‘Even though there is not enough evidence to establish God’s existence, it is still more rational to choose to believe there is a God, then to believe there is not.’ Discuss.
‘Even though there is not enough evidence to establish God’s existence, it is still more rational to choose to believe there is a God, then to believe there is not.’ Discuss.
Is it rational to choose to believe in God? The proof of God’s existence has been attempted by many a philosopher and argument, yet on countless occasions the reason of the argument has been flawed. Philosophers such as Pascal, James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga and Freud each have there own arguments on the matter of whether it is more rational to choose to believe there is a God, then to believe there is not.
Blaise Pascal came up with an argument known as Pascal’s Wager. It argues that we have good practical reason to believe in God, because there are vast benefits if you believe in him. It tries to give good reason for believing in God without attempting to prove God’s existence, proving God’s existence is independent from this argument. Reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. Accordingly, the options would be as follows: The first being that you may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness. The second option is you may live a pleasure-seeking life and be denied eternal happiness. The third option is that you may live a holy life but there is actually no God or eternal life. Lastly, the fourth option is you may live a pleasure-seeking life but it makes no difference because there is no God. For Pascal, the first of these options is the most important one because it represents the maximum gain and loss. Even if it should turn out that there is no God, the sheer risk of deciding against such a possibility warrants that we should take that option. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager shows that Pascal believes that it is rational to choose to believe there is a God, because it is for the greater good – you will go to heaven (if God does
Is it rational to choose to believe in God? The proof of God’s existence has been attempted by many a philosopher and argument, yet on countless occasions the reason of the argument has been flawed. Philosophers such as Pascal, James, Kierkegaard, Plantinga and Freud each have there own arguments on the matter of whether it is more rational to choose to believe there is a God, then to believe there is not.
Blaise Pascal came up with an argument known as Pascal’s Wager. It argues that we have good practical reason to believe in God, because there are vast benefits if you believe in him. It tries to give good reason for believing in God without attempting to prove God’s existence, proving God’s existence is independent from this argument. Reason and intellect cannot decide the question of whether God exists or not; therefore, it makes sense to choose the option that would benefit us most should we be right. Accordingly, the options would be as follows: The first being that you may live a religious and moral life and be rewarded by eternal happiness. The second option is you may live a pleasure-seeking life and be denied eternal happiness. The third option is that you may live a holy life but there is actually no God or eternal life. Lastly, the fourth option is you may live a pleasure-seeking life but it makes no difference because there is no God. For Pascal, the first of these options is the most important one because it represents the maximum gain and loss. Even if it should turn out that there is no God, the sheer risk of deciding against such a possibility warrants that we should take that option. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager shows that Pascal believes that it is rational to choose to believe there is a God, because it is for the greater good – you will go to heaven (if God does