Pascal's Wager

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that, through logical analysis based on a punishment-reward premise, Pascal shows that believing in God is preferable to not believing. The author points out that the argument is called a "wager" because Pascal phrases it as a sort of bet: The individual has a better chance of being rewarded through belief than through denial; therefore, Pascals' wager defends belief in God through reason and appeal to basic self-interest rather than through theological or mystical proofs. The paper states that, although Pascal's theory is compelling and cleverly worded, the wager has several rhetorical and logical flaws: For example, Pascal's vision is overtly monotheistic and his worldview is essentially dualistic; however, Pascal would not admit to the possibility of multiple Gods because the philosopher's stance was rooted in Christian apologetic literature.

From the Paper:

"Ironically, to promote belief in a Christian God, Pascal avoids a direct discussion of Christian theology. Doing so strengthens the appearance of logic and underscores the statistical evidence that Pascal uses to promote theism. However, the absence of any real appeal to mysticism or to matters of the heart ends up weakening the wager. Pascal neglects what could be powerful appeals to emotion, which are essential to most compelling arguments. Also, although Pascal avoids a direct discussion of Christian theology, the philosopher cannot help but insert phrases like "eternal life and happiness," which are written to stimulate an emotional response in the reader. Betting on God brings "eternal life and happiness," according to Pascal, and therefore, no reasonable sane person would not believe in God."

More papers on Pascal's Wager:

• Essay # 6604 : "Reasoning Concerning Pascal's Wager"
• Analytical Essay # 97813 : "Wager for Skeptics"
• Analytical Essay # 52722 : "Pascal's Wager"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: