Pascal’s Wager is an argument for the belief in God, whether or not he exists. This argument looks at the pros and cons of believing in God. In essence Pascal’s Wager says “what’s in it for me.†As the argument goes, the main advantages of belief in God are after one dies. Going to heaven being the ultimate reward for belief and going to hell being the ultimate punishment for disbelief.
Let’s take a quick look at the after death possibilities.
| One believes in God |
| One doesn’t believe in God |
In this version of Pascal’s Wager it doesn’t much matter whether or not one believes in God if he doesn’t exist. Things end up the same. However, if he does exist, there are great rewards and punishments involved.
This means that if our stick figure believes in God, these are his after death possibilities:
On the other hand if this stick figure does not believe in God these are his after death possibilities:
Given these options, one is better off just believing in God. One doesn’t have much to lose, and a lot to gain.
In my next post I will go over one response to this argument, The Atheist’s Wager. One recently popular version of this can be found here. However, my explanation will be illustrated with stick figures. 🙂 In the third post in my Pascal’s Wager series, I will explain a response to both of these wagers.
Comments (8)
I have chosen to leave this out because it would seem to me that simple belief in God is not required to be a particularly effortfull process. It also doesn't seem to follow that the plain belief God takes more focus, time, or effort than not believing in him.
On a similar line one could argue that there is an advantage to being right. This would bestow a reward the those who don't believe in God when he doesn't exist. I have also chosen to leave this out. It seems to me that being right wouldn't help one live their life or prepare for death. One could challenge me on this, but that is a separate argument all together.
just as silly as any other religious belief, I guess.
Also, I just wanted to say that I think your approach to explaining religious philosophy through the use of stick figures is genius. Nice work.
If god is supposed to be that omnipotent all powerful being then answer the following. Can god create a stone that is so heavy that he himself could not carry ?
If your answer is yes then this means there is something that god can not do and that is carry the stone there for he is not all that powerful.
If your answer is no then there is something that god can not create therefore he is also not powerful and great.
P.S: Sorry for my lousy English but English is not the first language in my country
One possible response is to say that it is not a limit on God's power to be unable to do something illogical. This approach simply defines God as a being that is not above logic.
Unless one can also find a situation where it is incoherent for God not to be above logic, this response tends to be a rather strong one.
[ Your English is quite good. :) ]
Plus, the Christian God not only requires belief but also worship. How can that "all knowing" God accept your belief and worship when it's based upon a gamble? Not to mention, how fervent can that belief even be when it's based upon the lessor evil?
The God I studied for 12 years cannot be manipulated that easily.