Pascal's Argument Analysis
In this paper, I will evaluate the effectiveness of Pascal’s analytical wager as a persuasive piece of writing. First, I will explicate Pascal’s argument that believing in God is a bet. Then, I will argue that Pascal was right when he stated that one must choose whether to believe in God by proving that believing in God is a forced and unavoidable belief. In arguing for Pascal’s wager, which I will break down into two groups of assumptions, I will show that believing in God is the best bet independent of the existence of God or an afterlife.
In his argument, Pascal first compares God’s existence to infinity, a theoretical number that has no end. Pascal states that although infinity does not end, the number must be either even or odd like all other numbers we know. Like infinity, God is an unknown being without beginning or end; therefore, Pascal states his existence is possible. After pointing out this comparison, Pascal begins to argue his main point that believing in God is ultimately a wager in which we must choose to believe or not believe. In arguing his wager, Pascal breaks his …show more content…
argument down into four different outcomes in which he weighs the risks and rewards of believing in God.
I will first break Pascal’s argument down into two assumptions: theological and life assumptions. The first and second outcomes fall into the theological category as they rest upon an afterlife existing. In these first two outcomes, Pascal states “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose you lose nothing” (Pojman 144). Ultimately, Pascal demonstrates his statement in the following example: if there is the possibility of living two or even three lives compared to just one, then one should wager for multiple lives. However, according to Pascal, believing in God is wagering an infinite amount of lives; therefore, simply because the possibility of many lives could happen, one should wager God exists. If one believes in God and is right, he or she will gain “an eternity of life and happiness” (144). However, if one is wrong about not believing in God and God is real, he or she will only live one finite life.
The third and fourth outcomes are assumptions about the quality of life because these outcomes assume that a religious lifestyle is more fulfilling and moral than an atheistic one. In the third possible outcome according to Pascal, if an atheist is correct about God not existing he or she would gain nothing. This outcome assumes that a nonreligious life is unfulfilling and does not benefit society. Oppositely, if one does believe in God and is wrong, Pascal would argue that he or she would still gain a moral code from trying to follow God and use those morals to better society. Of all four outcomes, Pascal urges the reader to believe in God for the chance of eternal happiness and at the very least, a fulfilled life that benefits society.
Firstly, a pressing argument from many dissenters is that Pascal initially states that individuals must choose to believe or not believe in God and that that there is no middle ground. In his essay, Pascal does little to counter this argument simply stating “you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked” (144). Instead of addressing why one must choose whether to believe in God, Pascal responds as a knowing parent does to a child. But for an answer, one may turn to the later philosopher William James who addresses the issue of a forced choice in his essay entitled “The Will to Believe”.
In his essay, James writes extensively on belief which he divides into two options: a living option or a dead one.
In this distinction, there is only a belief and a nonbelief. Noting that there is no middle ground, James addresses that one must choose to believe or not believe in life. His second point states one can avoid to go outside if another asks them to choose between bringing or not bringing an umbrella when going out. However, James states “if I say, ‘Either accept this truth or go without it,’ I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative” (152). Similarly, one either accepts the existence of God or does not accept it. Sure, one can not share their opinion on the matter, however, when Pascal states the reader must choose, the option is forced, unavoidable, and one must choose to believe or not believe. There is no middle
ground.
Now that one must choose whether to believe in God or not, Pascal’s main argument must be evaluated. At first glance, Pascal’s argument seems too black and white as many problems arise from his simplistic and pragmatic argument which assumes not only that an afterlife exists in the theological outcomes but also that a religious life is more fulfilling than an atheistic one. As stated previously, Pascal argues that believing in God is a bet in which the winning hand is always faith. We have already argued that in wagering God’s existence, we must choose whether or not to believe. However, critics also find fault in Pascal’s assumption that an afterlife exists.
As stated, one outcome is an atheist who is wrong about God’s existence in which Pascal would argue the atheist would lose everything. Oppositely, according to Pascal, if a believer is right that God exists, he or she would gain everything. There are two main assumptions at work here: the existence of an afterlife and that if God exists, he cares whether or not we believe in him. Firstly, while an afterlife cannot be proven, the small chance of eternal damnation, in which one loses everything, deems too much of a risk. Similarly to the example Pascal gave about betting on the option that results in the greatest number of lives, one could also argue to wager for the option that results in the least amount of risk. If God cares whether or not we believe in him and an eternal afterlife exists, betting on God’s existence is the safest option as if one is correct, then they would live in eternal favor with God.
Of the two other outcomes, one addresses an atheist who is right about God not existing. In this case, Pascal argues that the nonbeliever gains nothing because if God does not exist there is no afterlife and there is no creator who cares whether or not we believe in him or her, therefore, any wrongdoings would not be reprimanded in hell. However, one could say the nonbeliever gains knowledge upon discovering God does not exist and certainly, knowledge is something to be gained. One could go further and argue that proving God does not exist to others would also make the atheist happy due to proving others wrong. In this outcome, Pascal did not consider that knowledge is a gain, and instead of complicating his simplistic view of wagering God’s existence, ignored the gains completely. However, just because there may be a small gain of knowledge for the nonbeliever who is correct does not make it the best outcome.
There are two major flaws with the argument that an atheist gains knowledge from learning God does not exist. First, if one gains knowledge by learning that God does not exist, then surely one gains knowledge by learning God does exist. Moreover, the four outcomes that Pascal lists all reveal something of God’s existence and therefore, knowledge can be gained from each of them. If knowledge can be gained from each outcome, the playing field is leveled and the knowledge that God does not exist to an atheist is not unique and is not a gain. Second, knowledge of God’s existence would only be gained after death. However, if God does not exist there would be no afterlife and our thoughts would end with death. How, then, could it be possible for one to know if God existed if consciousness was lost? If there is no God, we would never know. Therefore, the knowledge of God not existing is worthless as it could not be conceived by a dead person. Furthermore, one could argue that some people gain the knowledge of God existing from near-death encounters, while they are still living. Ultimately, knowledge gained from God’s existence outweighs the knowledge one would gain if God did not exist because one would simply not gain knowledge if God did not exist.
The other and last outcome Pascal describes is a believer who is wrong about God existing. In this outcome, Pascal assumes that the believer, through religion, would gain a moral code and lead a better life than that of the atheist. Even if God did not exist, the believer would still die thinking God existed and consequently would never know if he did not exist. But no matter the outcome after death, believing in God forms a strong moral code and even if no reward is given for that morality in the afterlife, society rewards morality. Believing in and following a moral code according to many religions will save one from eternal suffering and reward them with eternal happiness. For example, a moral obligation of Christianity is to give to the poor. Therefore, if one believes in God and an afterlife, he or she will be more likely to give more to the poor. Following a moral code teaches important societal values which at the very least keeps one at good standing with the law and at best, teaches one to believe in others, stay committed to decisions, and give back to the community. With morality, one is more likely to have a supportive network of friends and family.
However, one who does not believe in God and sees no consequences to his or her actions may want to act villainously. Instead of abiding by the law, he or she breaks it along with relationships and obligations to friends and coworkers. This results in the loss of relationships, jobs, and ultimately the loss of a fulfilling, happy life in the most extreme examples. For example, if one completely disregards the moral code and goes out and steals from everyone, he or she will at best live a life running from law enforcement or at worst live in a prison cell with no freedom.
But if the nonbeliever does not ever pay for not abiding by the law, after a life of not caring, the atheist cowers at death’s door, afraid to or not wanting to die because he or she believes there is no afterlife. For the atheist, death is the end, full stop. The believer on the other hand, after living a fulfilling life is comforted or even excited by death, believing that he or she will be rewarded for a moral life. An atheist will mourn the loss of a loved one, but a believer will celebrate death, because if the deceased truly believed, then death is not the end but the beginning of new life.
To many, Pascal’s wager can often be seen as too simplistic, but by arguing just a few of his points, his clear, pragmatic writing does not buckle easily. Due to his career as a mathematician, Pascal almost perfects the a priori argument, a certain argument based on logic, to prove that believing in God is the best bet one can make in life. While there are many assumptions at work, Pascal, unlike many other philosophers, does not hide under questions that cannot be reasoned through for very long. The existence of an afterlife and a caring God cannot be proven so, instead, Pascal gives reasons why religion and following a moral code can make one’s life more fulfilling. Pascal frequently states in his wager that we must not depend on reason when contemplating God. However, Pascal writes a highly persuasive piece using unfiltered logical reason which makes his argument even more effective. Pascal generates certainty that believing in God is a wager in which belief is the winning hand.
In his argument, Pascal first compares God’s existence to infinity, a theoretical number that has no end. Pascal states that although infinity does not end, the number must be either even or odd like all other numbers we know. Like infinity, God is an unknown being without beginning or end; therefore, Pascal states his existence is possible. After pointing out this comparison, Pascal begins to argue his main point that believing in God is ultimately a wager in which we must choose to believe or not believe. In arguing his wager, Pascal breaks his …show more content…
argument down into four different outcomes in which he weighs the risks and rewards of believing in God.
I will first break Pascal’s argument down into two assumptions: theological and life assumptions. The first and second outcomes fall into the theological category as they rest upon an afterlife existing. In these first two outcomes, Pascal states “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose you lose nothing” (Pojman 144). Ultimately, Pascal demonstrates his statement in the following example: if there is the possibility of living two or even three lives compared to just one, then one should wager for multiple lives. However, according to Pascal, believing in God is wagering an infinite amount of lives; therefore, simply because the possibility of many lives could happen, one should wager God exists. If one believes in God and is right, he or she will gain “an eternity of life and happiness” (144). However, if one is wrong about not believing in God and God is real, he or she will only live one finite life.
The third and fourth outcomes are assumptions about the quality of life because these outcomes assume that a religious lifestyle is more fulfilling and moral than an atheistic one. In the third possible outcome according to Pascal, if an atheist is correct about God not existing he or she would gain nothing. This outcome assumes that a nonreligious life is unfulfilling and does not benefit society. Oppositely, if one does believe in God and is wrong, Pascal would argue that he or she would still gain a moral code from trying to follow God and use those morals to better society. Of all four outcomes, Pascal urges the reader to believe in God for the chance of eternal happiness and at the very least, a fulfilled life that benefits society.
Firstly, a pressing argument from many dissenters is that Pascal initially states that individuals must choose to believe or not believe in God and that that there is no middle ground. In his essay, Pascal does little to counter this argument simply stating “you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked” (144). Instead of addressing why one must choose whether to believe in God, Pascal responds as a knowing parent does to a child. But for an answer, one may turn to the later philosopher William James who addresses the issue of a forced choice in his essay entitled “The Will to Believe”.
In his essay, James writes extensively on belief which he divides into two options: a living option or a dead one.
In this distinction, there is only a belief and a nonbelief. Noting that there is no middle ground, James addresses that one must choose to believe or not believe in life. His second point states one can avoid to go outside if another asks them to choose between bringing or not bringing an umbrella when going out. However, James states “if I say, ‘Either accept this truth or go without it,’ I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative” (152). Similarly, one either accepts the existence of God or does not accept it. Sure, one can not share their opinion on the matter, however, when Pascal states the reader must choose, the option is forced, unavoidable, and one must choose to believe or not believe. There is no middle
ground.
Now that one must choose whether to believe in God or not, Pascal’s main argument must be evaluated. At first glance, Pascal’s argument seems too black and white as many problems arise from his simplistic and pragmatic argument which assumes not only that an afterlife exists in the theological outcomes but also that a religious life is more fulfilling than an atheistic one. As stated previously, Pascal argues that believing in God is a bet in which the winning hand is always faith. We have already argued that in wagering God’s existence, we must choose whether or not to believe. However, critics also find fault in Pascal’s assumption that an afterlife exists.
As stated, one outcome is an atheist who is wrong about God’s existence in which Pascal would argue the atheist would lose everything. Oppositely, according to Pascal, if a believer is right that God exists, he or she would gain everything. There are two main assumptions at work here: the existence of an afterlife and that if God exists, he cares whether or not we believe in him. Firstly, while an afterlife cannot be proven, the small chance of eternal damnation, in which one loses everything, deems too much of a risk. Similarly to the example Pascal gave about betting on the option that results in the greatest number of lives, one could also argue to wager for the option that results in the least amount of risk. If God cares whether or not we believe in him and an eternal afterlife exists, betting on God’s existence is the safest option as if one is correct, then they would live in eternal favor with God.
Of the two other outcomes, one addresses an atheist who is right about God not existing. In this case, Pascal argues that the nonbeliever gains nothing because if God does not exist there is no afterlife and there is no creator who cares whether or not we believe in him or her, therefore, any wrongdoings would not be reprimanded in hell. However, one could say the nonbeliever gains knowledge upon discovering God does not exist and certainly, knowledge is something to be gained. One could go further and argue that proving God does not exist to others would also make the atheist happy due to proving others wrong. In this outcome, Pascal did not consider that knowledge is a gain, and instead of complicating his simplistic view of wagering God’s existence, ignored the gains completely. However, just because there may be a small gain of knowledge for the nonbeliever who is correct does not make it the best outcome.
There are two major flaws with the argument that an atheist gains knowledge from learning God does not exist. First, if one gains knowledge by learning that God does not exist, then surely one gains knowledge by learning God does exist. Moreover, the four outcomes that Pascal lists all reveal something of God’s existence and therefore, knowledge can be gained from each of them. If knowledge can be gained from each outcome, the playing field is leveled and the knowledge that God does not exist to an atheist is not unique and is not a gain. Second, knowledge of God’s existence would only be gained after death. However, if God does not exist there would be no afterlife and our thoughts would end with death. How, then, could it be possible for one to know if God existed if consciousness was lost? If there is no God, we would never know. Therefore, the knowledge of God not existing is worthless as it could not be conceived by a dead person. Furthermore, one could argue that some people gain the knowledge of God existing from near-death encounters, while they are still living. Ultimately, knowledge gained from God’s existence outweighs the knowledge one would gain if God did not exist because one would simply not gain knowledge if God did not exist.
The other and last outcome Pascal describes is a believer who is wrong about God existing. In this outcome, Pascal assumes that the believer, through religion, would gain a moral code and lead a better life than that of the atheist. Even if God did not exist, the believer would still die thinking God existed and consequently would never know if he did not exist. But no matter the outcome after death, believing in God forms a strong moral code and even if no reward is given for that morality in the afterlife, society rewards morality. Believing in and following a moral code according to many religions will save one from eternal suffering and reward them with eternal happiness. For example, a moral obligation of Christianity is to give to the poor. Therefore, if one believes in God and an afterlife, he or she will be more likely to give more to the poor. Following a moral code teaches important societal values which at the very least keeps one at good standing with the law and at best, teaches one to believe in others, stay committed to decisions, and give back to the community. With morality, one is more likely to have a supportive network of friends and family.
However, one who does not believe in God and sees no consequences to his or her actions may want to act villainously. Instead of abiding by the law, he or she breaks it along with relationships and obligations to friends and coworkers. This results in the loss of relationships, jobs, and ultimately the loss of a fulfilling, happy life in the most extreme examples. For example, if one completely disregards the moral code and goes out and steals from everyone, he or she will at best live a life running from law enforcement or at worst live in a prison cell with no freedom.
But if the nonbeliever does not ever pay for not abiding by the law, after a life of not caring, the atheist cowers at death’s door, afraid to or not wanting to die because he or she believes there is no afterlife. For the atheist, death is the end, full stop. The believer on the other hand, after living a fulfilling life is comforted or even excited by death, believing that he or she will be rewarded for a moral life. An atheist will mourn the loss of a loved one, but a believer will celebrate death, because if the deceased truly believed, then death is not the end but the beginning of new life.
To many, Pascal’s wager can often be seen as too simplistic, but by arguing just a few of his points, his clear, pragmatic writing does not buckle easily. Due to his career as a mathematician, Pascal almost perfects the a priori argument, a certain argument based on logic, to prove that believing in God is the best bet one can make in life. While there are many assumptions at work, Pascal, unlike many other philosophers, does not hide under questions that cannot be reasoned through for very long. The existence of an afterlife and a caring God cannot be proven so, instead, Pascal gives reasons why religion and following a moral code can make one’s life more fulfilling. Pascal frequently states in his wager that we must not depend on reason when contemplating God. However, Pascal writes a highly persuasive piece using unfiltered logical reason which makes his argument even more effective. Pascal generates certainty that believing in God is a wager in which belief is the winning hand.