6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat Pascal's pragmatic argument (especially the Jamesian version) demonstrates is the inaccuracy of the evidentialist position—i.e., "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (W. K. Clifford).
But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.
If Christianity is a live option for some individual (i.e., if it has an intuitive appeal for her, and—for her—lacks any undefeated defeaters), and, further, if there is some perceived good associated with that belief (both in this life and the next), then it is, contrary to the evidentialist position, intellectually permissible (i.e., rational) for her to take steps to believe—even in the absence of conclusive evidence.
It would be a mistake to characterize such arguments as "justifying illogical beliefs", since neither Pascal nor James argue that it is ever rational to believe in an illogical proposition. It is a given in this case that theistic belief is a live option for her—i.e., she finds the proposition not only desirable, but plausible.
For you to assume that Christian belief is illogical merely begs the question.
Originally posted by epiphinehasSeems to me believing in an unproven god is by definition illogical. How can belief be logical? It is faith based and therefore bypasses logical concerns. By definition, illogical.
What Pascal's pragmatic argument (especially the Jamesian version) demonstrates is the inaccuracy of the evidentialist position—i.e., "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (W. K. Clifford).
If Christianity is a live option for some individual (i.e., if it has an intuitive appeal for her, and— ...[text shortened]... ible[/i].
For you to assume that Christian belief is illogical merely begs the question.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is not necessary for a proposition to be proven in order for belief in that proposition to be logical. There are, for instance, logical arguments for God's existence. Were someone to find those arguments compelling, God's existence would then seem to be more reasonable than his non-existence. In which case, believing in God's existence could hardly be said to be illogical, despite lack of proof.
Seems to me believing in an unproven god is by definition illogical. How can belief be logical? It is faith based and therefore bypasses logical concerns. By definition, illogical.
Originally posted by epiphinehasMaybe 'irrational' would have been a better fit.
For you to assume that Christian belief is illogical merely begs the question.
My comment was based on the fact that Pascal did not arrive at his beliefs via his wager argument. He already believed and needed to find some excuse to maintain that belief. His desperation led him to making such an illogical argument as the Pascal Wager.
... if there is some perceived good associated with that belief (both in this life and the next),
Actually my understanding of the wager is that it depends on there being an infinite benefit if the belief turns out to be true. There being some perceived good associated with the belief in this life and the next does not fit with the wagers argument.
It is a given in this case that theistic belief is a live option for her—i.e., she finds the proposition not only desirable, but plausible.
I fail to see how the plausibility is important. The wager, I think, tries to override plausibility by trying to invoke infinity.
Originally posted by twhiteheadbefore attempting to discredit the work of Pascal, you should read a brief history of the man. At sixteen he published a paper on geometry, and his work on fluids makes possible our understanding of modern refigeration. His intellect far surpasses yours, mine and likely anyone on this site. He was neither illogical nor irrational.
Maybe 'irrational' would have been a better fit.
My comment was based on the fact that Pascal did not arrive at his beliefs via his wager argument. He already believed and needed to find some excuse to maintain that belief. His desperation led him to making such an illogical argument as the Pascal Wager.
[b]... if there is some perceived good associ ...[text shortened]... is important. The wager, I think, tries to override plausibility by trying to invoke infinity.
Originally posted by DowardHe did die in 1662 however, and his ignorance of modern science does rather reduce the validity of his opinion today, regardless of his intellect.
before attempting to discredit the work of Pascal, you should read a brief history of the man. At sixteen he published a paper on geometry, and his work on fluids makes possible our understanding of modern refigeration. His intellect far surpasses yours, mine and likely anyone on this site. He was neither illogical nor irrational.
Originally posted by DowardHe was clearly both illogical and irrational when it came to his beliefs. His success as a scientist and mathematician and even his apparent intellect does not in any way prove that he could not be irrational or illogical when it came to religion.
before attempting to discredit the work of Pascal, you should read a brief history of the man. At sixteen he published a paper on geometry, and his work on fluids makes possible our understanding of modern refigeration. His intellect far surpasses yours, mine and likely anyone on this site. He was neither illogical nor irrational.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're being obtuse. Try reading the Pensee; it is anything but illogical or irrational. But oh wait a minute, if a rational person believed in God, that would just blow your entire "rationale" clean out of the water.
He was clearly both illogical and irrational when it came to his beliefs. His success as a scientist and mathematician and even his apparent intellect does not in any way prove that he could not be irrational or illogical when it came to religion.
T- you have been exposed as a fraud. In this thread and others you have been shown rational and reasoned ideas for the belief in a creator. Many intelligent men of science, reason and philosophy have come to the conclusion that a deity exists. For that reason and others your argument does not hold water. Furthermore I would go so far as to say that you know it doesn't hold water, and that is the source of your angry and bitter nature
Originally posted by buckkyContrary to popular belief, one should never trust their feelings.
Is all religious or spiritual belief based on nothing more than feeling ? I'm not knocking the feeling part of life, but how many out there got involved with a religion because it sounded logical. I get in trouble because of my feeling overload. My personality type is a INFJ according the Meyers Briggs test. People like me get involved with cults and airy fairy crap because of the feeling out weighing the thinking. Discernment is needed.
Or anything else for that matter.
Except the Word of God.
Originally posted by josephwOk, just which god would we be talking about here? It turns out there are Muslim gods, Christian gods, Hindu gods, Probably as many gods as there are people. So which one?
Contrary to popular belief, one should never trust their feelings.
Or anything else for that matter.
Except the Word of God.