Analyzing Blaise Pascal's Wager

769 Words4 Pages
What justification does someone have to believe in God and the metaphysical world? This question has been asked countless times in regard to religion, but lacks conclusive evidence to answer it. The gravity of God’s existence is beyond human comprehension, so the solution to this answer will never be fully uncovered. However, there are ideas that can validate why someone should believe in God without actual evidence that God exists. Blaise Pascal invoked an idea that serves as a solid foundation to support this belief. Pascal created a wager that states why it is better to believe in God than to not believe. Although, there are counter arguments to his case, Pascal’s argument has a solid basis to vindicate itself against those arguments. Pascal’s rationalization for someone to believe in God revolves around a wager, which debates between believing in God and not believing in God. There are four outcomes to this wager, which depend on God’s existence. If someone does not believe in God and they are right, then they will have a life with luxuries, but this life is only finite. However, if they don’t believe in God and they are wrong, then they will suffer in hell for an eternity. So, in this scenario the person gains a lavish finite life of pleasure, but must spend an eternity of suffering. The other two…show more content…
Blackburn accuses Pascal of writing from “a position of metaphysical ignorance” (Blackburn 366). Blackburn states that Pascal’s view of God is from a Christian perspective and that it completely ignores other options of God. Although this is a solid argument against Pascal’s wager, the possibility of having a life in eternity outweighs any doubts. As Pascal says “if you win, you win everything; if you lose, you lose nothing” (Pascal 362). Although there is a risk involved in believing in this Christian God, the chance of being correct makes it worth

    More about Analyzing Blaise Pascal's Wager

      Open Document