Pascal's Wager
Pascal's "wager" is a fundamental philosophical argument defending belief in God. Through logical analysis based on a punishment-reward premise, Pascal shows that believing in God is preferable to not believing. The argument is called a "wager" because Pascal phrases it as a sort of bet: the individual has a better chance of being rewarded through belief than through denial. Therefore, Pascals' wager defends belief in God through reason and appeal to basic self-interest rather than through theological or mystical proofs. Yet even though Pascal tries to divorce belief in God from blind faith, his argument rests heavily on Christian theology. Pascal's God is the Biblical God, the results of his wager similar to a heaven-hell duality as proposed by Christianity as well as other monotheistic religions. Through the wager, Pascal is trying to show readers that believing in God is a personal decision, and one that can be as mundane as any other personal decision. Just as a person would gamble on a card game, he or she can also gamble on matters of theology. And, just as all gambles involve statistics and mathematical formulas of chance, so too does the gamble of belief. The philosopher basically tries to show that believing in God is a "good bet," that a person has nothing to lose by believing, and by saying that believing in God results in far more personal reward than not believing. Moreover, Pascal basically assumes that belief in God brings one "an eternity of life and happiness," a premise that is fundamentally flawed and biased because it is itself impossible to prove.
Although Pascal's theory is compelling and also cleverly worded, the wager has several rhetorical and logical flaws. For example, Pascal's wager promotes belief primarily in a Christian God and neglects the wide range of theologies or cosmologies that might present themselves to the potential believer. Pascal's vision is overtly monotheistic, and his worldview is essentially dualistic. However,...
Pascal's wager also assumes that God behaves as He does in the Christian bible. Binaries such as good vs. evil, heaven vs. hell, God vs. Satan, are fundamental assumptions hidden in Pascal's wager. Thus, many criticisms of Pascal's wager are rooted in the argument's Christian bias and the false dilemmas it creates. Pascal's focus on Christianity is, however, not accidental and in fact it might be safe to assume that the philosopher would not want to promote belief in any other God but the Christian God. Pascal's primary motivation in writing the argument was, after all, to foster belief in the God of his choice, the God of the Christian church. Nevertheless, the Christian bias does weaken the wager through basic logical fallacy.
Ironically, to promote belief in a Christian God, Pascal avoids a direct discussion of Christian theology. Doing so strengthens the appearance of logic and underscores the statistical evidence that Pascal uses to promote theism. However, the absence of any real appeal to mysticism or to matters of the heart ends up weakening the wager. Pascal neglects what could be powerful appeals to emotion, which are essential to most compelling arguments. Also, although Pascal avoids a direct discussion of Christian theology, the philosopher cannot help but insert phrases like "eternal life and happiness," which are written to stimulate an emotional response in the reader. Betting on God brings "eternal life and happiness," according to Pascal, and therefore, no reasonable sane person would not believe in God. The underlying assumption here is that not believing in God might result in eternal hell and damnation, a condition that of course most people would want to avoid. Although Pascal provides these appeals to the reader's hopes and fears, the wager lacks emotional depth.
Pascal's wager is more a coin toss than…
Pascal's Gamble The human condition is one of suffering and redemption. One who does not suffer is not human. Death and the withering away of youth and vitality explicitly demonstrates the entropic nature of existence. This situation is problematic for the rationale mind. No universally accepted system of navigating the death sentence, known has human existence, has sufficiently explained the quandary. Blaise Pascal, the renowned 17th century mathematician and philosopher, in
Pascal's View Of The Heart Pascal seemed, on the surface to make one of the most famous reasoned and calculated defenses of Western Christian philosophy when the French thinker made his 'wager' that it was better to suppose that God existed, rather than did not exist, given the proposition of eternal life if one acquiesced, and the certainty of damnation of one did not. But in Pascal's less quoted but more
Pascal & Giussani The Roman Catholic church is not generally considered doctrinally "broad," and indeed many of its most fascinating theological voices -- ranging from Pelagius in the fifth century to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., in the twentieth -- have often bordered on, or crossed over into, outright heresy. However, I wish to look at two explicitly Roman Catholic apologies for religious belief -- one written by an actual cleric,
Theology Pascal's projected apologia for Christian belief, for which the text of the Pensees offers some glimpse, would ultimately have reflected his sincere conversion (of sorts) to the gloomy Jansenist theology which hovers over his works generally. Ultimately rejected by the Roman Catholic church as heretical, Jansenism emphasized the fallen and corrupt nature of man in an Augustianian way, while at the same time suggesting that only God's grace can permit
"On the fact that the Christian religion is not the only religion. -- So far is this from being a reason for believing that it is not the true one that, on the contrary, it makes us see that it is so. Men must be sincere in all religions; true heathens, true Jews, true Christians." (Penesees, 589-590, Section IX) 3. Pascal's orders of body, mind and heart suggestively signify the
The problem, first posed by an Italian monk in the late 1400s, had remained unsolved for nearly two hundred years. The issue in question was to decide how the stakes of a game of chance should be divided if that game were not completed for some reason. The example used in the original publication referred to a game of balla where six goals were required to win the game. If