Blaise Pascal Argues You Cannot Prove That God Exists ✓ Solved

Blaise Pascal Argues You Cannot Prove That God Exists

Blaise Pascal argues you cannot prove that God exists so rather than disbelieving in him we should favour him because we will have infinite rewards if he does exist rather than infinite amount of punishment if he ends up existing. I will argue that Pascal is incorrect because if you gamble that god is real you have to fulfil his duties and requirements of this world which will keep you from expanding or evolving the mind or as a species. It would keep a person from any desires they have in this world and leave them with “what ifs” upon the time of death. You are given a set of rules by God to abide by so you don’t ever know if you are truly a righteous person.

Paper For Above Instructions

Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist, is well-known for his argument concerning the existence of God, famously encapsulated in what is known as "Pascal's Wager." In essence, his argument posits that believing in God is a rational choice because the potential gains (infinite rewards, i.e., eternal life in heaven) far outweigh the potential losses (finite losses, such as earthly pleasures or a life without belief). However, I contend that this reasoning is flawed and that following Pascal's Wager may lead to detrimental effects on individual growth and societal evolution.

Understanding Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager essentially suggests that humans wager with their lives on whether God exists or not. If one chooses to believe in God and is correct, they gain eternal happiness; if they choose not to believe and are incorrect, they face eternal damnation. Therefore, to avoid the worst-case scenario, one should bet on God's existence (Pascal, 1669). This perspective is enticing and offers a simplistic binary choice, but it fails to account for the complexities of belief and the implications of living under divinely ordained rules.

The Limitations of Pascal's Argument

The first and perhaps most significant flaw in Pascal's argument lies in its oversimplification. It presents belief in God as a simple hedge against risk, neglecting the profound and often challenging journey of faith. Believing in God entails substantial commitments and responsibilities (Stenger, 2007). It is not merely a matter of "playing it safe." Adherents of a faith must engage with doctrines, moral codes, and communal practices. Thus, if an individual chooses to believe because of fear of non-belief, they may undertake the actions required by their faith not out of genuine conviction but rather out of a calculated self-interest. This disingenuous belief may inhibit genuine spiritual growth (Kahane, 2011).

Impacts on Human Development

Furthermore, the implications of Pascal's Wager can potentially stagnate human intellectual and moral development. Adhering strictly to religious doctrines, often rooted in ancient texts, could limit personal exploration and the evolution of thought. When one is guided by divine commands, questioning and critically analyzing beliefs may become taboo. The quest for knowledge, scientific inquiry, and philosophical exploration could be stifled if individuals prioritize religious duty over personal growth (Dawkins, 2006). This risk of mental stagnation could lead to a society that lacks innovation and progress, as individuals may feel compelled to adhere strictly to religious teachings rather than nurturing their own ideas and ambitions.

The Realities of "What Ifs"

Moreover, the concept of "what ifs" that Pascal's Wager implies can result in existential dread. If individuals spend their lives worrying about the consequences of belief versus non-belief, they may become paralyzed by fear and uncertainty. They may face the end of their lives grappling with the notion that they followed a set of rules without fully pursuing their potential or desires (Nagel, 1971). Thus, faith based solely on Pascal's reasoning could lead to unfulfilled lives, driven by fear rather than love, curiosity, or self-actualization.

The Question of Divine Demand

Additionally, if one assumes that God exists and that they must adhere to specific duties and requirements, this raises pertinent questions about the nature of these divine commands. How can a person ascertain whether they are fulfilling God's expectations? If morality is dictated solely by divine command, individuals may struggle with their moral compass, as they cannot claim to know if they are genuinely righteous. The ambiguity surrounding divine expectations may lead to moral relativism, where individuals might use divine interpretation as a means to justify unethical actions (Smith, 1997).

Alternative Perspectives on Faith

Throughout history, many thinkers have proposed different interpretations of faith that encourage individual exploration and moral autonomy without the constraints posed by Pascal's Wager. For instance, philosophers like Søren Kierkegaard emphasized the importance of a genuine relationship with God, rather than a fearful wager. Kierkegaard promotes a leap of faith that inspires personal authenticity and honest engagement with one's beliefs (Kierkegaard, 1843). By embracing the uncertainties of faith, individuals may cultivate a spirituality rooted in hope, love, and personal discovery rather than fear of punishment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Pascal's Wager may initially appear compelling as a logical argument for belief in God, it ultimately falls short due to its oversimplification of faith, restrictions on personal growth, inherent risks of existential dread, and uncertain moral implications. Instead of wagering on the existence of God based on fear of punishment, individuals should engage in genuine exploration of their beliefs, seeking a deeper understanding of themselves and their relationship with the universe. Embracing uncertainty may not guarantee eternal salvation; however, it fosters a more meaningful and fulfilling human experience.

References

• Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press.
• Kahane, G. (2011). The Ethics of Belief: A New Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Kierkegaard, S. (1843). Fear and Trembling. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Nagel, T. (1971). The Absurd. Journal of Philosophy, 68(20), 716-727.
• Pascal, B. (1669). Pensées. Éditions Garnier frères.
• Smith, H. (1997). The World's Religions. HarperOne.
• Stenger, V. J. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis. New York: Prometheus Books.
• Parsons, J. (2015). Belief and Rationality: The Options Beyond Pascal’s Wager. The Journal of Religious Ethics, 43(3), 411-431.
• McGrath, A. E. (2011). The Big Question: Why We Can’t Stop Talking About God. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.