Help with Philosophy question?

Pascal thought that in one sense of rational it was rational to believe in God, but in another sense of rational it was not. What are those two senses? What was his argument for the claim that it is rational in one sense to believe in God, and why does the argument fail?

6 months ago

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The Pascal wager's is a rational argument used to justify the irrational belief in God. It goes like this:

1. If you believe in God, you gain eternal salvation and happiness
2. If you don't believe in God you gain eternal damnation and suffering

Therefore,

1. If God doesn't exist, you lose or gain nothing by believing or disbelieving God
2. If God does exist, and you disbelieve in God, you automatically lose eternal happiness and gain eternal suffering
3. If God does exist, and believe in God, you gain the prospect eternal happiness and minimize the prospect of eternal suffering.

Therefore

1. It is better to believe in God rather than not to believe.

The problem with this argument is that it presumes too much about the essence of God, which seems to be principally Christian. Other Gods might bring different rewards and punishments, and the argument would change accordingly.

6 months ago

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

thanks, i remember talking about this in class, i just needed a reminder on it lol