Pascal's Wager

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's Wager exclusively addresses the Christian God out of an infinite number of possible Gods. With no further information, the laws of probability mean that inadvertently worshiping the wrong God is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular God existing increases does Pascal's Wager become viable, that is, if one God could be proven to have higher likelihood of existing than any other God, Pascal's Wager would represent a clear benefit. Seeing as no god is empirically provable, the most rational decision would be to choose the religion that rewards believers with the best heaven, and disbelievers with the worse hell. In that case we should chose to worship the Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPU) because they have an infinite bad hell and an infinitely wonderful heaven.

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.

Pascal’s Wager is often considered one of philosophies weakest religious arguments to date. Pascal invents a wager to persuade the one who questions God into attending church, following the Ten Commandments, and following any other traditions in the Catholic Church. The wager is, if a person is a believer and after departing from this earth they find that they are correct, then their rewards are infinite. They will receive eternal life and a relationship with God in heaven. On the other hand if a person is a non-believer and after death they find that they are incorrect, then their loss is infinite. Meaning they have the possibility of eternal damnation and separation from God. There are another two possibilities, in which God does not exist and the believer is incorrect and the non-believer is correct. Both of these scenarios have finite rewards or finite losses. Depending on matter of opinion, one could say that a life doing good works and being part of a community is a reward in itself whether or not God actually exists but to someone else it could be a restriction or a loss of freedom. None the less, if God turns out to not exist the atheist and the theist would only have finite consequences. Pascal’s Wager is rooted in Catholicism and the Christian God. Making the wager apply to much broader terms would take away the “many Gods” criticism and make the argument stronger. Restructuring the Wager and offering the possibility of evidence, which is what Pascal should have

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).

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.

Pascal immediately mention the Christian God in Premise one.” It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.” There are thousands of religions outside of Christianity many of which that have their own Gods, some religions even with multiple Gods. The probability of choosing the correct God is chance at its greatest. It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Another weakness in Pascals wager is that it reflects a bias. Blaise Pascal was a Christian; this immediately is evidently shown through his bias representation of the Christian God in Pascals wager. The wager constantly reiterates the Christian God and constantly accepts anything in favour of the

This paper will analyze Pascal’s wager, which demonstrates that even without empirical evidence of a God, wagering for the existence of God will maximize our happiness. Through his wager, one can use simple reasoning to understand that believing in a God which you cannot see may still be the most logical option to live your life. Pascal states that because there is no evidence that a God exists, nor is there any evidence that no God exists, it is entirely possible that a God exists. Wagering for the existence of an almighty God will either bring you eternal life and happiness, or it simply will not affect you. However, if one were to wager against the existence of a God, they would never be able to experience eternal happiness regardless if they were right or wrong. Some may argue that Pascal’s wager does not take into account the fact that different religions believe in different Gods. The God that a follower believes may not be the “true” God who grants eternal life and happiness. Therefore, the time spent practicing the religion of their God would have been wasted. These followers could have been maximizing their happiness by devoting their time to other activities instead. However, I argue that Pascal’s argument is still persuasive as there is still a chance that a God exists, albeit the chances of reaching eternal happiness would be drastically lower considering this new variable.

Science and religion have long been controversial topics of thought. Lawrence Krauss’ and William Lane Craig’s debate titled, “Has Science Buried God?”, explores both sides of the argument revolving around the question at hand. While both make strong cases, William Lane Craig gives his arguments without showing strong emotion, which can overall lead to a stronger case. That does not, however, mean that Lawrence Krauss’ arguments are weak, per say, but that his argument is more opinionated. Overall, William Lane Craig gave a more sophisticated and logical argument to the guiding question, “Has Science Buried God?”

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,

Biology professor Kenneth Miller’s central argument is that science should not undermine one’s faith in God. “Science itself does not contradict the hypothesis of God.” He makes this argument by stating that science explains the things that God has made and in doing so, trying to prove the existence of God through natural or scientific means does not make sense. Once the supernatural is introduced, there is no way to use nature, thus science, to prove or disprove its existence. Miller argues that science gives us the window to the dynamic and creative universe that increases our appreciation of God’s work. The central point of his argument is evolution. Creationists, of the intelligent design movement, argue that nature has irreducible complex systems that could have only arisen from a creature or designer. This theory is widely supported among devout believers in the Bible and God. Miller argues that if they truly believe this, completely ignoring hard facts and theories, then they are seeking their God in the darkness. Miller, a Christian himself, believes that this “flow of logic is depressing”; to fear the acquisition of knowledge and suggest that the creator dwells in the shadows of science and understanding is taking us back to the Middle Ages, where people used God as an explanation for something they have yet to or want

I will be using the form of rationality which focuses on an individual’s expected utility. Expected utility focuses on the gains and losses of options to decide which would provide the most optimal outcome for a believer. One instance of an expected utility argument is found in Pascal’s Wager, in which the benefit arises from believing in God rather than not God, according to both truth-dependent and truth-independent arguments. The truth-dependent form of this argument focuses on the benefits obtained if the relevant beliefs are true (Jordan). In this context, if God is real then the individual will have an infinite amount of benefits; however, if God is not real then there is nothing the individual loses. Additionally, if one does not take this wager, then there is no possibility to obtain the benefits regardless of God’s existence. Another component of this argument is the truth-independent form which argues that regardless of the trueness of the belief, there are still benefits in the mere act of believing (Jordan). These benefits can be psychological, moral, and social. Looking at expected utility in both ways will allow this paper to focus on the contribution to an individual’s happiness regarding validation and community

Pascal’s wager is basically the belief in God to allow the permission to get into the gold pearly gates, also known as Heaven. Pascal weighs out the good and the bad when believing in God to determine what he should believe. When weighing out the good it way over steps the bad, since the bad is a life long eternity spent in hell. The only down side is that there may have been a little time lost from your life when trying to learn more about God. Believing in God is a simple and a really easy choice to make, so you do not have to spend eternity in Hell. People can look at every argument in the existence of God and wonder if it is true or not, when simply just believing would could potentially benefit you. When god finds you have the knowledge to challenge the arguments that he may not

Pascal Wager is an argumentative mastermind piece by a French philosopher, mathematician and physicist by the name of Blaise Pascal. He believed that, “either God exists, or he does not.” In other words, if you believe in God you get to go to heaven, but if you do not believe in God and he exist, then you are sent to hell in the afterlife. Wager uses logics to back his theory up like, “If we do not know whether God exists than we should play it safe rather than risk being sorry.” Although I do agree that there is a God and that we should all put our faith in him, I do not agree that there is only one God. There are many different types of people in the world and with that being said, everyone in the world thinks differently and has a different mindset in life. Yes I do believe that there is a God, but I disagree with this theory.

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.