A Losing Bet Issues - Essay Example

On the surface, Pascal’s wager includes the very elements of simplicity that those considering philosophical questions crave. However, as is often the case, such simplicity belies the fact that many underlying fallacies are accepted when one chooses to so utterly simplify the question of the existence of a higher power to such Boolean algebraic equations (Nemoianu, 31). In short, although it is convenient, such complex questions should necessarily not be reduced to their most basic form based purely on the desire to create the simplicity of understanding.

The first question that the reader must ask is with regards whether Pascal’s wager is a persuasive one. From the point of view of this author, the answer to this question is a resounding no. The reason for this lack of respect for Pascal’s wager is based on the philosophical grounds that relate to the very belief and rationale for believing or disbelieving in a superior being. If one believes Pascal’s wager then they are of the mind that they are better off believing in a higher power (whether or not he/she exists) because the possibility exists that they may exist; therefore, as a way to hedge the bets of a would-be disbeliever, one is encouraged to believe (Monton, 643). Firstly, such a system of logical progression flies in the face of what any world religions teach. A shallow self-serving belief in a higher power is quite possibly even worse in the eyes of the proposed higher power than outright disbelief.

Likewise, almost all of the world’s religions speak to the type of believers that exist on their periphery that claim to believe but do not exhibit the works or the fruits of those that are true believers. Although there are a few world religions in which a statement of belief is sufficient to merit eternal salvation; these are the exception to the rule and not the norm. In this way, claiming belief from a purely self-interested standpoint is a pitifully weak exercise that would doubtless be seen as insufficient to merit any type of reward and/or afterlife from a supreme being when and if a judgment did occur. In this way, the wager loses a great deal of its merit.

A secondary issue surrounds the fact that belief alone is not sufficient in most religious traditions to merit salvation. As such, what does it profit anyone to employ Pascal’s wager to merely “believes” in a higher authority if, by the religious traditions of almost all of the world’s dominant religions, belief alone is not sufficient? A tertiary issue is then brought to the forefront about the god that Pascal would have us believe in. Naturally, Pascal was writing during a time in Europe that was primarily dominated by a belief in a Judeo-Christian God. However, if an individual finds himself/herself wavering between belief and disbelief, there is no clear preference between which of the pantheon of gods that exists in the world religions this person should attempt to believe in. If they, therefore, opt to believe in the idea of god, this leads back to the primary issue that was stated at the beginning of this analysis regarding the fact that belief alone is not enough to guarantee salvation (Nemoianu, 516). Concurrently, the wager also calls to mind a common quote regarding wagers that speaks specifically to the vapidness of Pascal’s logic about this particular question. The saying goes “Nothing ventured – nothing gained”. Concerning Pascal’s wager, the fact of the matter is that there is indeed nothing wagered as the subject who chooses to pursue a hollow belief in a supreme being is only doing so out of a self-interested belief that he/she may obtain some net positive from an empty commitment of belief. However, because the wager itself is betting nothing against everything, the logical merit upon which it rests is called into severe question.

Likewise, this author believes that Pascal’s wager does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny once it is examined under the microscope of practicality, the likely nature of a supreme being, the multi-faceted and non-one-dimensional nature of god(s), and the self-serving nature of the wager itself. Furthermore, a simplistic understanding by even the most rudimentary of theological scholars would be quick to point out that a hollow/shallow belief in a higher power for a self-serving purpose of perceived self-betterment in an afterlife is of little importance as such a display would likely not win salvation for the individual in the first place. For these reasons, the complex yet simplistic question of whether a person believes in God is not able to be reduced to such a simplistic answer as Pascal puts forward to the reader.