Is Pascals Wager valid?
It is sometimes said that Pascal’s wager is valid. The battle is over the truth of its premises, not whether its conclusion follows from them. respond to one possible reason for thinking that this claim is false – that Pascal’s argument is not valid after all. We can begin with the conclusion of the wager.
What are Pascal’s reasons in support of the claim that the rational thing to do is to wager on God’s existence?
We only have two things to stake, our “reason” and our “happiness”. Pascal considers that if there is “equal risk of loss and gain” (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists.
Analysis with decision theory.
|God exists (G)||God does not exist (¬G)|
Why is Pascal’s wager convincing?
An infinite gain will always outweigh even a finite loss or gain. Therefore, it’s always more rational to bet that God exists. As Pascal says, if you wager and win, “you will win everything.”
|God really exists||God really does not exist|
|You bet that God does not exist||INFINITE LOSS||no gain (or loss)|
What is Pascal trying to prove with his wager?
Pascal’s wager, practical argument for belief in God formulated by French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his Pensées (1657–58), Pascal applied elements of game theory to show that belief in the Christian religion is rational.
Is Pascals Wager flawed?
Pascal’s logic is also flawed because belief in God does not always guarantee infinite joys and grace. According to the bible, the believers must strictly follow His words to enter heaven. That is, developing a fragile faith and not practicing the words of God could also lead to punishments after death.
How do you cite Pascal’s wager?
In general, the current page may be cited in this manner: Archie, Lee C, “Blaise Pascal, ‘Pascal’s Wager,'” Philosophy of Religion (June 26, 2006) URL=<http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/pascal.shtml>. “The wager is not easy to understand.
What is the conclusion of Pascal’s wager?
Wager against God
Pascal draws the conclusion at this point that you should wager for God. Without any assumption about your probability assignment to God’s existence, the argument is invalid. Rationality does not require you to wager for God if you assign probability 0 to God existing, as a strict atheist might.
Is Pascal’s wager a good argument?
Blaise Pascal’s infamous “wager” doesn’t get a lot of credit for being a rigorous philosophical argument for the existence of God, and with good reason. It is not a rigorous philosophical argument for the existence of God; nor is it meant to be.
Was Kierkegaard a Fideist?
Historically, fideism is most commonly ascribed to four philosophers: Blaise Pascal, Søren Kierkegaard, William James, and Ludwig Wittgenstein; with fideism being a label applied in a negative sense by their opponents, but which is not always supported by their own ideas and works or followers.
How does a critical rationalist differ from a Fideist?
How does a critical rationalist differ from a fideist? He or she rejects the position that faith-based claims are immune from being disproved through reason and worldly evidence.
Which of the statements below would a Nonevidentialist be most likely to reject?
Which of the statements below would a nonevidentialist be most likely to reject? Belief in God must be supported by objective, rational arguments. You just studied 73 terms!