October 8, 2015

Problems and Truths of Pascals Wager

Pascal attempts to justify the existence of God. His argument is unique and thoughtprovoking because he uses ones self interest as opposed to finding evidence to justify belief in
God. Although Pascal leads a persuasive beginning argument, the end is problematic and forced.
Pascals Wager, like all great philosophical arguments, begins with an uncontroversial
claim; he says that even though we do not know what infinity is, we know that it exists because it
constantly appears in mathematical formulae. This opened the audience to the idea that
something can exist even if we cannot see it. This something is God. Pascal states that there is no
way to prove the existence of God so belief in God must be wagered; it is a bet. The pros and
cons must be laid out in order to decide if one should believe in God or not. His wager states that
if you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing (Pascal). Pascal decides that the gain if
God exists outweighs everything else in mortal life; this gain is eternal happiness and truth. He
also poses a solution for current non-believers. His solution for someone who does not believe is
for them to remove all desires and passions from their life that will hinder their ability to believe
in God. Following this, the non-believer must practice, attend the religious services, and act
virtuous; eventually, they will become a believer.
Pascal is persuasive in many aspects of his argument. In the beginning, he attempts to
grab the attention of persons from every background, including science, by making a comparison
between the scientific world and the spiritual world; he compares the existence of an unknown
quantity, infinity, to the potential existence of a God even if we are unable to understand what
He/She/They is. His ability to make such an uncontroversial opening claim leads the audience to
want to further examine and question the remaining of the wager. Pascal is accurate in saying

that God is unfathomable. Humans have no capability of understanding or comprehending the

existence of God through fact and/or physical observations. Since there is no actual proof for
God, his possibility of existence relies on the thoughts and desires within the human mind.
Pascals argument accepts this fact and proposes that ones own self-interest is the only thing that
can conclude if the existence of God is true or not. Everything up to this point is uncontroversial;
it is persuasive and riveting even to an atheistic mind like my own.
The remainder of Pascals argument is found to be problematic, to say the least. Pascals
solution to a non-believer changing to believe in God is abstract and superficial. A persons belief
system is based off more than just simply acting as if you believe in order to someday believe;
practice and attendance will not always lead to ones belief. Millions of parents raise their
children to believe in God and childrens minds are the most malleable. The belief in God should
be set in stone; yet, once the children are old enough to live their own lives, many stray from
what they were brought up to know and believe. Pascals thinking for a persons conversion is
ignorant in nature. Similar methods to Pascals conversion hypothesis have been tried on
homosexuals who desire to be heterosexual for personal gain/convenience. They are to remove
all desires and passions for the same sex and then practice heterosexuality in order to become
heterosexual. This concept is personally humorous to think of because everyone is born in their
own uniqueness and change may never be accomplished. It is possible that every person is born
with different mental capacities; some of which minds favour the spiritual and others the
physical. Pascal justifies belief in God for self-interest. He uses it as a safety net for the potential
afterlife to ensure himself eternal happiness. Furthermore, attempting to believe in God to gain
truth and eternal happiness is completely selfish in nature and the premise behind it is on a life of

falsehood; both of which contradict the practice of being a virtuous person in the first place. This
contradiction in itself proves that Pascals Wager is in fact problematic.
In conclusion, the introductory and beginning arguments of Pascals Wager are
effectively uncontroversial and true; however, as the argument progresses, problems and holes
arise that cause the audience to question the wager in its entirety.