The Works of Blaise Pascal

Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

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.

Pascal said that we can't know certain truth, but reason is the best source of

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’.

The wager is neatly-structured and clearly explained, each conclusion is supported by the premises and they all make sense from a structural-level point of view. Yet, it is a bold attempt to clarify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. Pascal’s wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering

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

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

there have been reactions throughout the years from different camps. For instance, there is the contention from conflicting disclosures. This contention scrutinizes Pascal's Wager on the premise that there is no motivation to constrain the decisions to the Christian God. Subsequent to there have been numerous religions all through mankind's history, there can be numerous potential divine beings. Another scrutinize originates from skeptic circles. Richard Dawkins hypothesized the likelihood of a divine being that may compensate genuine

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.

In this essay, I will argue that Pascal’s Wager gives a good argument and reason to the agnostic for them to believe in the existence of God and become a theist. Pascal’s Wager is based on a decision of dominance and gives the agnostic an option to believe in God and therefore, receive salvation, and the benefits that come with this belief or believe in him and loose nothing. There are a number of arguments and objections that try to prove the Wager wrong, that the argument implies elements of cult brainwashing for belief and that God would not be so egotistical to demand belief in him in return for salvation, but I will argue the falsehood of these objections to prove that the argument gives good reason for an agnostic to become a theist.

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

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 starts off his essay by stating that, “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible…He has no affinity to us.” (Pascal, 78) This already poses a problem with the argument he is about to present in support of believing that God exists. The main question becomes, if there is a god and that this god is incomprehensible, then what is the point in believing whether or not such a being a actually exists? It would obviously follow that we would never come to a full understanding of this god, and any efforts to believe in or worship him would be in vain. Are we just to believe that this god exists and that’s all, or is there a code of conduct that is to follow this belief? How do you act in a manner that is pleasing to being that you do not and never will wholly understand?

Humans cannot be truly happy until their intellect is fulfilled, which is only possible through understanding God. The human intellect instinctively seeks to understand the cause of things, and will not be satisfied simply knowing that such a cause exists (S.Th. II, Q.3, A.8). Aquinas is optimistic about the ability of human reason, and believes that unassisted logic can reveal and defend crucial platforms of the Christian faith, such as God’s existence (S.Th. I, Q.2, A.2). God is demonstrated fore mostly through His creations, including humans themselves and their intellects (S.Th. I, Q.2, A.2). “Since every effect depends upon its cause,” (S.Th. I, Q.2, A.2) a human’s awareness of their own life on earth subsequently proves the life of some entity which has caused the human to be. Aquinas, and the Christian faith, identify this original cause as God. However, Aquinas acknowledges that there is a