Pascal's Wager: What's It Really About?

Most people, including myself, have treated the infamous "Pascal's Wager" as a serious argument for convincing skeptics that it's reasonable to believe in a god. Is it possible, though, that Pascal had something a little different in mind?

Bob Dog has an extended argument in which he explains why he thinks Pascal was making a different point that has long been missed. It's too complex to summarize here, but he ends his argument with:

Pascal is making it clear what he thinks of those who "spread the word of god": they are doing it for their own benefit, not those to whom they proselytize.

I say it clearly: Pascal was not asserting a proof that there is a god, but that the rational are not wrong in denying belief without proof. The answers he found in religion were satisfactory for him, Blaise Pascal, but that he did not arrogantly expect them to satisfy non-believers. And so it should be.

I'm not sure that I am convinced that Bob Dog is right, but I do think that he is making an interesting argument that deserves to be considered. It's a different perspective on things people have assumed they understood.

Read More:

• Critical Thinking
• Religion 101
• Theism 101
• Does God Exist?