Tolson 2

Damiean Tolson PHIL-1030-X96 J. Polanowski, Professor 11, November., 2024 Pascal?s Wager Pascal?s Wager and the critics of rationalism are one of the most debatable topics ever. The issue(s) in question are: Is Pascal?s Wager correct about the probabilities of believing in God or not, or are his critics correct about opposing Pascal?s viewpoints? Pascal?s critics wager that one?s belief in God is not necessary, nor is it forced; one believes simply because he wants to believe. However, Pascal wagers that it is solely one?s benefit to believe in God rather than not to believe and be wrong, then suffer the consequences for not believing in God in the aftermath. Whereby, Pascal?s Wager is merely a promissory approach, whereby it provides proof to the believer only …show more content…
Pascal believed that one cannot simply make himself believe, but rather under the stated circumstances one can take certain steps that will indirectly bring about that belief. Namely taking holy water and attending church with other believers, etc. And there is no set amount of time it will take to bring about that belief; rather one simply has to train himself to bring about whatever belief he wants to believe. So then, to that extent, I would conclude that our beliefs are certainly under our control. And by one?s own will and choice he can apply the effort to believe that God exists or that Jesus exists or whatever, the same applies for this and for that. Pascal wages that God will reward everyone who truly puts forth the effort to bring about this belief, thus creating his own reality. Contrarily, it is well known that it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything based upon insufficient evidence. Whereby everyone needs to simply suspend judgement on the truth or falsity of religion until conclusive evidence is available. Pascal wagers that wagering for or against God is not optional. So to my understanding,?you must wager? implies that one must bet and it is