A. Start off by summarizing Pascal’s Wager in your own words. One objection to Pascal’s Wager is that this does not seem to produce sincere belief in God. The idea here is that if you just believe in God to hedge your bets and to avoid going to Hell, then this is not sincere belief. Do you agree with this objection? Why or why not?
B. One objection to Pascal’s Wager involves many-gods. The idea here is that just like you could argue you should believe in the Christian God to hedge your bets, so, too, you could argue that you should believe in ancient gods such as Zeus or Thor to hedge your bets as well. What do you think of this objection, and do you think it shows that Pascal’s Wager is not plausible for people today?
C. One of the things that we talked about this week is the idea that religious belief is a “momentous option.” The corresponding slide this week in the module says on this point:
We should not postpone deciding whether or not to believe that God exists. Nor is this a decision that should be made lightly. Whether one chooses to believe that God exists is a matter of extreme existential importance, as how we answer this question is likely to greatly affect how we choose to spend time, how we make other important life decisions, how we raise our children, and so on.
Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
D. One thing that you have done this week is examine the idea of the sensus divinitatis in Reformed Epistemology. Explain the sensus divinitatis, and why advocates of Reformed Epistemology think that this makes it plausible to believe in God without evidence or proof. End by stating if you agree or disagree with the Reformed Epistemologist. Why or why not?