Problems of Philosophy Collins 15 December Criticizing Pascal’s Wager Blaise Pascal offers a pragmatic argument as to why he feels God should be believed in by all. He does this in the form of a wager, offering both sides of his argument in order to convey that his stance is the more logical of the two. However, Pascal’s wager does not come without opposition, as I will be criticizing his stance on why he feels it is the safer bet to believe in God. Pascal begins by admitting that we cannot prove God’s existence through sheer reason. Because of this, he offers more of a persuasive consideration, giving reasons as to why someone should believe in God, as it is in their best interest. Pascal essentially believes that the potential benefits of having faith are far better than the potential consequences. His wager basically goes as follows: if you do believe in God, and he actually exists, you will be infinitely rewarded, and have a place in heaven. If you believe, but there turns out to be no God, the only consequence is wasted time; as in going to church, praying, and other holy endeavors. On the other side of this, if you do not believe in God, and upon death you realize God does exist, as a result of your unfaithful and therefore unfulfilled life, you are subjected to eternal damnation. However, if you do not have faith and there is no God, you saved more time in life by not going to church and praying than those who did have faith. Pascal believes that the mere possibility of God’s existence makes faith worthwhile, and that eternal damnation is a consequence too severe to justify atheism. It seems as though one has all to gain and nothing to lose by simply believing. Ifyou were to place a bet on which option is safer, which would you choose? Pascal believes having faith is the ‘safer’ option, and this is the wager that he argues. Pascal’s wager does not come without criticism. One objection I will pose to Pascal is that he assumes too much about the nature of God. He assumes that God is one who rewards believers and punishes nonbelievers. This cannot be assumed, as we know nothing about the actual nature of God, regardless of the question of his existence. It is just as theoretically possible for God to punish all theists as he is to reward them. Pascal might respond by saying that it is still a safer choice to assume that God is benevolent, and his nature is rewarding believers and punishing nonbelievers. In response to this, I would argue that though it is the safe choice, it is not necessarily the smart choice. His argument can be compared to one such as this. If I were to say to my friend, “Give me $20 or an asteroid will plummet to the Earth, killing us all”, it would be the safer choice for my friend to give me the money, ensuring our survival, but it is not the smart choice as the odds of an asteroid plummeting to the Earth are miniscule to say the least. Just because an option is safe, does not mean it is logical. Another objectio.

1. Problems of Philosophy Collins
15 December
Criticizing Pascal’s Wager Blaise Pascal offers a pragmatic
argument as to why he feels God should be believed in by all.
He does this in the form of a wager, offering both sides of his
argument in order to convey that his stance is the more logical
of the two. However, Pascal’s wager does not come without
opposition, as I will be criticizing his stance on why he feels it
is the safer bet to believe in God. Pascal begins by admitting
that we cannot prove God’s existence through sheer reason.
Because of this, he offers more of a persuasive consideration,
giving reasons as to why someone should believe in God, as it is
in their best interest. Pascal essentially believes that the
potential benefits of having faith are far better than the
potential consequences. His wager basically goes as follows: if
you do believe in God, and he actually exists, you will be
infinitely rewarded, and have a place in heaven. If you believe,
but there turns out to be no God, the only consequence is wasted
time; as in going to church, praying, and other holy endeavors.
On the other side of this, if you do not believe in God, and upon
death you realize God does exist, as a result of your unfaithful
and therefore unfulfilled life, you are subjected to eternal
damnation. However, if you do not have faith and there is no
God, you saved more time in life by not going to church and
praying than those who did have faith. Pascal believes that the
mere possibility of God’s existence makes faith worthwhile, and
that eternal damnation is a consequence too severe to justify
atheism. It seems as though one has all to gain and nothing to
lose by simply believing. Ifyou were to place a bet on which
option is safer, which would you choose? Pascal believes having
faith is the ‘safer’ option, and this is the wager that he argues.
Pascal’s wager does not come without criticism. One objection I
will pose to Pascal is that he assumes too much about the nature
of God. He assumes that God is one who rewards believers and

2. punishes nonbelievers. This cannot be assumed, as we know
nothing about the actual nature of God, regardless of the
question of his existence. It is just as theoretically possible for
God to punish all theists as he is to reward them. Pascal might
respond by saying that it is still a safer choice to assume that
God is benevolent, and his nature is rewarding believers and
punishing nonbelievers. In response to this, I would argue that
though it is the safe choice, it is not necessarily the smart
choice. His argument can be compared to one such as this. If I
were to say to my friend, “Give me $20 or an asteroid will
plummet to the Earth, killing us all”, it would be the safer
choice for my friend to give me the money, ensuring our
survival, but it is not the smart choice as the odds of an asteroid
plummeting to the Earth are miniscule to say the least. Just
because an option is safe, does not mean it is logical. Another
objection I will pose is this: you cannot force yourself to
believe in something that you do not truly believe in; but even
if you try, there are an endless amount of Gods and Goddesses
that could possibly exist that you must seemingly account for. A
belief is more of a reaction to evidence than a decision, but
Pascal seems to argue that one only needs to believe in order to
attain salvation. However, if the standard Judeo-Christian
identity of God is accepted for this argument, then God is all-
knowing. It seems fallacious that a being who is all-knowing
would not be able to identify a false believer amongst those who
truly believe. Believing in God simply for the payoff is
believing for the wrong reasons, and an all-knowing being that
Judeo-Christians accept as their idea of God should be able to
identify this. But if one does desire to believe in God solely for
the idea of a payoff in the afterlife, then he or she must believe
in all Gods and Goddesses across every religion. This is the
only one way to completely guarantee that a payoff can be
attained, as all options are therefore covered. Pascal only
identifies two options on the existence of God in his wager: God
exists, or God does not exist. The conditions of the wager do
not specify which God or Gods to believe in, so would the

3. wager stay true for the Greek/Roman Gods, the Nordic Gods,
and countless others? One would have to believe in all of the
Gods and Goddesses to be certain of a payoff in the afterlife,
but this strategy is self-defeating if there were actually only one
true God. Pascal may respond to this by saying that it is in
one’s best interest to eliminate the least probable options. By
doing so, you save time and energy in which to focus on
attaining salvation for the God most probable to appear in the
afterlife. In order to ensure the best and most likely payoff, one
must get rid of the negligible options. In response to this, I
would argue that improbable does not mean impossible, and that
though the concept of meeting the Greek God Zeus in the
afterlife is highly unlikely, there is still a chance that should be
accounted for, assuming one is only believing for the
prospective ultimate payoff in the afterlife. Pascal’s wager
implies that we should force ourselves into believing in a higher
power for the wrong reasons, and does not account for the
possibility of many Gods and or Goddesses that could possibly
appear in the afterlife. Pascal’s wager is seldom used in
modern arguments for the existence of God, most likely due to
the barrage of objections it has faced since its creation. Though
he provides sort of a persuasive consideration on the rationality
behind believing in God, there are simply too many strong
objections that his wager cannot successfully overcome. Pascal
attempts to convince us that it is the rational choice to believe
in God, as eternal damnation is a consequence too severe to
ignore. However, he assumes too much about the nature of God,
and ignores the theoretical possibility of many other Gods
and/or Goddesses being presented in the afterlife. It is for these
reasons that Pascal’s argument is no longer considered to be
theologically valid, and has been largely discarded by the
religious community.
Paper Guidelines

4. Assignment Description:
The purpose of this assignment is to allow you to demonstrate
the skills that you have been developing throughout the
semester in presenting and evaluating philosophical
arguments/theories. This paper will be an expository
presentation and evaluation of one argument/theory from the
“Rationalism” and “Empiricism” sections (i.e., texts by Galileo,
Descartes, Princess Elisabeth, Leibniz, Cudworth, or Hume).
Your paper should focus on 1) briefly introducing the topic and
your thesis in the introduction,
2) reconstructing and presenting an argument or theory from a
selected primary text, and 3) evaluating the argument/theory
(i.e., take issue with, or defend, some aspect of the
argument/theory).
There is no one way to evaluate an argument/interpretation, but
there are some common components of “good” evaluations:
(1) the evaluation is not based on a misunderstanding of the
original argument (and should explain, or at least hint at, why
the original argument has some degree of plausibility);
(2) the evaluation makes assumptions that the original author
would (or consistently could) accept; (3) the evaluation
discusses compelling reasons why the original argument is
problematic or
successful;
(4) the evaluation considers possible responses to the objections
or defenses it has raised (and replies
to these possible responses)
The papers will be submitted as an electronic copy (to the
Blackboard site) and all papers are subject
to plagiarism checks through www.turnitin.com
Assignment Requirements:
- Your paper should be roughly 1300-1500 words.
- Your paper should be double-spaced, with 1” margins, and
should be composed in a
“standard” font (e.g., Times New Roman, Garamond, etc.) size
12.

5. - The papers are to be submitted as an electronic copy to the
Blackboard site (all papers are
subject to plagiarism checks through www.turnitin.com) -
Additional Guidelines:
- You must have a thesis and argue for it. The thesis you will
end up defending should be made
clear early in the paper (i.e., in the introductory paragraph). “I
will discuss X’s paper” or “I will discuss whether or not X’s
position is too demanding” is not a thesis statement. “I will
defend X’s claim/argument for Y,” or “I will argue that the X’s
objection to Y fails” is a thesis statement.
- Before you argue for your thesis, you will have to carefully
explain the relevant background.
- Arguing for your thesis requires giving premises that together
support your thesis, and giving reasons for the truth of the
premises. You will have to use your own judgment in
determining
which of your premises require more support or motivation than
others.
- You must consider at least one response/objection to your
argument and reply to it.
Note: an objection to your argument need not purport to show
that your thesis is false; it need only purport to show that the
argument you give for your thesis is problematic: it has a false
or implausible premise, a fallacious step in reasoning, etc..
- In your reply, be careful not to just repeat your argument for
your thesis. Address the objection itself; make clear why, initial
appearances to the contrary, the objection is
1
mistaken, confused, turns on a misunderstanding of the original
argument, or can be avoided by an appropriate or reasonable
qualification or amendment in your argument.
- Last but not least, keep in mind that a large part of the
evaluation depends on the clarity of your writing. Because
philosophical ideas are inherently abstract and at least
somewhat vague, the most essential virtue of good philosophical

6. writing is clarity, at several different levels:
- Clarity of large-scale organization or structure: It should be
clear to the reader what position or thesis you are defending,
and how all the paragraphs hang together and contribute to your
overall goal. Transitions in the dialectical structure of the paper
(e.g., from presenting someone’s argument to criticizing it, to
considering an objection to your criticism, to responding to it)
should be obvious.
- Clarity of paragraph structure: Each paragraph should be
centered around one main theme or point. It should be clear
what the main point of each paragraph is, and how its sentences
contribute to that paragraph’s main point.
- Clarity of sentence structure: Make sure your sentences are
grammatical, that your use of punctuation is apt, clear use of
subjects, verbs, predicates, etc..
- Clarity with respect to choice of words and phrases: Write so
as not to be misunderstood. Avoid words and phrases that are
vague, ambiguous, don’t make sense, or say something other
than what you are trying to say. Make sure to clearly define any
technical philosophical vocabulary to the reader (don’t assume
your reader knows the philosophical background, or what the
technical terms mean). Think carefully about what you are
trying to say and how best to express it as you write.
- The best way to avoid a lot of these problems in clarity is to
make sure you give yourself time to edit your work. It also
might help to read your draft out loud; that might help you
catch mistakes and awkward phrases that you might otherwise
miss.
- Limit the number of direct quotes you use from the text (do
not use any extended quotes)
- If you choose to defend rather than criticize a particular
argument, you must be sure that you do not
merely restate the same reasons that the author of the original
argument relies upon.
- Supporting an argument involves coming up with reasons,
additional to those discussed by

7. the author, that justify the premises and/or the support they
provide for the conclusion. - You should imagine that you are
writing for a generally educated audience that has no particular
background in philosophy. That is, don’t rely heavily on
technical jargon to make your point.
Using examples to explain difficult and complex concepts can
be extremely helpful!!
- Your goal is have a clear and focused discussion, and to this
end the use of simple, everyday language is well suited. Write
like you speak (omitting, of course, vulgarities and slang).
- Be charitable to the original author! Give him/her the benefit
of the doubt. Ask yourself, “Why would a (sufficiently)
intelligent person think this?”
- This paper is an argumentative essay; the overall goal of the
paper is to present a clear and concise discussion of the material
and then to demonstrate to your audience (through argument)
that your thesis is correct.
- One way to start thinking about possible criticisms to an
argument is to consider the following questions (though
evaluations need not be limited to these questions): Is the
argument valid/strong? Are the premises true? Do you agree
with the conclusion? If so, why? If not, why not?
2
You will be evaluated on the basis of:
1. Your explanation of the relevant background – i.e., the main
theory, problem, or argument that that you are writing on, and
the secondary literature you are responding to. (Accuracy,
Completeness, Clarity)
2. Clarity of your thesis, and the cogency of your argument for
your thesis. 3. Your consideration of (at least one) objection,
and your response to it. 4. The general clarity of the paper
structure and writing.
5. Originality.
Additional Resources:
You can find additional resources under the Resources tab on
the Blackboard page (e.g., Resources - Guidelines on Writing a

8. Philosophy Paper; Resources - Writing Philosophy Papers;
Resources - notes on writing and writing mistakes)
The Writing Center!!
https://earth.callutheran.edu/writing_center/index.php
**If you utilize the services of the Writing Center or the
Philosophy D.A. (e.g., discuss your paper, have them read
through a draft of your paper, etc.) and get an official stamp or
signature certifying that you did so you will receive 2% extra
credit on the paper.
3
Feel free to use the following to outline the structure and
arguments for your paper:
My thesis is:
Summary of primary text argument/theory:
The main premises of my argument for my thesis are:
The central response/objection to my argument that I will
consider is:
This response/objection attacks which part, or step in reasoning,
in my argument?
My reply to the objection is:
4
Philosophy Paper Rubric
Organization (approximately 15%) Clarity of the various parts
of the paper
Exemplary
-The paper has a very effective introduction, with a clear thesis
and indication of the plan of the paper to follow .
-The paper is organized into clear and logically appropriate
sections and subsections.
-There are clear and appropriate transitions within and between
sections.
-The paper is easy to follow and written in a clear and
professional style.
Good
-The paper’s introduction is effective, with a thesis and plan of
the paper to follow, but either not clearly or with the inclusion

9. of irrelevant material.
-The paper is organized into clear and logically appropriate
sections and subsections, though that organization is not
perfectly clear.
-A few transitions between and within sections are either
missing or not all perfectly clear. -The paper is fairly easy to
follow, and generally is written in a clear and professional
style.
Competent
-The paper’s introduction includes a thesis, but either omits
other necessary elements or includes excessive amounts of
irrelevant material.
-The paper has identifiable sections and subsections, but not
arranged in a clear and logical way.
-There are noticeably many missing, unclear, or inappropriate
transitions.
-The writing style and tone negatively affects the intelligibility
of the paper.
Below Average/Inadequate
-The paper either has no introduction, or it has no thesis or
other necessary elements, or it is very unclear or includes
excessive amounts of irrelevant material.
-The paper’s sections and subsections are difficult to identify,
and are not arranged in a logical way. -Transitions are either
largely ignored or are detrimental to making the paper’s
organization clear.
-The writing style seriously compromises the intelligibility of
the essay.
5
Exposition (approximately 35%)
Explanation of views and arguments of others
Exemplary
-All views discussed are presented accurately and clearly.
-Every argument discussed in the paper is clearly stated, with a
clear logical structure, and with an appropriate level of detail.
-Supporting arguments are stated where necessary.

10. -The views and arguments presented are relevant to the paper’s
overall thesis.
Good
-There are isolated errors in the accuracy and clarity of the
views discussed. -Some arguments discussed are somewhat
unclear or incompletely stated. -More exposition of relevant
supporting arguments is necessary.
-Nearly all views and arguments discussed are relevant to the
overall thesis.
Competent
-There are noticeable and significant errors in the accuracy and
clarity of the views discussed, with a negative effect on other
elements of the paper.
-Many of the arguments discussed are unclear or incompletely
stated.
-Exposition of relevant supporting arguments is largely ignored.
-Many arguments discussed in the paper are irrelevant to the
overall thesis.
Below Average/Inadequate
-The views discussed are barely intelligible.
-The arguments discussed are very unclear, largely incomplete,
or barely intelligible. -Relevant supporting arguments are
ignored.
-The arguments discussed are irrelevant to the overall thesis.
6
Evaluation (approximately 40%)
Presentation of the author’s argument(s), criticism of views and
arguments of others, and consideration of possible objections to
the author’s arguments & criticisms
Exemplary
-The author’s own arguments are clearly stated, with a clear
logical structure and with an appropriate level of detail.
-Supporting arguments are given where necessary
-Each reason for believing the thesis is made clear, the premises
clearly support the thesis, and the author is aware of exactly the
kind of support they provide.

11. -Relevant objections are considered where appropriate.
-The author’s views and arguments are relevant to the paper’s
overall thesis.
-The author’s own criticism(s) are clearly stated, with a clear
logical structure and with an appropriate level of detail.
-Relevant objections to the author’s criticism are considered
where appropriate.
-The author’s criticism(s) are relevant to the paper’s overall
thesis.
Good
-The author’s own arguments are clear, but could be put more
clearly and/or with a greater level of detail. -More supporting
arguments are needed, or they require more detail.
-The premises are all clear, although each may not be presented
in a single statement, the premises support the thesis, and the
author is aware of the general kind of support they provide.
-Objections are either not considered in enough detail, or the
paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections.
-Nearly everything discussed is relevant to the overall thesis.
-Some of the author’s criticism(s) are somewhat unclear or
incompletely stated.
-Relevant objections are either not considered in enough detail,
or the paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections.
-Nearly everything related to the author’s criticism(s) is
relevant to the paper’s overall thesis.
Competent
-The author’s arguments are not stated clearly and/or with the
appropriate level of detail.
-Supporting arguments are barely considered where necessary.
-The premises must be reconstructed from the text of the paper,
the premises somewhat support the thesis, but it is not clear the
author is aware of the kind of support they provide.
-Objections are either not considered in detail, or the paper
ignored stronger, more obvious objections. -Some of the
author’s views and arguments given are irrelevant to the overall
thesis.

12. -The author’s criticism(s) are not stated clearly and/or with the
appropriate level of detail.
-Relevant objections are either not considered in detail, or the
paper ignores stronger, more obvious objections.
-Some of the author’s criticism(s) are irrelevant to the paper’s
overall thesis.
Below Average/Inadequate
-The author’s arguments are very unclear or barely intelligible.
-Supporting arguments are not provided where necessary.
-There are no premises—the paper merely restates the thesis.
-Relevant objections are not considered at all, or they receive
very little attention. -The author’s arguments are irrelevant to
the overall thesis.
-The author’s criticism(s) are barely intelligible or hardly stated
at all.
-Relevant objections are not considered, or they receive very
little attention.
-The paper either fails to criticize the views and arguments of
others as required, or the author’s criticisms are irrelevant to
the paper’s overall thesis.
7
Basic Writing (approximately 10%)
Grammar, mechanics, basic usage, usage of terminology, and
style
Exemplary
-There are very few (if any) errors with respect to grammar,
mechanics, word choice, spelling, etc. -There are few (if any)
awkward word choices, phrasing choices, or sentences.
-The paper demonstrates a clear command of proper modes of
expression for basic vocabulary. -Individual paragraphs are
structured properly around a single task or point for each.
-The paper demonstrates a clear command of the proper use of
technical terminology relevant to the subject matter of the
paper.
-The paper demonstrates a clear command of the proper use of
basic, non-technical terminology relevant to philosophy and

13. argumentation.
-Properly-formatted in-text citations are provided where
appropriate, with a properly-formatted list of references at the
end.
Good
-There are occasional minor errors of grammar, mechanics, and
usage in the paper, or perhaps a singular instance of a more
substantial one. Such minor errors have very little effect on the
overall clarity and coherence of the paper.
-There may be an occasional awkward sentence or phrase, but
with little effect on the coherence of the point being made or on
the paper overall.
-There are isolated errors concerning proper modes of
expression for basic vocabulary.
-Nearly all paragraphs are structured properly around a single
task or point.
-There are isolated errors concerning the use of technical
terminology.
-There are isolated errors concerning the use of basic
terminology of philosophy and argumentation. -Some in-text
citations and/or entries in the references list are missing or
improperly formatted.
Competent
-There are noticeably many errors of grammar, mechanics, and
usage, or a moderate number of more substantial errors. The
errors have a detrimental effect on the clarity and coherence of
the paper. -There are a number of awkward sentences and/or
phrases that negatively affect the paper’s coherence. -There are
significant errors with respect to proper modes of expression for
basic vocabulary.
-A significant number of paragraphs are not clearly structured
around a single task or point.
-There are significant errors in the use of technical terminology.
-There are significant errors in the use of the basic terminology
of philosophy and argumentation.
-There are significantly many errors with respect to the paper’s

14. in-text citations and/or the list of references.
Below Average/Inadequate
-There are numerous errors, or there are several types of errors
that occur repeatedly. The errors seriously compromise the
coherence of the paper.
-There are errors resulting in terribly awkward sentences and
phrasing.
-The paper demonstrates little understanding of the proper
modes of expression for basic vocabulary. -Most or all
paragraphs are poorly structured, with few of them having any
clear point.
-The paper demonstrates little or no understanding of the proper
use of technical terminology.
-The paper demonstrates little or no understanding of the proper
use of the basic terminology of philosophy and argumentation.
-The paper shows little or no understanding of the proper use of
in-text citations. A list of references may be missing.