Pascal's Wager

Definition

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument proposed by Blaise Pascal that suggests it is a better 'bet' to believe in God than not to believe, given the potential eternal consequences of belief versus non-belief. The wager posits that if God exists and one believes, the reward is infinite (eternal life), while if God does not exist, the loss is finite (the sacrifices made in this life). This argument raises questions about the rationality of religious belief and the role of evidence in making such existential decisions.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Pascal's Wager emphasizes the pragmatic approach to belief, suggesting that even without definitive evidence for God's existence, believing can lead to potentially infinite gain.
2. The wager raises critical discussions about faith and reason, questioning whether belief can be justified without evidence.
3. Pascal argues that non-believers risk an infinite loss by choosing not to believe, as they could miss out on eternal happiness if God exists.
4. Critics of Pascal's Wager often point out that it oversimplifies the nature of belief, ignoring the diversity of religious options and the complexity of genuine faith.
5. The wager also challenges individuals to consider their own motivations for belief, as it implies a sort of calculated decision-making in matters of faith.

Review Questions

• How does Pascal's Wager challenge traditional views about the necessity of evidence for belief?
  • Pascal's Wager challenges traditional views by proposing that belief in God can be rational even in the absence of definitive evidence. It suggests that weighing the potential outcomes—eternal happiness versus finite loss—provides a compelling reason to choose belief. This perspective shifts the discussion from needing irrefutable proof to considering practical consequences, thereby broadening the scope of what justifies religious belief.
• Discuss how Pascal's Wager might interact with evidentialism regarding rationality in religious beliefs.
  • Pascal's Wager contrasts with evidentialism by prioritizing practical reasoning over strict empirical evidence in forming beliefs about God. While evidentialism asserts that beliefs should be based on available evidence, Pascal’s approach highlights that in cases where evidence is lacking or inconclusive, individuals can still arrive at a rational decision through consideration of potential outcomes. This interplay raises critical questions about what constitutes rational belief and whether it must always be grounded in observable evidence.
• Evaluate the implications of Pascal's Wager for discussions on atheism and its critiques of religious beliefs.
  • Evaluating Pascal's Wager reveals significant implications for discussions on atheism, particularly regarding its critiques of religious beliefs. Atheists may argue that genuine belief should not be based on self-serving calculations or fear of loss, but rather on sincere inquiry into truth. This perspective challenges the validity of Pascal’s argument, suggesting that it reduces faith to mere pragmatism. However, Pascal's Wager also forces atheists to confront their own assumptions about belief and non-belief, prompting deeper examination into the foundations upon which both positions rest.

Related terms

Evidentialism:

Evidentialism is the theory that beliefs should be formed based on evidence and rational justification rather than faith or personal experience.

Theism: Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more deities, particularly a personal God who is involved in the world.

Atheism:

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any deities, often associated with a reliance on empirical evidence and rational thought.