Pascal's Wager Rhetorical Analysis

Of the three theistic arguments presented by the text, I find the “design”, or the teleological argument to be the most persuasive because unlike the other two arguments (ontological and first cause), the argument’s premises can be supported through observations of the physical world. The ontological and first cause argument are both more based in pure logic and reasoning, and they also can both be easily challenged for the same reason. On the other hand, the design argument focuses less on how the existence of God could be explained in the terms of a “catalyst”, and more how there is a statistically improbable amount of order in our universe (called Maximally Orderly Huge Universe”). Put simply, the design argument states that since there

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.

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.”

French physicist and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, had a set of notes found after his death. These notes would then be collected, compiled, and printed into “The Wager”. “The Wager” is a philosophical argument that aims the reader to vindicate the reasonings of God’s existence rather than not believing in god’s creation at all. Even assuming that God’s existence is improbable, the likely benefits of believing in God are extensive in regards to the benefits and infinite gains that are believed to be achieved, unlike not believing in God. Pascal concluded that it is most rational to take trust and shelter within religious views (r-views) rather than other minor insignificant and lowly views such as Atheist views (a-views) and dumb views (d-views).

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

William James- says that a person is entitled to believe in god for purely prudential reasons if the belief provides a “vital benefit” and if no decision about theism can be made on the basis of the evidence available. “CHOICES” you choose your own fate.

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 fact that one can believe in something or a statement is based on, among other factors, the available evidence. A range of philosophers have written widely on this topic. Clifford in his Influential essay “The Ethics of Belief” defends the contention that it is always wrong for any human being to believe anything if there is insufficient evidence. He uses two stories to illustrate wrong ways through which people arrive at beliefs. William James, however, disapproves Clifford. Pascal has a different view on belief formation where he argues that reasons for believing and failing to believe in God are indecisive. The three philosophers have varied views on how beliefs are formed. This essay discusses the reasons why Clifford made the above conclusion, the position taken by James in his opposition and how the argument relates to Pascal’s Wager.

Blaise Pascal, a genius, mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher, says that there are two options in the benefits of life when it comes to theism. The two choices are: to believe in God, or not to believe in God. Pascal calls this dilemma a wager. It is a wager because there are different gains and losses from the two options, depending on whether or not God exists. If God exists, the believers will have eternal life, and the non-believers will receive damnation. If God does not exist, the believers will have been left out on the material fulfillments, and the non-believers will have reaped those benefits. Pascal’s wager could be used as an evangelism method, because it can be used to frighten people into theism. I believe Pascal

Pascal Wager was a 17-century mathematician. “Wager” …Hmmm? Does that sound familiar? It should, Wager was a man that helped Aristocrats who loved to gamble and bet the odds. He calculated a formula to gain an edge and help your chance of winning. Pascal soon got religious used his calculations to back the existence of God. He used something like a Pundit Square to cross examine the Choice of Belief that is, I do belief in God or I don’t believe in God, with the Metaphysical Possibilities that is God exist and God doesn’t exist. In layman’s terms he made a big square and he broke that square up into four sections on two squares to the left he listed the scenario of someone who believes and someone who says they don’t believe. On the top two square he columnized the reality of God’s existence into him being real and him not being real. With these he crossed examined the lives he said, for the one who does believe there to be a God and there is one you are in infinitely good place,

According to Blaise Pascal, while questioning God’s existence, we enter the game. We have to bet on God’s existence; even the stakes are too high.

One of the most well known theories about the existence of God is Pascal’s Wager. Upon first look, this theory seems fairly sound, even if not overly convincing. Under more thorough inspection, however, it quickly becomes clear the theory is rather counter productive. Not only does the wager fail to prove the existence of God or anything about the true nature of God, it also fails to prove what it was created to prove. Aside from simply being ineffective, Pascal’s Wager also leads to serious doubts about the institution of religion in general. Firstly, I will discuss what exactly the wager is, and what it is trying to prove. Next comes the many objections and issues that are raised. Finally, I will prove why this leads to serious doubts about all of religion and why it might be best to abstain all together.

First of all, Tilley makes a good distinction between belief and faith, what he wants us to see is that faith and belief are not the same, and just belief is a part or portion of faith. Moreover, He claims that faith has an independent support and belief does not, this statement is made through his explanation between a colleague and President Bush. My point of view about this argument is that when we have faith on something and have enough proof of that we easily tend to belief on it, but when we don't have the support we lose our faith on that. In addition to that, he expresses that faith has a risk and validates it with Pascal's Wager that means that the true way to get happiness after dying is to bet on the existence of God. Second misunderstanding of faith is morality. He manifests very clear that faith is not equal to morality, because according to the author moral choices are self-inflicted, and when they are involuntary you are not responsible for them morally. After that he explains through an example the relation between faith and will, where he called it "genuine option situation," and the meaning of that is simple when you have multiple options to choice but you do not know is the best option, you should choice what you hope is the best. Also, he makes a comparison between faith and hope. According to Tilley, hope is about future and it is not faith. In sum, we can say that hope, will, morality, choices, and habits have a relation with our faith, but they are not the same. The third one is feeling or emotion. He tries to make us understand the emotion is not the whole of faith, but faith without emotions is like dead or dry. In addition to that, Wallace relates them, and make a conclusion saying that they have a

In “The Wager”, Blaise Pascal makes the argument that people are either atheist or theist. Through the use of clever transitional arguments Pascal is able to move from the nature of God to the rational in believing in God, quickly in his paper. By comparing the benefits of theism and atheism, Pascal is able to make the argument that it makes the most “rational” sense to believe in the existence of a God, because it offers the most rewards and virtually no disadvantages. While some argue the choice of belief, in this paper I address this concern and show that belief can be facilitated easily through the changing of daily habits.

The argument can be found in a section of his Pensees entitled “infrini-rien”. Pascal suggested that humans all bet with their lives as to whether or not God exists, hence, a wager. However, in a section of the Pensees, Pascal had presented three arguments which might have also be known as “wagers”. It is only the last of the arguments that has been known as the “Pascal’s Wager”. Even though the other two arguments seems to be more convincing than “Pascal’s Wager”, it has its own stand and popularity in the argument for