Rights and Wrongs of Belief II Pascal, Blackburn.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Fine-Tuning Argument One common response to this argument goes thus: Of course the universe is of a sort suitable for life. If it were not, no one.
Advertisements

Why is Socrates’ life important?Socrates’. How do I Know?
15 Backward induction: chess, strategies, and credible threats Zermelo Theorem: Two players in game of perfect information. Finite nodes. Three outcomes:
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 6 Pascal’s wager
The Rationality of Religious Belief  What reasons are there to believe that God or some supernatural force exists? MiraclesMiracles The very definition.
Hume’s “Of miracles” Thesis: You can’t establish a religion on human testimony of miracles. He has an argument similar to one used by John Tillotson (moderate.
How to Respond to Religious Disagreement Andrew Moon 4/13/12.
© Michael Lacewing Pascal’s Wager Michael Lacewing.
Introduction/Hume’s Problem of Induction Seminar 1: Philosophy of the Sciences 6 September
Miracles – Do They Exist? Hume’s Skeptical Challenge.
The Rationality of Religious Belief  What reasons are there to believe that God or some supernatural force exists? The existence and order of the universe.
Rights and Wrongs of Belief Clifford, James. W.K. Clifford This short essay remains quite famous today. Clifford is worried about cases it’s.
The Wager: It is more rational to believe in God than not to believe 1)If God exists and you believe: infinite reward. If God exists Blaise Pascal ( )
The Problem of the Criterion Chisholm: Particularists and Methodists.
Faith and evidence Philosophy of Religion 2008 Lecture 7.
The Problem of Induction Reading: ‘The Problem of Induction’ by W. Salmon.
Philosophy of Religion Michael Lacewing
© Michael Lacewing Miracles Michael Lacewing
© Michael Lacewing Faith without reason? Michael Lacewing
Ross Arnold, Winter 2015 Lakeside institute of Theology The Existence of God II February 20, 2015.
Hume On Miracles. Hume’s two-part argument  Part I: Can there ever be sufficient evidence for a miracle?  Part II: Is there any case of some event that.
Pascal’s Wager / Divine Foreknowledge. Pascal’s Wager ❏ Blaise Pascal ❏ Pascal's Wager is an argument that belief in the existence of God is in a rational.
COMP14112: Artificial Intelligence Fundamentals L ecture 3 - Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning Lecturer: Xiao-Jun Zeng
PHL 201 Problems of Philosophy March 25 th Chapter Five, ‘God’
--- Hephizibah Roskelly and David A. Jolliffee, Everyday Use
Of Miracles.
INTRODUCTION TO HUME’S DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION Text source: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, parts 2 and 3.
Perspectives on Religious Belief: Evidentialism-1  Definition: belief in God must be supported by objective evidence  Natural theology: attempt to prove.
Pascal’s Wager. Epistemic Reasons Epistemic reasons to believe are related to truth. If I believe there is a God because I think the evidence supports.
Basics of Probability. A Bit Math A Probability Space is a triple, where  is the sample space: a non-empty set of possible outcomes; F is an algebra.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Starter: Responses to Andrew Wilson’s chapter.
BUS 290: Critical Thinking for Managers
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 6 Pascal’s wager By David Kelsey.
God and the Enlightenment Mr. Bach Accelerated World History.
Chapter 1: Religion Pascal’s Wager Introducing Philosophy, 10th edition Robert C. Solomon, Kathleen Higgins, and Clancy Martin.
Circular proof  Derren Brown  “Tricks of the Mind”  2007.
Philosophy 224 Divine Persons: Broad on Personal Belief.
David Hume By Richard Jones and Dan Tedham. Biographical Details Born in 1711 in Scotland. Major work: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) Contains.
Martin Luther, “Rejection of the Copernican Cosmology” June 4, 1539 “So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem.
Worries about Ethics Norms & Descriptions. Hume’s gap In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author.
Hume on miracles ~ slide 1
Lesson 2: Common Misconceptions. Misconception 1 “Christianity must be proven scientifically; I’ll accept Christianity when you prove it with the scientific.
God. Character of God Omnipotence Omnipotence Character of God Omnipotence Omnipotence God can do anything.
The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell.
LO: I will evaluate Hume’s argument against Miracles. Hmk – Prepare presentations for Tuesday’s lesson.
Miracles: Hume and Howard-Snyder. * For purposes of initial clarity, let's define a miracle as a worldly event that is not explicable by natural causes.
Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 10
1 Prolegomena: Knowledge versus Opinion ~ Adapted from Mortimer J. Adler’s How to Think About The Great Ideas Caravaggio, “Doubting Thomas"
Understanding Science 5. The Burden of Proof © Colin Frayn,
L/O: To explore Hume’s criticisms of the Design Argument.
Two central questions What does it mean to talk of, or believe in, God? –Is talk about God talk about something that exists independently of us? Or a way.
Philosophical Problems January 11, 2015 Pascal's Wager.
Philosophy of Religion What is religion? “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as.
Philosophy Here and Now: chapter two
Miracles.
Philosophy of Religion
Knowledge Empiricism 2.
To learn about David Hume’s famous critique of Miracles.
Hume on miracles ~ slide 1
Critical Thinking Lecture 14 Pascal’s wager
Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Criticisms
Do Religious Experiences prove God exists? Discuss in pairs.
How to Respond to Religious Disagreement
The Rational Appeal Sydney Czurak Mariah Felt.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 6 Pascal’s wager
How Did Jesus Attest Himself?
The Existence of God Part 2: Pascal’s Wager, Innate Desire Argument, Transcendental Argument By Stephen Curto For Homegroup November 4, 2018.
Concise Guide to Critical Thinking
Miracles – A Comparative Study of Two Key Scholars
The difference between argument and tirade
Presentation transcript:

Rights and Wrongs of Belief II Pascal, Blackburn

Blaise Pascal Probability theorist, interested in gambling, odds and rational betting. We must believe in God, or not (James echoed this point). So how should we bet?

Gains and losses Pascal considers the stakes of such a bet at some length. If we must bet, then at even odds one can reasonably bet his/her life on either outcome, at probability 1/3 one can bet his/her life if the payoff is two lives, at probability 1/10 one can bet his/her life if the payoff is worth 10 lives, and so on. So if the payoff is infinite, no chance of winning is too small for the bet to be justified, so long as what you have to lose is finite.

The Heart “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” “It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason.”

Simon Blackburn Hume’s question: When is testimony in support of a miracle credible? We consider this by examining the force of testimony, and the special character of miracles. Pascal and James also come in for criticism.

David Hume Scottish Philosopher. Major figure in the Scottish Enlightenment. Famous for his defense of skepticism about induction.

Contrariety of Evidence When the usually acceptable evidence of testimony conflicts with other sorts of evidence, we become doubtful of the testimony. But miracles, by definition, are events of a kind we have evidence against. So testimony for a miracle is always involved in a contrariety of evidence, i.e. it conflicts with other evidence that we have.

The Upshot “That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish, and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.”

On Pascal The other possibilities for religious truth are left out here, but they completely upset the simple table Pascal gives. Further, the argument fails because beliefs are not directly chosen, as Pascal acknowledges.

On James Freedom to believe seems a good thing, on the whole. But there are real drawbacks to endorsing belief without evidence. For every harmless or even positive religious belief, there are other beliefs that are harmful and (all too often) self-serving. Shouldn’t we be critical of such convictions?