Pascal's Wager

1455 Words6 Pages
1. Pascal’s ‘Wager’ argues that we should believe in God’s existence simply because we have everything to gain if we do and we’re right, and nothing to lose if we do and we’re wrong. a. Is this a good argument? b. Dostoyevsky points out the terrible suffering and cruelty there is in the world. How might that undermine Pascal’s argument? “The Wager” by Pascal is a reading about the risk of choosing between the existence of God and the nonexistence of God. Pascal argues that people will have everything to gain if they choose to believe in the existence of God but they will lose nothing if they do believe and are wrong. I disagree with Pascal’s argument and I do not think it is a good one. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s “The Problem of Evil” is also in a way against Pascal’s argument. Dostoyevsky argues his part using the evil in this world to show the price we pay for just being and whether or not believing in God’s existence can compensate for the pain. In Dostoyevsky’s “The Problem of Evil” there are two brothers who are having a conversation about why there needs to be such evil in God’s created world and whether or not believing in God can indeed compensate for that. I disagree with Pascal’s argument that a person loses nothing from believing in the existence of God and gains everything if he or she believes. Pascal’s overall argument is “…that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.” I think people do lose some aspects of their life if they choose to believe in God’s existence rather than not believe. Believing in God’s existence is usually choosing to believe in a certain religion. If that religion restricts a person from doing
Open Document