Pascal’s wager is an irrational argument that oversimplifies and does not prove the nature of God. The argument consists of many flaws seen when closely analyzed. His argument is too general and only applies to certain believers. In addition, Pascal’s wager may have been applicable to a time when Christianity was a dominant religion; however, in todays multicultural society this may not be the case. Pascal was a French thinker who contributed to the basis of calculus; given his rationality he decided to use this approach to consider the question of the existence of God. The question was not if God existed or not, but which argument was more rational. Pascal created a systematic way of settling the debate, a wager. This wager would
…show more content…
Pascal seems to think that I can truly convince myself to believe in God. I disagree with this claim; as human beings we are defined by our ability to choose. By pretending to believe I may be faced with eternal loss or damnation, because I am not a true believer. I can not be told what to believe, I must acquire this knowledge independently to prove or disprove my belief. Pascal still may say that if we practice hard enough we will truly believe, and we may gain “infinite rewards’, even if this is not the case and there is no reward we would have lived a fulfilled life. Just as I would practice hard enough to become a lawyer, if there is enough dedication I will become one. This same approach can be justified by practicing Christian values and eventually becoming a believer. My final objection occurs because of Pascal’s oversimplification of God. He states that although it is more rational to believe in God, he still does not establish if there is a God. He states nothing of His nature and assumes his existence accompanies “infinite” loss or reward. The afterlife is a complete mystery and we can not assume anything about it even the idea of rewards and consequences. This assumption is not rational and undermines the validity of his
Pascal seems to think that I can truly convince myself to believe in God. I disagree with this claim; as human beings we are defined by our ability to choose. By pretending to believe I may be faced with eternal loss or damnation, because I am not a true believer. I can not be told what to believe, I must acquire this knowledge independently to prove or disprove my belief. Pascal still may say that if we practice hard enough we will truly believe, and we may gain “infinite rewards’, even if this is not the case and there is no reward we would have lived a fulfilled life. Just as I would practice hard enough to become a lawyer, if there is enough dedication I will become one. This same approach can be justified by practicing Christian values and eventually becoming a believer. My final objection occurs because of Pascal’s oversimplification of God. He states that although it is more rational to believe in God, he still does not establish if there is a God. He states nothing of His nature and assumes his existence accompanies “infinite” loss or reward. The afterlife is a complete mystery and we can not assume anything about it even the idea of rewards and consequences. This assumption is not rational and undermines the validity of his