Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James on God

 

Among the most important common beliefs that were held by Blaise Pascal, Immanuel Kant, and William James is that we cannot know or prove that God exists. However, these individuals also offered justifications for their decision to believe that God exists. In this paper, there will be a comparison and contrast of their various stances in order to determine the individual that offers the best and worst justification for the belief that God exists.

One of the most significant arguments made by Pascal is based on the Expectation Rule, which essentially suggests that no matter the smallness of the probability that God exists, as long as it is in the positive, it will ensure that there is the advancement of the belief that God exists over the one that suggests the opposite. Having reason to believe that the proposition that God exists is true ensures that there is the promotion of means to bring about the rational belief of that existence. This is a situation which can ensure that there is precedence over any evidential strength to the contrary because it is based on the assumption that because an entity is believed to exist in a positive manner, it is the rational action to state that it is true. Pascal makes use of the rational argument to promote his belief in the existence of God and this is to such an extent that he considers the formation of the belief that God exists is the rational thing to do even in a situation where there is little likelihood of this circumstance being true. His argument considers that having a belief in a proposition is important because it allows the proposition to take precedence over any evidential strength even though it lacks any evidential support.

James, on the other hand, is of the opinion that belief should be based on an act of faith rather than seeking out evidence concerning the belief. He proposes that one of the most important strategies that can be employed in the process of making sure that there is the advancement of belief is to seek out the truth by any means possible, even at the risk of error. James is extremely critical of such ideas as Clifford’s Rule, which advance the need to ensure that there is the avoidance of all error in the process of finding truths. Instead, he advances the idea that it is essential to consider that errors are inevitable in the process of finding truths because the avoidance of errors can lead to a situation where there is a risk that there will be a loss of certain truths. He further suggests that there are certain instances where facts cannot be developed at all unless there is an element of faith in the process. James provides the example of the manner through which social organisms coexist as a means of showing that belief is a strong factor in the functioning of any social institution. This is especially considering that individuals often undertake their own duties in the society in the faith that others are doing the same. A consequence is that faith remains a prerequisite when it comes to functioning in any cooperative environment.

Kant sees faith as being a means through which it becomes possible for individuals to engage with their will, and this is unlike knowledge. Having faith is a process that involves the commitment of individuals to morality and this is to such an extent that it not only involves the affirmation of the commitment, but also a free act of faith that ensures that individuals have bound themselves to morality. Kant sees morality as inevitably leading to religion and that it is essential that the latter exists because it allows individuals to have access to morality. This stance can be interpreted as Kant’s belief that moral law depends wholly on the existence of God, and that religion serves the function of making sure that individuals stick to a strict moral code. Therefore, in this situation, religion seems to exist as a means of making sure that individuals are bound to morality, and this is in such a way that one cannot exist without the other; essentially affirming the existence of God.

In conclusion, the comparison of the beliefs of the philosophers above concerning the existence of God shows that Kant’s justification is the most convincing. This is because he promotes the idea that morality cannot exist without religion, and that they both rely on one another to function effectively. A belief in the existence of a Supreme Being is important because it encourages individuals to ensure that they undertake to observe morality because without such a belief, they will not have the motivation to coexist with others peacefully. Pascal’s wager, on the other hand, can be considered the least convincing because he does not offer any substantial evidence other than one based on belief, which ensures that it is the easiest argument for the existence of God that can be challenged.