Theory Or Manipulation: Pascal's Wager

Theory or Manipulation: Did Pascal Truly Have a Wager?

Few things in society can be as convincing as the promise of reward and the draw of self-preservation. Pascal’s Wager is a theory that draws on those exact human emotions, rather than on logic itself, and because of that, I myself deem it as a weak, and possibly invalid, argument. In this paper I will talk about how Pascal promises little or no loss from believing, the fault that Pascal does not address the possibility of more than just a Christian God, and the fact that choosing what to believe is deemed impossible.

Pascal’s Wager states that believing in the Christian God will earn you infinite reward; presumably heaven, however Pascal’s belief that this reward system is based on believing in the one God he himself believed in is solely an assumption and fairly bias, causing this premise to be considered invalid and untrue. He roughly makes the claim “if one does not believe in the Christian God and the Christian God does not exist then one gains little or nothing.” On the contrary, should Pascal be wrong about the distribution of infinite reward and punishment, the disbelief in said God could bring a lot to gain, perhaps even the same reward that Pascal himself has promised to those who DO believe in the Christian God. On top of that, should God not exist, and the life that you live is truly the only chance at life we are given, then following a certain religion would simply keep you from experiencing all that life had to offer. By following the commandments laid out by the Christian God, one would spend their life constantly focused on religious commitments and rules, not allowing themselves to indulge in sin or seemingly taboo behaviors, ultimately causing said individual to miss out on being fully exposed to the world 's opportunities. That sure seems like quite a lot to wager when God existing is a huge unknown. It is easy enough to look at Pascal’s Wager and agree that if the statement “Either God exists or He does not,” is true, then the wager is that of a correct conclusion. However, when analysing said premise, the validity becomes a lot more questionable for two main reasons: Pascal is referring to only the Christian God in this theory, thus equating belief of any other God with atheism, and the fact that Pascal has deemed the probability of God’s existence as ½. I want to discuss the former of these issues. As stated in the previous paragraph, one could speculate that Pascal 's Wager was created with bias, and with that bias comes faults in the argument. Using the assumption that any God is just as likely to exist as the Christian God Pascal speaks of, one could argue that wagering for a Christian God is just a risky as wagering for no God at all. Should you believe in a God of any other religion, or …show more content…
Although shown to be logically invalid, Pascal’s Wager can definitely be said to leave a haunting thought in the mind of an unbeliever, and although it may not completely change everyone’s mind, it undoubtedly has the power to make anyone, religious or not, truly consider the so called “infinite rewards” theism may offer in the world beyond the one we