I'm a little confused, can someone explain to me what his argument is saying in depth please?
2007-12-03 05:15:26 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Pascal argues first of all that it is not possible to know reasonably if there is a god or not. The god he's thinking of is entirely unlike ourselves so that we have no possible point of reference, but this god does insist that we sacrifice our will and happiness for the promise of an eternal reward.
So Pascal suggests that it is rather like a wager. You are betting your life, your will, and your happiness. And there are two possible outcomes of the bet, as he sees it: either there is the kind of god he's thinking of or there isn't.
If there is no god, those who believe will have sacrificed their life, will, and happiness for nothing. They will have wasted their entire life in pursuit of a fruitless dream. Those who don't believe will have won the lifetime they started with. (Pascal DOES concede in his wager that there it is possible that believers are the losers!)
On the other hand, if there is a god, those who believe will win not just one or two extra lifetimes full of happiness, but an ENTERNITY. While those who didn't believe will get nothing (Pascal in his wager doesn't even have them thrown into eternal torment, which is pretty generous by some religious standards.)
Given that the winnings for believers are infinite, Pascal think's it's a no-brainer. Especially since he considers the outcomes to be of equal merit - since we have no way to tell if there's a god of his kind or not, he rates them as being equally likely.
Of course, there are counterarguments to many of the assumptions made in the wager, as well as elaborations taking into account Hell, other gods of other kinds, and so on. But the above is what Pascal referred to.
Hope that helps! Peace.
2007-12-03 06:51:54 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Pascal's wager is a philosophy argument against atheism. Basically Pascal argued that to have faith in God or not to was a bet and the afterlife was the prize. If one were to wager for atheism and lost the bet one would be damned to hell. If the same atheist won the wager and was correct that there were no God or after life then he still gains nothing from the wager.
If one were to wager that there was a God and a afterlife and lost this bet he would would neither lose or gain anything after death. However if the same believer in God were right and won the wager he would gain ever lasting life in Heaven and avoid damnation.
So, according to Pascal's wager the safest bet is to believe in God.
2007-12-03 13:24:41 · answer #2 · answered by jimmy s 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing.
2007-12-03 13:24:59 · answer #3 · answered by Tim N 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you believe in god and you are wrong, when you die, it doesn't matter.
If you don't believe in god and you are wrong, when you die, you will regret it.
Therefore, believing in god makes more sense, since you only really lose: if there is one and you don't believe.
Of course it doesn't address which god to believe in. And this problem makes the wager useless.
2007-12-03 13:30:27 · answer #4 · answered by J K 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋