Introduction
The Wager, by French scientist and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, presents an argument for believing in God based on an individual getting the best afterlife. He argues that we all must make a wager either for or against the existence of God. This wager which will result in either heaven, hell, or no consequence. Based on Pascal’s premises, I believe his argument is unsound. This paper will be divided into three sections in which I will discuss my evaluation of Pascal’s Wager. In Section One, I will briefly summarize Pascal’s argument. In Section Two, I will make an argument in support of Pascal’s argument being unsound. In Section Three, I will address a possible objection to my argument.
Section One
The Wager consists of the following premises:
1. If you are …show more content…
One objection to my argument could be that my evaluation to Pascal’s first premise is flawed when I state that you do lose something if you believe in God if there is no God, such as time and lifestyle choices. They might argue that even if someone believes in God, when there is no God, they learn valuable moral practices and do good things for humanity because of Christian practices, which should not be considered a loss. I wholeheartedly agree that these are good things. However, I do not think we can contribute these things to religion. Moral goodness comes from the people themselves and is not linked to belief in God.
Conclusion
Pascal’s Wager is based on using rewards/punishments to make a decision. In theory, this is a logical way to make a decision for a simple problem. However, since there are so many variables unaccounted for in the wager of should you believe in God or not, Pascal’s line of reasoning is inapplicable. Because of the reasons listed in Section Two of this paper, I found the premises of the Wager to be false. Therefore, Pascal’s argument is
The Wager, by French scientist and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, presents an argument for believing in God based on an individual getting the best afterlife. He argues that we all must make a wager either for or against the existence of God. This wager which will result in either heaven, hell, or no consequence. Based on Pascal’s premises, I believe his argument is unsound. This paper will be divided into three sections in which I will discuss my evaluation of Pascal’s Wager. In Section One, I will briefly summarize Pascal’s argument. In Section Two, I will make an argument in support of Pascal’s argument being unsound. In Section Three, I will address a possible objection to my argument.
Section One
The Wager consists of the following premises:
1. If you are …show more content…
One objection to my argument could be that my evaluation to Pascal’s first premise is flawed when I state that you do lose something if you believe in God if there is no God, such as time and lifestyle choices. They might argue that even if someone believes in God, when there is no God, they learn valuable moral practices and do good things for humanity because of Christian practices, which should not be considered a loss. I wholeheartedly agree that these are good things. However, I do not think we can contribute these things to religion. Moral goodness comes from the people themselves and is not linked to belief in God.
Conclusion
Pascal’s Wager is based on using rewards/punishments to make a decision. In theory, this is a logical way to make a decision for a simple problem. However, since there are so many variables unaccounted for in the wager of should you believe in God or not, Pascal’s line of reasoning is inapplicable. Because of the reasons listed in Section Two of this paper, I found the premises of the Wager to be false. Therefore, Pascal’s argument is