The Danger of Belief It is important to consider the factor of belief in faith for individuals who want to reach an ideal outcome after life. In this essay, I will discuss Pascal’s wager and the reasons given for why believing in God is beneficial, I do so by exploring the truth-dependent and truth-independent pragmatic arguments presented by Jeffrey Jordan in relation to the wager. I then explore the Many-Gods objection, and observe possible concerns that can arise, ultimately arguing that pragmatic arguments are not persuasive for holding religious beliefs. Pragmatic arguments are insufficient due to the lack of exploration of all possibilities and the presence of negative utility from holding an incorrect belief. Pascal’s wager does not …show more content…
This type of argument holds that benefits are obtained only if the relevant belief is true (Jordan, 425). The relevant belief in this instance is the existence of God - once again pointing that by believing in a God, there are good things that will come to those who believe. If the God is not true, then there is nothing that an individual loses. However, if they do not take the wager then there is no possibility of them receiving the benefits if the belief is true. The wager produces infinite positive expected utility if one believes. It falls into the argument of if there is a God, and believing in him will bring infinite goodness, then one should believe in God to obtain the goodness. However, there is also a second form of pragmatic argument that should also be considered, which is the truth-independent argument. This argument offers the believer benefits simply by the act of believing, regardless the truth of God’s existence. There can be psychological, moral, religious, or social benefits granted (Jordan, 426). By believing, individuals can gain community and establish moral compasses which will benefit them during life. The individual is improving oneself and engaging with others, and that will stay maintained regardless of a God’s existence. Thus, it would be wise for an individual to have faith, because it will still provide benefit for the believer. Both …show more content…
There is currently no guarantee to know which Gods exist and there does not currently exist the option to choose between two possible Gods. Further, it is incredibly possible that God is not yet something recognized or understood and thus any belief in a current option of God could be infinitely detrimental for a believer. Focusing, on specific “relevant” Gods may be a response, but that is irrelevant in the case of the existence of one absolute God. Therefore, each possible God would need to be considered. It would then be irresponsible to throw oneself to one God without certainty that that is the only option for God. For the utility that a God could grant towards an individual or negative utility that could be accrued if one believed incorrectly one would need to consider this when deciding what to believe. However, it appears the truth-independent argument is not fazed by this option because there is still benefit in believing. It is not absolute though, because there is still the result of a truth-dependent argument that would ultimately be affected by the belief. There can exist benefit in believing in a God before death, when God remains hidden to individuals, but the infinite outcome would remain the same. Individuals should be wary of the utility of believing in a God because, if there is at least one unsafe God