Pascal’s wager, practical argument for belief in God formulated by French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.In his Pensées (1657–58), Pascal applied elements of game theory to show that belief in the Christian religion is rational. He argued that people can choose to believe in God or can choose to not believe in God, and that God either exists or he does not.
Should you believe there’s a God? To answer this, we might examine arguments for theism—like first-cause and design arguments—and arguments for atheism—like arguments from evil. These arguments offer evidence for and against God’s existence. Pascal’s wager, originally proposed by Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), takes a more pragmatic approach.
“Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single section of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents four such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’—it is only the third of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”.
Pascal’s Wager about God. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a pragmatic reason for believing in God: even under the assumption that God’s existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are so vast as to make betting on theism rational. The super-dominance form of the argument conveys the basic Pascalian idea, the expectations argument refines it, and the dominating expectations ...
The strength of Pascal’s argument relied on the fact that an infinitely large gain rendered the issue of probability irrelevant. However, if the payoff is finite, it is conceivable that the probability of God’s existence could be so minuscule that betting against God becomes a rational choice. As a result, Pascal’s argument ultimately fails.
Pascal's argument is rooted in decision theory and probability theory, emphasizing the practical consequences of belief or disbelief in God. Pascal believed that, from a rational standpoint, it is more reasonable to choose belief in God because the potential reward of eternal happiness is so significant that it justifies the decision ...
arguments made a case for belief in God on the basis of a case for the truth of that belief; Pascal focuses on the happiness that forming the belief might bring about. This is presumably the point of Pascal’s emphasis on the question of “gain and loss.” But what is Pascal’s argument that belief in God will lead to greater happiness?
Pascal’s argument is often referred to as Pascal’s Wager. [2] Consider a commonly held Christian (and Muslim) view, according to which there is a heaven, where believers will go and experience infinite bliss after they die, and a hell, where non-believers will live an eternity in torment and suffering.
The argument might run, for example, that there are infinitely many possible Gods to consider (see our discussion of the many Gods objection), and for some infinite subset of them that includes Pascal's God, rationality does not favor any one over the rest. Treating them even-handedly then requires assigning infinitesimal probability to each.
The most powerful part of Pascal’s argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, “The right thing is not to wager ...
Pascal was skeptical that logical argument alone could change a person’s mind, so he focused instead on removing logical barriers to the Faith. In section III of the Pensées, which most editors call “of the necessity of the wager,” Pascal puts forward several logical arguments against atheism but does not mount any arguments to prove ...
The Argument from Pascal's Wager . Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever ...
Pascal’s argument is insightful for its emphasis on the ethical grounds of theistic and atheistic belief; after all, most people are theists or atheists for ethical reasons, not because we are robots who coldly pursue what is rigorously demonstrated. Most people are incapable of properly evaluating philosophical arguments about the existence ...
Pascal’s Wager is unique among theological arguments for the degree to which it evokes both fascination and disgust. The fascination, for some, derives from the fact that the argument brings together big ideas : infinity, God, salvation, prudential and evidential reasoning, and an analytical framework (decision theory) that provides tools for ...
Philosophy of Religion: Chapter 4. Arguments for the Existence of God: Reason: Section 7. The Pragmatic Argument: Blaise Pascal, 1623 - 1662, was both a mathematician and a philosopher. He had studied many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God but did not find the arguments persuasive.
Notes on Inductive Arguments 1. An inductive argument cannot prove its conclusion true. 2. An inductive argument can be evaluated only in terms of its strength. The strengthof an inductive argument is a measure of how well the premises support the conclusion. Clearly, this is subjective (a personal judgment). 3.
Arguments “Against” Proposition 133 . Ballot Prop Az Require Partisan Primaries – NO . Another proposition, “Make Elections Fair Arizona,” is on this same ballot. That one proposes a reasonable and necessary amendment to broaden voter options in primary and general elections.
Arguments “Against” Proposition 137 . This measure would not only virtually eliminate your right as a voter to decide whether judges — appointed through a political process — should remain on the bench, but would nullify your votes for or against judges in THIS election due to its retroactivity clause.
ARGUMENTS FOR PROP 140 • Amends the AZ Constitution to establish the same signature requirement for all primary election candidates for any given office. • Eligible voters may vote for candidates regardless of party affiliation. • The legislature may determine the number of candidates advancing to the general election. • Prohibits using public monies for political party elections.
