PHL 101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Theism
4 Dec 2020
School
Department
Course
Professor
Evan Reed
PHL 101
Introduction to Philosophy
Fall 2018
Professor Herman
● Two Important Things for Understanding the Wager
○ Pascal’s wager argument has the structure of a gamble. Pascal wants to insist that
belief in God is the 'best bet' in the absence of rational knowledge concerning
God's existence in this life.
○ So the first thing to realise is that his argument is offered in the absence of rational
proof. It is offered in a situation of not being able to decide for or against the
existence of God on the basis of natural reason. Secondly, Pascal assumes that
the gain of belief in god is eternal life in heaven. Eternal life is the expected
benefit of belief in God and of following a religious life. This is an assumption
on his part.
● Prudential Argument - Based on Benefit
■ So Pascal thinks human reason cannot reach absolute certainty, but we
can at least ask if it is better for us, in this present life, to believe in
God or not. If God exists then it is clearly better to believe: infinitely
better, given the prospect of eternal bliss for believers. If God does not
exist, then we lose nothing in this life, and may even gain something
(Pascal says, by losing ‘poisonous pleasures’). Belief can win, and cannot
lose. So believe! It will do you no harm. With reason – because, for
Pascal, it leads to fundamental indecidibility - all you'll be doing is
flipping a coin. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't exist. But if you
believe in God and God exists you stand to gain an awful lot. And if you
believe in God and God does not exist, sure you don't lose anything. In
fact living a religious life might do you some good.
○ Objections to Pascal’s Wager
■ Low View of God and Religious Faith Motivated by Self-Interest
- Trivializes
■ Can’t decide to believe
■ The ‘Many Gods’ Objection
■ Denigration of Human Reason
○ William James
■ American Pragmatist philosopher, William James (1842-1910), took a
Document Summary
Two important things for understanding the wager. Pascal"s wager argument has the structure of a gamble. Pascal wants to insist that belief in god is the "best bet" in the absence of rational knowledge concerning. So the first thing to realise is that his argument is offered in the absence of rational proof. It is offered in a situation of not being able to decide for or against the existence of god on the basis of natural reason. Secondly, pascal assumes that the gain of belief in god is eternal life in heaven. Eternal life is the expected benefit of belief in god and of following a religious life. So pascal thinks human reason cannot reach absolute certainty, but we can at least ask if it is better for us, in this present life, to believe in. If god exists then it is clearly better to believe: infinitely better, given the prospect of eternal bliss for believers.
