Pascal’s Wager Argument for Believing in God and Descartes' Arguments for Doubt

Take-home Midterm Exam
Name:
Institutional affiliation:
* Pascal’s Wager In your own words give a clear explanation of Pascal’s Wager Argument for believing in God. Be sure to include a matrix showing the costs/payoffs under the different options and outcomes of the gamble. We considered at least 5 objections that could be raised against Pascal’s Wager Argument. State and explain at least three of those objections. Explain what possible replies to Pascal might make to these objections? Do you believe Pascal’s argument is successful in giving a reason to believe in God? Why or why not?
Pascal Wager’s argument uses game theory to argue that the belief in God is rational. People can choose to either believe or not in God. If one chooses to believe and it happens by chance that God exists, he or she receives infinite happiness; if one decides not to believe and happens that God exists, he receives infinite suffering on earth and in hell. On the other hand, if one believes in God and God happens not to exist, there is a little disadvantage, mainly due to time wasted in living and committing to Christian teachings. On the other hand, if one does not believe in God and happens that God does not exist, they receive an infinite pleasure from a life lived unlimited by Christian moral teachings. In short, Pascal argues that the issue of believing in God is purely by chance – if you gain, you gain everything; if you lose, you lose nothing. Nonetheless, one has to believe or not believe with each option having its value. For example, if the existence of God was just 1% and non-existence 99% likely, the belief in God still has a higher value. If one does not believe in God and happens that He exists by chance, then the value of this bet is certainly bad (PHI107. Lect.9.21.2).
Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1:Pascal’s Decision Matrix
The key objections to Pascal Wager’s argument on God’s existence are: (1) believing in God just for the payoff is unfounded as self-centered beliefs might not make one fully and wholeheartedly serve the deity. But Pascal’s possible response is that one should act in ways that produce sincere trust and belief in the deity. The second objection is what if God does not exist or what if his probability of existence is zero (0). In this objection, if the probability of God not existing is zero, then the probability of God = 0. Pascal’s response is that God’s existence could be unlikely, but it is never impossible. The third objection is that even if God exists as Pascal purports, how can people know that the rewards or payoffs are as what Pascal claims? There are many gods and to be sure which God to believe in is still a 50/50 chance. To increase the chances of payoff, one has to believe in all gods (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, etc.). If there were only one God, chances of gaining a payoff would be high. Pascal would respond that believing in any god, whether Islam or Muslim remains the infinitely better bet than not believing (PHI107. Lect.9.21.2). Ideally, Pascal’s argument on the existence of God is a success. The cost of unbelief is harsher in by chance God exists. No one loses big if the God he believes in does not exist.
* Descartes and Arguments for Doubt: In the First Meditation, René Descartes gives three arguments to raise skeptical doubts about his prior beliefs. List those three arguments by name. Select the argument that you believe is best of the three. Explain that argument in your own words. Which beliefs does the argument call into doubt? And which beliefs (if any) does it not call into doubt? What objection(s) might be raised against the argument? Any reply?
Three of René Descartes’s arguments that raise skeptical doubt about his prior beliefs are: (1) The Argument from past Unreliability of the Senses; (2) The Dream Argument; and (3) The All-Powerful Deceiver/Evil Demon Argument. The dream argument is the best of the three and is founded on the notion that information received through our senses is not necessarily accurate. In the dream argument, Descartes argues that he dreams things that appear accurately real while sleeping. In one of the dreams, he is sited by the fireside and can feel the warmth, just as he always feels in real life, even though there is no fire. As such, the fact that he can feel the warmth of the fire does not allow him to differentiate between when he is dreaming and when he is awake. With this analogy, Descartes cannot distinguish with certainty being asleep from being awake and has a reason to doubt all of his sensory beliefs. But while the dream argument calls into doubt all of his sensory-based beliefs, it does not call into doubt the basic beliefs of logic and mathematics, i.e., 2+3 =5. Basic beliefs of math and logic are too obvious to doubt whether asleep or awake. The dream argument can as well make one doubt his or her a posteriori beliefs but cannot make one doubt the apriori beliefs. The key objection to these arguments is its inconsistency owing to the presumption of the real distinction between waking and dreaming (PHI107 End of God).
* Direct and Indirect Realism. In your own words, explain the two views of perception known as Direct Realism and Indirect Realism. We considered five arguments for Indirect Realism. Select the argument that you believe is the best of the five. Explain that argument in your own words. What objection(s) might the Direct Realist raise against that argument? Any reply to defend the argument? Do you believe the argument is successful? Why or why not? Which theory do you think is better – Direct Realism or Indirect Realism? Briefly say why?
Direct realism argues that our perceptions are directly and immediately influenced by external objects such as apples, cars, trees, and tables. People just see them except that there has to be an intermediate causal step, but all these intervening cases are never an immediate object of our human awareness. Humans are only aware of the perception of our external objects but not inner things. As such, while something inner must always ha...