Pascals Argument : "“[i]f you gain, you gain all; if you

lose, you lose nothing.”

September 30, 2022 8:47 AM

Philosophy 1020 Essay 1 251283538 DK"

Blaise Pascal, a mathematician and philosopher, invented Pascal's Wager, a justification for the
existence of God. The most well-known piece in his collection of notes, the Pensées, is Pascal's
Wager. Pascal made an attempt with the Wager to offer a strong argument for faith in God based on
potential consequences and happiness. Pascal deviates from the norm of his time, and weighs the
benefits and drawbacks of the decision to believe rather than arguing for or against gods existence
like all those before him. His reasoning, however, raises the topic of whether faith in God can
actually be reduced to a wager or a gamble. Does reducing God to a gamble take away the entire
intention of religion? Does the topic of faith in God lend itself to a wager's status, furthermore?

The outcome of Pascal's bet is as follows. The benefits are great if one chooses to follow the path of
faith and believes that God exists. A belief investment guarantees an endless afterlife filled with
absolute pleasure. Other than the obligation of performing all the acts associated with believing,
which could even produce actual belief, this wager victory has no drawbacks. A triumph with
limitless benefits. Contrastingly, if God exists, rejecting his existence would have severe negative
consequences, such as an endless afterlife in a miserable place where punishment and torment
would never end. You may think of such wager position as having limitless drawbacks. The outcomes
of the wager are then examined in light of the potential denial of God. In that instance, neither
choice of belief offers an advantage. Additionally, the only thing lost if God does not exist are the
activities taken in the name of belief, which is regarded as a modest loss, especially if it is the sole
path to the potential endless upside if God existed. Because there is nothing to lose and everything
to gain, Pascal came to the conclusion that it makes sense to act in a way that supports belief in
order to even have the chance of an endless gain. The anticipated value of believing is limitless,
regardless of how remote the possibility that God exists. Pascal's Wager is produced by adding the
values to the presumption that we ought to choose the course of action with the highest expected
value.

The main appeal of Pascal's wager is that it offers a justification for believing in God without having
to give evidence for his existence. The contribution of this argument to the intellectual discussion of
whether God exists is beneficial given that past philosophers were unable to develop a strategy that
actually prove that God exists, at least one that withstood critique. It also has a secular appeal since
it is not predicated on moral judgments about the need, rightness, or goodness of abstract religion
or belief. Instead, it is based on the premise that, rationally, the only way to acquire the outcome
that is most valued is to bet on God, given the outcomes of believe in God or the consequences of
non-belief in God.

Although riveting, there are significant issues with numerous crucial aspects of Pascal's Wager.
Pascal's bet makes the fundamentally unwarranted premise that faith in God, if God exists, is the
prerequisite for obtaining the prize of an endlessly blissful afterlife. Simon Blackburn
challenged Pascals theory by raising the possibility that instead of rewarding individuals who pursue
reason and shun religious convictions, God could favor those who do not believe in him (1999, p.
187). Given that it reverses the outcomes, this condition would be fatal to Pascal's wager reasoning.
If disbelief were rewarded, then the route of disbelief would be the obvious line of action and the
gamble against God would be the way to obtaining an endless eternity of happiness.

The fact that religious belief must be a matter of faith rather than the outcome of reason and a final
decision between greater and lesser evils presents another fundamental flaw in Pascal's reasoning.
It's debatable if it's a good idea to follow God and live your life in his honor in order to find eternal

Pascals Argument Page 1

bliss as that would defeat the purpose of religion. The all-knowing God we are referring about would
be able to see right through this ruse and in no manner would he permit this. Although it has been
said that God does not demand worship, a life of worship is beneficial to the believer. Thus, even
the one who pretended to worship would engage in good deeds if he did it rightly and according to
the word of God. He who pretends to believe in God is required to behave like a believer, which
makes his acts morally righteous despite his internal desires to deceive. The ultimate requirement of
religion being good deeds, this would be the path to paradise.

The rational creature can only come to the conclusion that it is in his or her best interest to believe
in God, and so they will, under the guidance of Pascal's reasoned wager. One should be prepared to
start along the path of believing since this newly discovered understanding of how valuable such a
belief will result in the development of a better version of oneself and a 50/50 possibility of eternal
pleasure. Pascal's argument, however, comes to an unexpected halt, leaving us who have just been
persuaded to believe in God—at a more difficult decision-making point. What religion and what
God are we to believe in? Does having only believing in god take away the reward we believe we
might receive, as god is evidently omniscient. Pascal's wager reveals nothing about the character of
God other than our incapacity to understand it. It has been stated that we have no notion what God
is like. It must be established that Pascal's wager does not address the issues of even whether or
not belief in God is appropriate, much alone whether or not God exists, due to the weakness of the
underlying assumptions.

Works Cited

Blackburn, Simon. Think. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Hajak, Alan. “Pascal’s Wager.” Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 6
November 2012.

Pascal, B. Pensees. Trans. W. F. Trotter. Oregon State University. 1660.

Writing 14/20
Exposition 27/30
Argument 34/40
Thoughtful Engagement 9/10
Total 84/100

Notes: Good job! Minus 3 points in writing for stretching to 1000 words. See comments for my
suggestions! : )
Pascals Argument Page 4