Pascal's Wager Rhetorical Analysis

Pascal’s Wager is his attempt to justify the belief in God purely on appeal to possible personal gains. His argument is that it makes sense to believe in the God that is believed in by Christianity, therefore it makes sense for us to do so. Pascal believes that belief in God is the rational action to take, even if there is no evidence of God existing. In his work he finds various reasons to believe in God that are beneficial even if he/she does not exist. He also believes it is irrational to not believe in God. If you are an atheist you ultimately are missing out on the possibility of eternal happiness, because if there is no God you will not lose anything, but you will lose everything if there is a God.
In Pascal’s Wager, his argument goes
Though, if God does not exist, theists will enjoy fixed happiness, while atheists will too enjoy fixed happiness. In this situation too theists will still in a way have it better because of the comforts of religion. Religion brings it followers a sense of belonging, comfort, happiness, and brings people together. With religion though, one is restricted in certain activities that an atheist could partake in. With atheism or agnosticism you aren’t rewarded in a sense with these benefits that religion brings. Pascal basically says that it is wrong to be an atheist as there is not possible chance to win the prize in the end. Therefore it is rational to believe in
This essay is mostly defending the rationality of religious faith with evidence of religious truth lacking. In section X William James says, “In truths dependent on our personal action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly an indispensable thing.” William James defends that religious beliefs depend on ones personal actions and can also be justified through ones faith based on desire. He states that the evidence of religion ultimately depends on our belief. James concludes that whether we choose to believe or not we decide our own