Both Pascal's and Silverman's wagers are logical. While, at some point, I find Silverman's position reasonable, it is such only if taking Pascal's position in a very simplistic way. Silverman makes the point that God would favor reason and intelligence over blind faith which is rather understandable. It is indeed better to develop own intelligence, progress and become a better human being than not to. But I do not think that it is all about going to heaven and talking to God. I think that God is rather entity than being. Pascal’s position, in my opinion, is much deeper than it is thought by Silverman. I think Pascal intended to say that it is not hard to believe in God. And if one clings to this belief and lives up to it, then his life will change for better. However, if one clings to this belief and God does not exist then he will lose nothing because his life will still be better.
I both agree and disagree with this post. I agree to the point that it is not the best reason to believe in God because one hopes for a better afterlife. However, I would disagree with the second claim. The belief in God is irrational because the God is beyond reason (as by the way Pascal says). So, one is unlikely to research and find that yes, indeed, he is better to believe in God. It’s like you feel you know what you mean under the concept of God and cling to it.
I agree with this post and would like to add up to this topic. It is indeed not as important how we call any given phenomenon, but as how we grasp its essence. This is true about God. It is not the sole question of God's existence important, but its consequences. It is more important to consider what do we believe about God? Is God the creator of the universe, the white-bearded man in the sky, the reason for everything, or is simply love? In my opinion, it is better to come to an understanding of what does God mean to us and what are its implications for our lives.