A Critical Discussion of Blaise Pascals The Wager Essay -- Pascal Go

A Critical Discussion of Blaise Pascals The WagerIn the gambling world bets are advance based on odds, the probability or likelihood that mostthing would happen. In the court of law, cases are decided upon by the weight of evidence presented by the respective parties. The unwashed link between these general scenarios is that finiss are made based on some outside evidential factor. The to a greater extent probable something is likely to happen, or the more evidence presented in favor or opposed to something, the greater the tendency that a decision will coincide with that probability or evidence. This kind of logic has also been used when arguing about the existence of divinity. It has been argued that Gods existence is necessary based on the logic that it is neither contingent non impossible and therefore must exist it has also been argued that the presence of evil in the world is evidence enough that God, or at least God as we lead Him out to be, does not exist. The decisio ns that people a make about their personal relationship with the being that has been dubbed God is usually based on this kind of criteria. But what if someone were to make a decision concerning Gods existence without having any evidence to sway us, how would that someone choose? This worry is addressed by Blaise Pascal in his essay entitled The Wager. Pascal argues that the barely rational choice to make about the existence of God with no evidence would be to regard that He does. The following pages of this essay will be a critical analysis and also critique of Pascals argument, for it is the argument of the author of this paper that a sincere decision would be impossible under these circumstances and without evidence we would not be able to make a rational choice concerning the issue of Gods existence. Before the discussion is started let me first clarify some terminology is order to make my argument more clear. In my thesis statement I offered the premise that when given to the criteria put forth by Pascal that a sincere decision about belief in God would be impossible. By sincere decision I mean a decision that you can evaluate and reevaluate against anything that claims the opposite and still be able to hold to it. If you have a belief based on a decision that stems from no evidence so you have nothing to evaluate it by, so that belief cannot be sincere, it is merely a blind ch... ... of someone else. If you choose to mixture your actions, you will only change in a way that still lets you hold to your belief, a belief that has shown to be beneficial based on evidence not on some yet to be seen reward. To close this paper and stop the what could be a continuous rant against Pascal, it is pretty obvious that the issue of God, his existence, and whether or not we should believe will forever be a perennial issue. Pascal, Aquinas, James, or even myself can write essays until we run out of paper and printer ink, but the only thing that would accomplish is further add to the already ample confusion and conflict on this issue. Although Pascal offers a very simple reason of why we should believe in God, it is all to simple. And while I offer nothing but criticisms for his argument, I cannot myself offer a more sound argument that would little susceptible to the same kinds of criticisms I just wrote concerning The Wager. Works Cited1. Pascal, Blaise. The Wager Philosophy of Religion Selected Readings.Oxford University Press, 1996 New York, New York.2. Holy Bible. Book of James Chapter 1, Verse 12 First Corinthians Chapter 10 Verse 13.