Pascal 's Wager : The Theological Hermeneutic Of The Scholastics

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.

The action that leads to the greatest net outcome of utility is then considered to be the correct choice. According to this theory, Alistair should choose the action that will maximise happiness and minimise unhappiness.

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

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’.

ABSTRACT: The dispute between fideists and rationalists seems intractable since those who argue for faith alone claim that they are offended by the use of reason in religion. The advocates of reason claim that they are equally offended by the appeal to faith. This dispute may be resolved by showing that those who rely on faith may be seen as engaging in an experiment of living, so they can become part of a rational experiment without having to alter their practice; in contrast, those who use reason to justify religion can be seen as addressing a spiritual need. From an evangelical point of view, it would be wrong to disparage the mathematician’s use of the mathematical proof of God’s existence (such

A moral agent must have some moral values before he can make any moral choices as well as rational agent must have some ultimate values before he can take any rational action.

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 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.

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

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

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”

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

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.

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.

First I will provide an overview of what rational choice theory is and why it has staked such a prominent position in the discipline of political science. In this section I conclude that rational choice theory has indeed developed advanced methodologies at telling us how rational agents should behave. Then in my second section I will show, using the empirical case of the free-rider problem and collective action, as well as the case of suicide terrorism, that rational choice theory cannot adequately account for actual political phenomena. In my third section I will provide some reasons for why this is the case. Finally, in my concluding section I will posit a theoretical framework incorporating some refinements to the assumptions behind rational choice theory that would better aid a predictive (but not universalist) political science.