Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in the God of Christianity, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so.
Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or gain little or nothing.
The conclusion that Pascal’s Wager draws from this is that belief in the Christian God is the rational course of action, even if there is no evidence that he exists. If the Christian God does not exist then it is of little importance whether we believe or disbelieve in him. If the Christian God does exist then it is of great importance that we do believe in him. In order to cover ourselves in all circumstances, therefore, we ought to believe that the Christian God exists. A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:
Pascal’s Wager:
(1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
(2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.You can read Pascal's Wager in its entirety at Philosophy of Religion
"Don't know what I'd do without CC. You keep me in the loop on the real events in our world." Beth - Dallas, TX
"Hurricane season is here in Florida. Commoncts has been crucial to keep me updated on current weather conditions allowing me to make informed decisions to help my family and I prepare for a storm." Dan - Tampa, FL
Friday, April 10, 2009
Pascal's Wager - Is this the most important blog you'll ever read?
Today is Good Friday - the day that Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago. For the world's 1 Billion Christians it is one of the holiest days of the year and of course is the end of Lent and is the precursor to Easter, his resurrection. Today's post deals with Pascal's Wager put forth by the Philosopher Blaise Pascal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Yes, yes it is.
God bless.
Post a Comment