Essay on Pascal’s Wager

In this paper, I will argue against the problem of evil, and I will give an adequate amount of information to prove why I believe Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument is not cogent, because although it is strong, all the premises are not true. This paper will also include me explaining, discussing, and evaluating Rowe’s Problem of Evil argument. In the argument, he discusses logical reasonings about why there is a strong argument for why atheism is true.

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.

Then, Pascal was unable to determine who among the “many gods” that we must choose to receive the eternal happiness, since there are a lot of religions claim that their god would punish you if you are unbeliever. However, theology claimed that there is only one supreme being, it may have different names but one identity. Next, those who does not believe already can just decide to believe because of this argument. Belief is not easy as turning on and off the light especially non-believers just only believe arguments based on rational rather than irrational. Next, people who believe in God just because it is a good bet based on the argument wouldn’t be given an infinite reward, because they just believe since it is expedient. Even though there are a lot of objections in his argument, as a believer and a Christian, it is also an eye opener for me to understand God deeply because I don’t understand deeply what God is, instead I just simply received anything that it is fed to me not trying to question it anymore because that is the good thing. Thus, Pascal’s argument is just the beginning of all knowledge and not the end of all convincing

Pascal’s Wager, which is Pascal’s most potent philosophical argument in favor of “reasons of the heart” is based on probability theory , and uses decision theory , to argue that during the process of making religious choice, humans are better off using faith to believe in God rather than using rationality and choosing otherwise. In his book Pensées in which Pascal identify “wagering” with “believing,” Pascal is found to have stated: ‘We discover truth, not only by reasoning, but by feeling; and it is in this latter manner that we discover the first principles;’ and reasoning, instead of helping in matters of faith complicate these simple principles. To confuse humans. Pascal using this argument for faith conclude heart can supplement all

The proof for the existence of God is an issue that may never be resolved. It has caused division among families and friends, nations and society. The answer to the question “does God exist?” is almost an impossible one to give with certainty seeing that there is a variety of people, ideas, cultures and beliefs. So how does one know if one’s actions here on earth could have eternal consequences? What is, if any, a “safe bet” to make? Blaise Pascal was a 15th century philosopher and a mathematician who proposed the idea that although one cannot know for certain that God exists, one can make a “safe bet” that it is far better to believe in God than not to believe in God. This is not a proof for the existence of God but rather an idea that

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)

Someone may object this reasoning because following Pascal's reasoning would mean that you are believing in God just for the payoff. Believing in God just for the payoff is wrong,

The idea is: in the perspective as a gambler, and the afterlife as form of gambling (in which the player was trying their best to not receive any form of suffering), it would be the most beneficial to believe in a religion which claims 100% hell for unbelievers - while also not being mutually exclusive in benefits from other kinds of religion.

It is in W. K. Clifford’s essay The Ethics of Belief in which the author argues that a belief system based on anything but evidence is immoral. This argument is made in response to Blaise Pascal’s suggestion that it is practically reasonable to live as though God exists as there is no loss in the wager itself should God exist or not. The case of a ship owner is offered as an example to illustrate the point for genuine justification. Despite fears that his vessel may not be seaworthy, a ship owner puts those doubts aside and allows the ship, full of emigrants in search of a better life, to set sail. Having safely sailed numerous voyages and weathered many storms in the past, the ship owner felt confident in putting his trust in Providence.

Do we have the right to believe in God? Are we rational in believing in God? In this essay I will attempt to answer these two connected questions. In order to do this, I will first discuss the concept of evidentialism, which criticizes or even condemns the belief in God. Then, I will try to criticize evidentialism in the spirit of William James’ attack on it. Finally, I hope to provide some answers to the two questions posed above.

In the history of arguing between Theism and Atheism, there are many arguments on whether the God exists or not. Among all, Pascal’s wager might be one of the most distinctive ones, that the 17th century French scientist and philosopher saw the belief as a wager and argued that people should believe in God due to decision theory as it’s the “best

Blaise Pascal used probability theory to show the benefits or drawbacks for believing in God. Pascal believed that reason could not show if God existed or not. He proposed that people must “wager” one way or the other on the sides of believing in God. He states God will, reward whoever accepts him, and infinitely punish or abandon whoever rejects him. Pascal’s argument is wise in the aspect that it persuades people to believe in a being, without proof of this being. Pascal’s wager is stout as it appeals to people’s own happiness/self-interest, but displays a weakness as only discusses the possibility of the existence of an all-good God which can be refuted by his own statement.

Pascal’s wager discusses the possible outcomes of a person’s belief in god. If a person chooses to believe in god during his life on earth and god does exist the person will gain eternal happiness. If god does not exist and the person believes in god the only lose would be time. However, if one choses not to believe and god does exist one would lose everything. They would lose their chance at eternal bliss. If the person does not believe in god and he does not exist the person would only an achieve the time they may have lost in believing. Along with these four possible outcomes, Pascal also brings up that if a person decides to avoid choosing to believe all together they have already made the choice to not believe. Based on this reasoning it is very clear which option a person should chose. By choosing to not believe a person might exchange their eternal life for a few short years of dedication.

Although Blaise Pascal rejects the theological hermeneutic of the Scholastics, who emphasize rational proof and explanation of God, in favor of a theology of blind faith, he nevertheless offers a rational argument for his belief based upon a decision-theoretic analysis of wagering for or against the existence of God. This infamous and incredibly intuitive argument has found itself the object of harsh critique with recent developments in mathematics and philosophy. Despite these numerous critiques, however, I argue that the wager retains its logical rigor and psychological weight, especially in a modern reformulation.