Various arguments about the existence of a supreme being have existed since time immemorial. Philosophers have contradicting opinions about God. While some claim that a supreme being does exist, others refute this assertion because there is no evidence of the existence of God. Anselm of Canterbury, a philosopher who was also an archbishop, proposed an ontological argument that God did exist and he was greater than any other thing that existed. Pascal Blaise, a mathematician, and philosopher claimed that human beings are uncertain about the existence of God, with some believing that he exists while others do not. In this paper, I intend to contradict Pascal’s argument with that of Anselm’s and defend Pascal’s view.
Pascal Blaise was a French mathematician, writer, and Physicist. He was born in the year 1623 in France and died in the year 1662(Jenkins). He contributed greatly to the field of natural and applied sciences. He is considered to be one of the inventors of mechanical calculators which he built while still a teenager. In the year 1646, he converted to Catholic and started writing about theology and philosophy. As per his philosophy on religion, there was uncertainty whether God was existent or non-existent.
According to Pascal’s argument, a person with intellect ought to live with the belief of the existence of a supreme being. The existence of the creator meant that human beings were bound to be rewarded infinitely when they went to heaven and avoided infinite losses, which was signified by going to hell. If one lived while believing that God was nonexistent, it meant they would not receive infinite gains since they would not go to heaven. According to him, it was up to human beings to decide on believing in the existence of a supreme being or not; this was because it was uncertain that the creator existed. He claimed that there was no tangible evidence provided by nature that proved that God really existed. He pondered on the thought of the creator is unable to reveal Himself, yet He could sustain nature, this increased his uncertainty on God’s existence even though he was Catholic. “If I saw everywhere the marks of a creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him and too little to assure me. I am in a pitiful state and would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature, it would reveal him without ambiguity”(Ralph).
Pascal argument is reasonable because he has not claimed that the Creator is nonexistent rather argues that it is hard to believe His existence with no tangible evidence. He supports Anselm’s argument by admitting that a supreme being exists although contradicts it to some extent. Since Christianity mainly requires individuals to have faith in the creator, the claim by Pascal that there is no evidence of God’s existence contradicts Anselm’s ontological argument. The fact that it cannot be proved whether a supreme being exists can be confusing to some people. His argument might fail to cater for other religions as Pascal was referring to the Christian God. Other religions might not support the Pascal wager since they have many gods. He ought to have taken other religions into consideration even though he was a Christian. As per his philosophy on religion, he only recognizes Christianity as the most relevant one. His argument is vague such that it gives room for people to come to various conclusions. Instead of providing clarity on whether the creator exists, it compels someone to ask more questions about the matter than get answers.
Pascal would have been able to provide clarity on the matter since he was a Christian. He ought to have consulted various Catholic leader to get clarity on the existence of God, maybe then he would have come to a better conclusion rather letting uncertainty cloud his mind. If he had employed thorough research on other religions, he would have found the answers to specific questions that were left unanswered. Other religions might have had some similarities to Christianity when it came to acknowledging the existence of a supreme being. Since Pascal was a mathematician, he would have responded to my observations by claiming that it was hard to believe something which could not be seen, it would have been similar to blindly believing a myth regardless of whether it was true or false.
In conclusion, Pascal’s argument contradicts with that of Anselm because it invokes a reader to ask many questions. The argument can be refuted by Christians who are required to have faith in the existence of God whether there is evidence or not. Pascal’s argument can be supported by scientists and others people who mainly deal with facts and not myths. Every person has to decide whether to believe in the existence of the creator or not, even though it cannot be proved that He exists.
Works Cited
Works Cited
Jenkins, Martin. "Brief Lives: Blaise Pascal." Philosophy Now (2018): 45-47. Document.
Ralph, Blumenau. Philosophy and Living. Andrews UK Limited, 2014. Document.
