Background Probability Theory Pascal's Triangle & Probability Application of Probability Theory Pascal's wager Objections Homework Joyce Lam Nga Ching 2001714828 Phil1007 12-4-2002 27-4-2002
|
Criticisms of Pascal's Wager The Logic of the Argument The
argument consists of four statements:
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as an
assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that there's
really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple logical
inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other. The
alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both assumptions.
The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an assumption which
states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree with that
assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a Christian, it is
in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous tautology, and not
the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.
Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2 over
some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at
people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will
certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn
the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in
him. In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.
Go to Decision Matrix Reference: 1. R.Nicholas,Pascal’s Wager: A study of practical reasoning in philosophical theology, ( Notre Dame,University of Notre Dame Press,1985)
|