I don't post so much, so here is a paper I wrote for my Eng. 102 class!
If you believe in God and it turns out you are wrong, you have lost nothing. If you disbelieve in God and it turns out you are wrong, you will go to hell. Therefore, it is foolish not to believe. This is a very popular argument for belief in God, and is often given by theists in an attempt to show an atheist that his disbelief is a dangerous gamble. However, most who put forth the argument do not realize that it has a formal name - “Pascal’s Wager.” Blaise Pascal was a seventeenth century French philosopher, and in his unfinished work Pensées he presented the argument in question, albeit much more eloquently worded. While the argument is a very tempting one for the theist (it is short, simple, and seems to prove the point), it suffers in several ways from one major flaw: the logical fallacy known as “False Dilemma,” sometimes reffered to as the “Either/Or Fallacy.”
Essentially, Pascal assumes that there are only two possibilities; that God exists, and indeed rewards or punishes as understood by popular Christian theology, or that he does not exist. In doing so, several distinct possibilities have been overlooked. For instance, the possibility that God does not behave as described in Christian doctrine, and instead rewards intelligence and skeptical inquiry, rather than a blind or illogical faith. Or perhaps God does not reward or punish at all; this and a multitude of other possibilities are equally probable, as there is no empirical evidence in favor of any one of them. As such, there is a serious logical flaw in assuming ones notion of how God does or does not act is correct.
Another monumental assumption made by the argument is that Christianity is the only religion that is entitled to make such a claim. In reality, nearly every world religion makes similar claims that they are the one true faith. The vast majority of these religions are mutually exclusive to each other (that is, more than one of them cannot be logically true), and what’s more, most of them require exclusive belief. It follows then that one must take into account the potential cost of believing in the wrong god; perhaps that god would more actively punish those who believed in a false god rather than those who did not believe at all? In failing to acknowledge this possibility, the first premise of the argument is rendered invalid. The argument is therefore a non sequitur, as the syllogism fails.
Now, to be fair, Pascal did address the aforementioned possibilities somewhat in Pensées. However, his logic in this regard does little to further his case. In Pensee 208, he asserts that Christianity alone is exempt from error and vice, and is the only religion that man should pay any regard to. This is clearly a textbook example of the logical fallacy of “Petitio Principii,” or “Begging the Question.” Here Pascal has postulated that Christianity is the one true faith, with literally no evidence for his position. It should be noted that religion was a far more simple matter in Pascal’s time, and as such he may not have found it necessary to present any evidence for its truth. This is understandable, as religion was known without a doubt to be true, just as the Earth was known to be flat. Although these may have been acceptable folkways of the time, and one can easily see why Pascal reasoned as he did, this does not give the argument an exemption from the rules of logic, against which it sins egregiously.
There is a valuable lesson to be learned from Pascal’s Wager; while it may be tempting to take this kind of oversimplified, black and white stance on religion, it will only end up hurting the cause of Christianity in the end. For while some people may be influenced by this argument on the grounds of fear, any progress made towards a conversion to Christianity will be lost when the logic of the argument is illuminated and shown to be logically erroneous. At this point, the inclination towards Christianity may even be replaced by a malice or distrust of the religion, as the person who has been unfairly persuaded may now feel lied to or used. It is for this reason that one must always argue with very strong logic, for when an argument is logically powerful, one need not worry about the potential fallout when his well-intentioned half-truths are shown for what they are.
Essentially, Pascal assumes that there are only two possibilities; that God exists, and indeed rewards or punishes as understood by popular Christian theology, or that he does not exist. In doing so, several distinct possibilities have been overlooked. For instance, the possibility that God does not behave as described in Christian doctrine, and instead rewards intelligence and skeptical inquiry, rather than a blind or illogical faith. Or perhaps God does not reward or punish at all; this and a multitude of other possibilities are equally probable, as there is no empirical evidence in favor of any one of them. As such, there is a serious logical flaw in assuming ones notion of how God does or does not act is correct.
Another monumental assumption made by the argument is that Christianity is the only religion that is entitled to make such a claim. In reality, nearly every world religion makes similar claims that they are the one true faith. The vast majority of these religions are mutually exclusive to each other (that is, more than one of them cannot be logically true), and what’s more, most of them require exclusive belief. It follows then that one must take into account the potential cost of believing in the wrong god; perhaps that god would more actively punish those who believed in a false god rather than those who did not believe at all? In failing to acknowledge this possibility, the first premise of the argument is rendered invalid. The argument is therefore a non sequitur, as the syllogism fails.
Now, to be fair, Pascal did address the aforementioned possibilities somewhat in Pensées. However, his logic in this regard does little to further his case. In Pensee 208, he asserts that Christianity alone is exempt from error and vice, and is the only religion that man should pay any regard to. This is clearly a textbook example of the logical fallacy of “Petitio Principii,” or “Begging the Question.” Here Pascal has postulated that Christianity is the one true faith, with literally no evidence for his position. It should be noted that religion was a far more simple matter in Pascal’s time, and as such he may not have found it necessary to present any evidence for its truth. This is understandable, as religion was known without a doubt to be true, just as the Earth was known to be flat. Although these may have been acceptable folkways of the time, and one can easily see why Pascal reasoned as he did, this does not give the argument an exemption from the rules of logic, against which it sins egregiously.
There is a valuable lesson to be learned from Pascal’s Wager; while it may be tempting to take this kind of oversimplified, black and white stance on religion, it will only end up hurting the cause of Christianity in the end. For while some people may be influenced by this argument on the grounds of fear, any progress made towards a conversion to Christianity will be lost when the logic of the argument is illuminated and shown to be logically erroneous. At this point, the inclination towards Christianity may even be replaced by a malice or distrust of the religion, as the person who has been unfairly persuaded may now feel lied to or used. It is for this reason that one must always argue with very strong logic, for when an argument is logically powerful, one need not worry about the potential fallout when his well-intentioned half-truths are shown for what they are.