Pascal's Wager Rhetorical Analysis

816 Words4 Pages
Pascal’s Wager is an attempt to justify the belief in God with no evidence for His existence but to appeal to self-interests. He tries to offer a pragmatic reason even under the impression that God is unlikely, however the potential benefits of believing are so vast that make betting on theism sensible. Although it’s compelling argument Pascal’s Wager raises a number of challenges. After reading his work I’m only left with doubt. To familiarize you to his decision theory, it can be clarified with the compassion of a lottery or a sweepstake. Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a ten million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are…show more content…
Pascal knew that if you believe in God as a bet it may not be considered to be genuine or true faith but it appeals to those in favor of self-preservation with desires for eternal happiness. His argument is convert skeptics or atheist to become believers. Pascal says, "Either God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] (a coin is being spun) that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?" (Pascal 143) Once it is decided that one must wager theism or atheism, the answers is theism. Believe in God because you have the most to win and nothing to lose. Because if you believe in God and he exists you have won eternal happiness, believe in God and He doesn’t exist how you wagered didn’t matter there was nothing to win and nothing to lose after death just like if you don’t believe in God and He doesn’t exist but choose not to believe…show more content…
Pascal wants to explain there should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true. A matrix below shows exactly what Pascal’s argument is trying to demonstrate. It does not matter whether theism results from personal belief, God's grace, or chance regardless, being better off is being better off. Thus, Pascal’s Wager does not succeed as a tool of persuasion. Another concern I have with this argument is that he gives no infinity to God. Pascal’s himself says, “we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because he has neither extensions nor limits.” (Pascal 143) We are left incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is, so with what evidence will guarantee that if I believe I will be granted eternal happiness or a place in heaven. Another skeptic point to be made is that how do I know that this wont flip-flop that if I believe in God without reason maybe ill be sent to hell for not believing with for the genuine reasons. The wager presumes that God will be impressed or generous to people who worship to avoid hell and perpetual punishment. My final objection is that we cannot choose our beliefs. People

More about Pascal's Wager Rhetorical Analysis

Open Document