Although it may not be a perfect example, I will take Buddhist monks as an example and I believe this example is good enough because a lot of teachings in the two religions are quite similar, especially when they emphasize humbleness and elimination of greed within themselves.
They practice a life of non-possession, a lot of monks claims that they have found true happiness. Similarly, Christians also may be able to live a happy life by the following bible. Thus, it is not a thoughtful decision to simply conclude that developing a belief leads to negative returns on earth.
Even if Pascal was right in simplifying such conditions and dealing with the issue by applying two players game theory, there are two Nash Equilibria on the table: B, T and N, F. Thus, Pascal cannot merely conclude that believing in God or playing B is the dominant strategy for humans. Trackback URL:. This is a blog on why we believe and do what we do, why we pretend otherwise, how we might do better, and what our descendants might do, if they don't all die.
Subscribe All posts All comments. What Makes Stuff Rot? Are Political Freedoms a Fluke? How Do Aliens Differ? Specifically: Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility when there is one. Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
Conclusion 2. You should wager for God. We now survey some of the main objections to the argument. However, he contends that one can take steps to cultivate such belief: You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions.
These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc.
Bibliography Allais, Maurice, Bartha, Paul, Harrison eds. Bartha, Paul and C. Tyler DesRoches, Broome, John, Brown, Geoffrey, Cain, James, Cargile, James, Castell, Paul and Diderik Batens, Clifford, William K. Madigan ed. Colyvan, Mark, Colyvan, M. Justus, and H. Regan, Conway, John, Cutland, Nigel ed. Diderot, Denis, Duff, Antony, Dummett, Michael. Easwaran, Kenny and Bradley Monton, Ellsberg, D.
Feller, William, II, 2nd edition, London: Wiley. Flew, Anthony, Foley, Richard, Golding, Joshua, Hacking, Ian, Reprinted in Jordan b, 21— Childers et al. Herzberg, Frederik, James, William, Jeffrey, Richard C. Jordan, Jeff, a. Jordan, Jeff ed. Joyce, James M. Lewis, David, Jeffrey ed. Lindstrom, Tom, Lycan, William, and George Schlesinger. Smith eds. Mackie, J. Martin, Michael McClennen, Edward, Monton, Bradley, Morris, Thomas V. Mougin, Gregory, and Elliott Sober, Nalebuff, B.
Nelson, Edward, Nelson, Mark T. Ng, Yew-Kwang, Oppy, Graham, Palacios, M. Asin, Trotter, London: Dent, Penelhum, Terence, Quinn, Philip L. Rescher, Nicholas, Robinson, Abraham, Rota, Michael, Ryan, John, Schlesinger, George, Skalia, H.
Actually, this is one of issues that I have with the christian faith. And why should I need incentive to be good? If you are only being good so you can get a reward, are you even actually doing good, or are you simply working and expecting to get your wage like always? For example, see Shinto, and many flavors of Buddhism as well. In that sense, all action is fundamentally selfish. You could argue that some religions tithe, require time and resource of their members and can cause various individual and macro societal trauma.
But even leaving that aside there is a philosophical cost. If you choose to believe or the wager tips the balance and that leads you to stop questioning and searching for truth. Therefore for all practical purposes there is no useful or detectable function of God. Deluding yourself always comes with a price tag. If so, then point taken.
Well… as flawed and as valid. For anyone convinced by the original I would ask why not the alternate. I would propose, however, from a games theory point of view, that it is not identical. The original wager is that you pay a finite amount however disingenuous that amount may seem to be for an infinite reward. My thought is then that you are assuming that there is a universal system of ethics.
Which leads to the wager part. I understand his idea: What is the point if there is no eternity in mind? Everyone you might be able to affect in life will ultimately end up dead as well, and them too. Is it valid to go on just to keep on going on? Is it valid for the human race to? But as been said, if that is the only reason you want to believe then it is a poor reason. I could understand it being a starting block, it gives people something to think about.
Is it good enough to march on humanity till the heat death of the universe even though by then — and a lot lot sooner — according to evolution mankind will be nothing like it is today? Or can there be something more? God does not punish for unbelief anymore than a highway patrolman might punish you for not believing in the law when he pulls you over.
The problem is often we believe we are good enough for our good to outweigh the bad. Only through paying the fine can we be done with it. In life we cannot. It would be as if we could never get off that freeway to earn money to pay the fine.
We would need someone outside to do it for us. Maybe if we have been talking for an hour plus already.. But it is not nearly enough to stand on its own. Thanks for the comment, Tim! The result of this assumption is that the existence of God is beyond proof.
Pascal then asks the reasoning man to swallow the additional assumptions that if God does exist, belief in him results in reward and lack of belief results in punishment.
0コメント