Epistemic Reasoning In Blaise Collins The Wager

James(1897) argues that certain actions and convictions need pre-existing beliefs which do not require sufficient evidence. He uses Pascal’s Wager as an example – James (1897) argues Pascal’s Wager may force individuals in choosing to either believe in God or not, regardless of there being sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the former or latter. However, James (1897) argues that different propositions

This shows that Lewis highly values reason and doesn’t want people to just believe something without having proved it to themselves first. W.K. Clifford is a bit more extreme in his belief that it is not okay to just believe without proof or reason as Clifford sees doing this as not just incorrect but ethically wrong. This relates to our class discussion on the connections between faith and reason and what roles each play in people’s

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

There are some questions in the religious domain that reason cannot answer because there are situations in every religion that cannot logically be explained. Religions are not rational; therefore, reason alone is not adequate enough to validate religious truths. In this paper, I will demonstrate how reason and faith aren’t separate entities and how both are needed in order to explain all religious truths by examining the ideas of Kierkegaard and Pascal. I will also give a detailed explanation of fideism, show examples of irresponsible fideism and responsible fideism and then argue in favor of responsible fideism; faith fills in the gaps that are left void by reason.

The fine-tuning argument by Collins highlights a universe which has been perfectly created for suitable life and that the smallest miscalculation would have been unbearable to sustain life. According to the first premise, the reality of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism, while premise two states, the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis. The conclusion is that fine-tuning data support robust evidence to support the design hypothesis over the atheistic singe-universe hypothesis. As already noted, most critics would reject the fine tuning-argument by making a compelling argument that there are likely many other big bang that we are probably unaware of and that it is highly probable the universe

Blaise Pascal’s famous work, “the Wager,” utilizes about the concept of pragmatic justification in the terms of deciding whether or not to believe in God. In response to this, William Clifford publishes “The Ethics of Belief” countering Pascal’s view. Neither Pascal or Clifford’s views are perfect, but they are both worth examining. Clifford 's universal rejection of pragmatic justification is ultimately too harsh on Pascal’s Wager.

Since the 19th century, William Clifford and William James have been the foremost religious theorist and have attempted to answer significant creation and theological mysteries. However, Clifford and James have varying views on the belief debate, each formulating a rational argument of what the basis for belief should be. Clifford’s, Ethics of Belief and James’ The Will to Believe outline their respective arguments which are vastly similar and but have marked differences. Both articles will be examined for these similarities and difference and stated within this paper.

Throughout history Literature has always played a unique part in shaping society and symbolizing the beliefs of its people. King Louis XIV served after a time in which there was great conflict amongst Catholics and Huguenots. This conflict brought many uncharacteristic thoughts in to society. This religious conflict would lead to a new view of the world in the eyes of those who believed in the enlightenment. Moliere and Voltaire were both influential writers who strongly represented the enlightenment beliefs in their works Tartuffe and Candide. The enlightenment brought up a rather youthful philosophy in the early seventeenth century. This philosophy focused on reason and good sense more so than common knowledge. The upper class believed they were the only group that could obtain knowledge; the enlightenment questioned this belief. This new idea helped progress the belief and hope that the middle class could become scholars themselves. In the works Tartuffe and Candide, both authors reveal an unseasoned satirical writing technique in an attempt to attack the societies and in particular the religious communities logical approach.

Reason can not settle which way people incline, but a belief of a relevant outcome can. The determination of this theory was based off of finite or infinite gains or losses. There were four possible outcomes of probability where Pascal used to promote the belief in the existence of God. His arguments for the existence can be defined between the Super-dominance argument, the expectations argument, and the dominating expectations argument. All arguments put a wager on believing in God, basically putting a bet on their lives.

In questioning the existence of God, the ideology of fideism is used to in support the existence of God with the use of faith. Opposed to other various views, fideism relies on the use of faith and/or revelation rather than depending single-handedly on reason alone. Blaise Pascal is a French philosopher that approaches the doctrine and beliefs of fideism using his “wager” argument to confirm the concept that there is a monotheistic God in existence (269).

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

The existence of God is a question that has troubled and plagued mankind since it began to consider logic. Is there a God? How can we be sure that God exists? Can you prove to me that He is real? Does His existence, or lack thereof, make a significant difference? These loaded questions strike at the heart of human existence. But the real question is, can we answer any of them? These questions are answered in the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal and St. Anselm of Canterbury. For thousands of years, theologians, philosophers and scientists have been trying to prove or disprove God’s existence. Many, including the three mentioned above, have strong proofs and theories that attempt to confirm God’s existence. Although, without any scientific evidence, how can they be entirely sure? “Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs,” (Kreeft). Gravity similar to God’s existence ; it cannot be seen nor explained, yet it still exists. With faith, reason, understanding and even some math, God’s existence can be verified rationally.

As with many decisions in everyday life, one may also perform a cost benefit analysis. A Pascalian wager is made with the notion that God may or may not exist. If one believes in God and God exists, then one will go to Heaven. If one believes in God and God does not exist, there will not be much to lose. However, if one does not believe in God and God does exist, an eternity of damnation will be faced. On this basis, it is rational to believe in God (Clark, 1994). We are

Another factor was the development of the law of frequency errors. In the 17th century, Huygens published work about reasoning strategies for dice games and other games of chance. A subsequent publication from De Moivre was published into three editions during the 18th century. De Moivre’s works were said to be highly influential to the scientific field since it generated the bell-shaped curve (Cowels & Davis, 2016). Soon thereafter, Laplace and Gauss applied distribution principles, previously used for gambling, to the scientific field. The development of the law of frequency errors and then the transfer to the scientific field can be credited, then, as a

In The Turn of The Screw by Henry James the governess keeps seeing these mystical beings that may be real, or in her head. The article Believing Is Seeing by Barry L. Beyerstein shows a message that people can see a mystical being and their are explanations behind their citations that prove the appearance they see are not real. Whether you believe in ghosts, or believe that ghosts are fake, I will prove that ghosts are not real in The Turn of the Screw and how informational texts contribute to these types of explanations.