Pascal's Wager Argument

Pascal 's Wager

Blaise Pascal takes a unique approach in defending the eternal question of God 's existence. "Pascal 's Wager" is the name given to the argument written by himself stating that it is prudent to believe in God 's existence because it is the best bet. Suppose that there is a winning sweepstakes ticket that is worth a new luxurious car and there are only two tickets to choose from. We know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing. We are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning that new car? Pascal argues that "believing" in God will give you the best outcome than to not believe. In the end, Pascal does not

Principally, I believe the first step towards understanding Pascal 's wager is to understand who or what Pascal is arguing against. Pascal states that God is incomprehensible, in fact, "infinitely incomprehensible." Reason cannot decide the matter. He tries to persuade the atheists that wagering on the existence of God is irrational and to imagine the possibility of a finite mind comprehending the infinite. We might then be persuaded by his argument. There are two possibilities: either God exists or he does not. With these two possibilities comes with two relevant actions we can take. A person can believe or they can fail to

No doubt, this could be a start to saving the atheists but this will not be enough. Here 's another problem, which is probably the most famous problem and is the most obvious. If God existing opens one possibility and the other possibility opens nothing, are those the only two possible outcomes for the afterlife? If we think about it, of course it’s not just two states. There are other religions, more possibilities, and more gods. If we take those other possibilities, it could be that, for example the religion Hinduism or Buddhism is correct, and we are totally worried about our egos that we would be incarcerated because we got it wrong. If we put all those possibilities up in Pascal 's wager it would start to not make sense at all to just believe in God because of all these other possibilities that could be out there. That’s one the major problems, and that is why I think Pascal 's wager fails. He is favoring towards Christianity to believe in God than realizing that there are other outcomes in this world.

In brief, Pascal 's wager fails to demonstrate that putting a bet on God could lead to infinite happiness, and the best outcome. He does address perfectly the criticism by endorsing a type of indirect voluntarism according to which, if we believe in God, we will eventually acquire this belief. His wager, has shown the importance of having faith in God for whatever reason and at whatever cost, he thinks, has flaws that just makes it fall apart. Believing