![]() But if you stake all on A and B is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures. ![]() If you bet everything on B and A is the truth, you lose an eternal good. Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable – even from the viewpoint of self-interest – to stake all on A. Under one guise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on B. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life. In practice, he must stake everything on one of two propositions, either (A) that there is a purpose in life (God made us for life with him) or (B) that there is not. Even if he refuses to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man cannot avoid wagering about it. Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means to the end, but the real purpose of existence. Cavanaugh, C.F.C., explains in his apologetics handbook, Evidence for Our Faith, ![]() The beauty of Pascal’s Wager is that it is an appeal to the chief god worshipped by atheists: their reason. These are all unique manifestations of our evolved ape brain, which some evidence suggests came about through a rather limited number of mutations.“Pascal’s Wager,” so-called because it was devised by the brilliant Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), is an apologetics method in the form of a wager aimed at getting atheists and agnostics to consider the possibility that God exists and that there is a heaven and hell. ![]() They don’t have the same ability to communicate complicated conditionals and what-ifs and talk about things that are not present. Other animals have systems of communication that fall far short of that. If you probe what they believe, it turns out to be pretty much the same-we all have a sense of wonder and reverence at the majesty of the universe.ĭAWKINS: We are a unique ape. An awful lot of people who call themselves religious simply don’t know there’s any alternative. I find it hard to believe that the Stone Age types are going to win in the end. There’s the Sarah Palin know-nothing idiots on the one hand, and then there’s a huge number of intellectual, intelligent, educated people on the other. I see a great upsurge of good sense, rationality, irreverence. I go on the internet quite a lot and read what young people are saying. PLAYBOY: Do you get discouraged by the continuing attacks on reason?ĭAWKINS: No. It’s nice to feel you’re part of a hugely bigger picture. The magnificence of the universe and the sense of smallness that gives us in space and in geologically deep time is humbling but in a strangely comforting way. But in more thoughtful, cerebral moments, I take-comfort is not quite the right word, but I draw strength from reflecting on what a privilege it is to be alive and what a privilege it is to have a brain that’s capable in its limited way of understanding why I exist and of reveling in the beauty of the world and the beauty of the products of evolution. But without faith in an afterlife, in what do you take comfort in times of despair?ĭAWKINS: Human love and companionship. You have a horrible life, and then you die and that’s it.ĭAWKINS: Well, I shall either be buried or be cremated. You go to church every Sunday, you do penance, you wear sackcloth and ashes. The odds are extremely low, but nevertheless it’s worth it because the reward is extremely high. But what if you choose the wrong god to believe in? What if you get up there and it’s not Jehovah but Baal? And even if you pick the right god, why should God be so obsessive about you believing in him? Plus, any god worth its salt is going to realize you’re feigning. He was the 17th century philosopher who argued it’s a smarter bet to believe in God, because if you’re wrong-ĭAWKINS: The cost of failure is very high. PLAYBOY: So you aren’t taking Pascal up on his wager. Richard Dawkins’s wide-ranging interview with Playboy Magazine. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |