Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Group 4: Pascal's Wager
The problem I have with Pascal's Wager is that it goes against what I thought philosophy was meant to do, find the truth if possible using logic and reason. With this argument, it is not out of logic and reason, but rather fear. He supposes that you have nothing to lose from believing in God, right or wrong, and everything to lose in not believing in God. But what about the way that you lead the life you have? I do believe that there is something , if not much, lost in believing in a God and a religion that comes with confining rules that you must follow. It puts restrictions on your experiences in life. It effects both the physical and mental aspects in life that you can explore. I guess Nietzsche said it better with his idea of the "slave morality". These limitations on experiencing the fullest life possible in order to stay under the control of God is horrible to begin with, little alone to take on a God and lifestyle that I do not believe in. To me, it is a risk I'm willing to take. Fear can not overpower me to live a life that I can't believe in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not entirely sure that's what Nietzsche meant precisely by slave morality, though I guess it would be a part of it. But I'll fully admit I'm not very up on my Nietzsche
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of it, and it has been awhile, is that religion, mostly Christianity, creates a moral code that keeps people from achieving there fullest potential by the rule that you are forced to follow. It creates a culture of "slaves" that are controlled by the "masters", those who are in control of the application of the moral code. These are your priests and other religions figures that pass down the religion's moral code to the masses, creating a hierarchy in society. This might need some refinement, but it was just the first thing that came to mind when I was reading.
DeleteYou may be right, I think I was confusing it with Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic.
DeleteNietzsche includes most of society into this definition. With a focus on religious leaders, he still speaks of any sort of control on another being as forming a slave morality (including many forms of government). His big thing is pity and not having any lol.
DeleteI, too, am left completely unconvinced that Pascal’s Wager is a reasonable argument for/defense of theistic belief. The most obvious hurdle for me, as pointed out by Baggini, is the ethnocentric nature of the statement. Pascal doesn’t seem to be aware that the very logic he his using to support his belief could just as well be used to support another, possibly conflicting, belief. This Wager also makes the unforgivable mistake of entwining the concept of God with that of hell, as if the two were by their very nature inseparable (more proof of Pascal’s ethnocentrism). It is also quite strange that Pascal sees no distinction between a true believer and one who simply believes because it is the most mathematically safe option - here Pascal offends not only the atheist’s viewpoint but also the reputation of a God that would accept such petty belief. However, if we do indeed use Pascal’s mathematic model, I agree that this Wager does not take into account other factors that would figure greatly in any sort of sincere “calculation” of probability, such as the immense amount of life one could miss out on and the subsequent psychological stress of living a life not your own. The real gaff of this Wager, however, is the way in which it forces the presenter of the counterargument into an almost childish attempt at psychoanalyzing a deity which they don’t even believe in, as Baggini does when he starts extrapolating the motives of God and using his inferences of God’s imaginary feelings to refute Pascal’s original point. An atheist falling into the same trap as countless theists throughout history before him, of attributing human emotions and character traits to divine entities, is at least ironic if not discrediting (it is this kind of reasoning throughout the first three chapters of the book which leaves me largely unsatisfied with Baggini’s case as well). I have come to the belief that the only reason atheist’s even bother mentioning this argument is for the fact that it is such an easy idea to dismiss.
ReplyDeletePascal's Wager is still very popular among the rank and file believers. Engage in a few facebook debates, and you will see it deployed again and again as a last ditch maneuver.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John's point, Pascal's approach is steeped in fear and insincerity. Christopher Hitchens always made the point that fear is the mark of servitude - so the Nietzschean reference is apt.
ReplyDeleteBut David's right too: many people do still approach "faith" as mainly a calculation. The idea is to cultivate conviction. (I guess it's assumed that an omniscient deity doesn't care how you arrive at your belief, as long as you get there.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut just as everyone has noted, if one did decide to hedge their bet--incentive be damned--one would still have to decide upon which god to wager.
ReplyDeleteAll those gods; so little time.