by Walter T. Runn

Created on: June 08, 2010

In this article, I will discuss and argue that belief in God is reasonable and why through Pascal's Wager proof. I will present Pascal's explanation of the wager proof, then I will consider the objection that according to Clifford, justifying something through a wager proves nothing and does not justify anything. If something is already incorrect and a simple wager based on chance proves it, it does not make that claim any more correct, therefore acting upon this belief would be a waste and unreasonable. Also, by saying that we could believe something because it passed the test the wager puts a specific belief up against, believing in any flimsy belief is suggested and encouraged, therefore this is not a reasonable proof. However, defining what we believe in determines the way we live and think. Pascal's wager does not really prove God's existence, but merely visually presents the benefits of believing in God's existence, and showing the rationality in this belief without having a tangible proof. This means that this proof is a means of strengthening one's faith in a God and live accordingly, not point a finger at the atheist and laugh at them.

If atheism and theism is put up against each other in Pascal's wager, the conclusion comes out to say that the benefits of theism is greater than atheism. This is how the wager works; first, Pascal took the probability of the two beliefs being correct, then listed the cost and benefits of each, then finally estimated the expected value from each. After plugging in the slots with answers, the conclusion shows that the value of atheism is finite and has a definitive ending. However, theism has an eternal value and eternal consequences. If we weigh the pros and cons of the two beliefs according to this conclusion, we see that being a theist can be somewhat more reasonable. The reason is that if theism is right, the rewards are eternal, which is a great payoff. If the theist is wrong, then nothing is lost other than a life lived for one's self. However, if the atheist is correct, nothing much is gained except for a self-satisfied life on the earth. But if the atheist was incorrect, the consequence is an eternal one. Therefore it is reasonable to believe in the existence of God.

However, philosophers such as Clifford does not agree that using a wager to prove what we believe is a very risky step to take. What happens if someone puts in an incorrect belief, but somehow the result from the wager happens to say that it is rational

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>