Pascal s Wager
Taylor Heppeler
March 25, 2014
Philosophy 110 Paper #2
Pascal’s Wager Pascal’s Wager is that of whether or not to believe in God. What are the benefits? What are the consequences? I will argue that Pascal’s Wager is indeed persuasive to believing in God due to the appeal of one’s emotions and desires. One may object that Pascal is not thoroughly persuasive regarding that the belief in God’s existence is greater than not believing, but I will continue to argue that it is, and it can only offer the better reward. Pascal lays out multiple outcomes that come with the belief in God. He also gives the outcomes of not believing in God so one may see the results in comparison to each other. He argues that by believing in God, if He does in fact exist, the rewards are infinite. In other words, by believing in God, there is an infinite amount of gain possible if He exists, but if he does not exist, there is only a finite amount of loss. Here, by comparison, the infinite amount of gain outweighs the finite amount of loss possible. Likewise, not believing in God’s existence will result in no gain or a finite loss if He turns out to exist. However, not believing and God not existing will result in only a finite gain. He finally explains that believing in God has a higher utility than not believing in God, and one should do that which has the higher expected utility. In these arguments, Pascal appeals to one’s desire to gain rather than to lose. In my opinion, I would rather have a finite loss and infinite gain possible rather than a finite gain and no loss. In other words, on a much smaller and less significant scale, we may compare this to playing the lottery with a 50% chance of winning. By putting forth five dollars, there is a chance that one can win a million dollars or only lose five dollars. By not playing the lottery for a chance to win the million dollars, there is no possible chance for gain and no loss at all. I would certainly rather have a 50% chance of
March 25, 2014
Philosophy 110 Paper #2
Pascal’s Wager Pascal’s Wager is that of whether or not to believe in God. What are the benefits? What are the consequences? I will argue that Pascal’s Wager is indeed persuasive to believing in God due to the appeal of one’s emotions and desires. One may object that Pascal is not thoroughly persuasive regarding that the belief in God’s existence is greater than not believing, but I will continue to argue that it is, and it can only offer the better reward. Pascal lays out multiple outcomes that come with the belief in God. He also gives the outcomes of not believing in God so one may see the results in comparison to each other. He argues that by believing in God, if He does in fact exist, the rewards are infinite. In other words, by believing in God, there is an infinite amount of gain possible if He exists, but if he does not exist, there is only a finite amount of loss. Here, by comparison, the infinite amount of gain outweighs the finite amount of loss possible. Likewise, not believing in God’s existence will result in no gain or a finite loss if He turns out to exist. However, not believing and God not existing will result in only a finite gain. He finally explains that believing in God has a higher utility than not believing in God, and one should do that which has the higher expected utility. In these arguments, Pascal appeals to one’s desire to gain rather than to lose. In my opinion, I would rather have a finite loss and infinite gain possible rather than a finite gain and no loss. In other words, on a much smaller and less significant scale, we may compare this to playing the lottery with a 50% chance of winning. By putting forth five dollars, there is a chance that one can win a million dollars or only lose five dollars. By not playing the lottery for a chance to win the million dollars, there is no possible chance for gain and no loss at all. I would certainly rather have a 50% chance of