The Nature Of God In The Wager By Blaise Pascal

It is said that man, to survive, has always needed something or some belief to hold on; be it science, religion or magic. Man without a belief lacks hope (Walker, 1997). Lack of hope makes a man vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. To avoid this vulnerability man has been holding onto different belief systems.

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.

Many great thinkers try to find an accurate way to describe and comprehend human nature. Some of these thinkers use religion as a basis for understanding while others use an atheistic approach. Some thinkers describe human nature as a stretch between two extremes. In this paper, I hope to show that the main differences between Pascal and Nietzsche’s concepts are because Pascal’s extremes are based on faith and Nietzsche’s is based on more evolution and the idea of a Superman.

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’.

Faith, defined as a strong belief in something which cannot be proven, has been argued over countless generations. Still, even without proof, individuals worldwide hold true to their faith each day. After studying faith and religion in texts written by scholars with varying backgrounds, it is easy to see faith is something which is widely disputed. Comparison of Sigmund Freud’s The Future of an Illusion and Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith, fully displays the discrepancies in points of view on the function of faith, as well as the necessity of faith, in society; while the comparison of Viktor E. Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning and Karl Marx’s “on the Future of Religion,” demonstrate both similarities and differences

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.

Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.

The discussion of the existence of God is one of the most frequently and challenged question in philosophy. Philosophers such as Aquinas, Descartes, Clark, and Paley have all dedicated their lives to providing theological evidence that proves the existence of God. Many of these famous philosophers were also considered theologians and developed these arguments to help persuade and provide atheist with evidence of God’s existence. Although many philosophers developed thought provoking arguments, many of these arguments were viewed as invalid because of contradicting evidence. In reply to all of the arguments for the existence of God, Blaise Pascal developed an argument for the rational belief in God.

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

The wager is not optional, for it is a forced option. If one wages that God does exist, one eithers gains all or loses nothing. This is a game in which one only wages a finite stake, yet has equal opportunity to either gain an infinitely happy and infinitely lasting life or to have a finite loss. Pascal therefore claims that it is only logical and rational to wage for the maximum expected benefit. Therefore, it is only logical and rational to wage that God does exist.

Blaise Pascal was a French Christian philosopher and a mathematician. In 1670, he completed his work Pensees where he wanted to make a logical appeal in believing in God. This work shows how believing in God is just as rational not believing in Him. Then he explains how it mathematically makes sense to believe in Him. This logic greatly reminds me of a gambler’s mentality. He points out that we lose nothing by believing in God but we could potentially gain infinite benefits from believing in Him. I believe this can be a useful tool for a believer to justify his beliefs, but he should not only rely on this argument. For example, I do not believe that it can justify his actions. What does God expect from us? How can we know? If mere

     Pascal goes on to state that once we have made this rational decision to believe in God then we start to act like we believe in this god and from practicing these actions habitually your belief will strengthen Pascal, 78). The problem here lies in the basis of the strength for this belief. To make a decision and then act on that decision seems pretty consistent; but, to make a decision and have that decision become a belief based on habitual actions does not follow at all. Is this belief that your holding to a product of sincerity of habit? If you start to act you

nothing’ (Rohmann, 299). Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a more original solution to Pascal’s problem. He believed that human beings are not born of and in original sin but are born good and are corrupted by society (Rohmann, 347). ‘Thus salvation comes through the social contract. Man must save himself’ (Rempel).

Pascal’s Wager was a groundbreaking theory posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal. Pascal, who is said to be the father of modern probability, felt that that religion should be approached as a gamble. It was one of the first efforts to incorporate the concept of infinity. The wager stated that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, one should wager as though God exists, because living accordingly, has essentially nothing to lose and experiences can only be beneficial. Pascal’s Wager consists of three arguments. The first is the argument from super dominance. Pascal wrote: “God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we