is attempt to justify belief in God is not with an appeal to evince God’s existence. But rather, is with an appeal to our own interest by choosing the one what benefits us. From the four options Pascal presents, I presume he does not know What attributes God owns since he starts the position of metaphysical ignorance before framing these options; however, Pascal’s set up for wager indicates he does know something. For instance, he knows God could be either punishing or rewarding people regarding the decision we wager. Considered from this point, I conclude that Blackburn develops stronger argument in which he points of the self-contradictory nature of Pascal’s position of metaphysical ignorance. Accordingly, I conclude Pascal’s wager is a weak argument in this

The first step when partaking in any type of a game is to decide what one’s strategy will be. The strategy that I had to determine was what my investment philosophy was going to be. In this game, my willingness to take risk was greater than it would have been if we would have been using real currency. My risk tolerance would fall between moderate and aggressive.

In Pascal’s Wager I think had to objection raised is to believe in god openly for the reward is the

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

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

Pascal's Wager, is a common argument in favor of religious belief. It says "you should believe in God, because if you are right, you go to heaven, and if you are wrong, you lose nothing. But if you don't believe, and you are right, you gain nothing, but if you are wrong, you go to hell. Therefore, no matter how unlikely God's existence may be, you should believe.”

Blaise Pascal was a French scientist, philosophe, and mathematician during the early 1600’s. He made many contributions to science and math. In 1653, Pascal’s conversion to Catholicism made him more passionate about religious matters. In one of his famous works, Pensées (Thoughts), he talks about a theory on the belief of god using what is called Pascal’s Wager as support. To sum up the argument, Pascal claims that if we do a cost-benefit analysis on whether to believe God or not, it is more reasonable to get ourselves to believe that god exists, regardless of whether we have good evidence for that belief.

A common argument used to disprove the existence of God is Pascal’s Wager. This argument states that it is more rational to believe in God as you will be rewarded. If God existed, and the person believed in God, he would be rewarded. If the person did not believe, he would be punished .If God did not exist it would make no difference. For this reason it would be more rational to believe in God rather than to not. Pascals Wager was defined by seventeenth century Philosopher Blaise Pascal. The argument can be standardised as follows:

Pascal’s Wager states that you cannot be certain whether God exists or not, but it is better to “bet” on God. If you bet on God and he does exist, you get eternal happiness. If he does not exist and you bet on him, you get nothing, but you do not lose anything. If you bet against God and he does exist, you lose eternal happiness. If he does not exist, you get nothing.

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