Renouncing Reason
- Ralphalonzo
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: November 24th, 2015, 8:20 am
Renouncing Reason
"And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness."
I do not really get the point of the quoted statement above. Can anybody shed some light on this one? Thank you.
-
- Posts: 383
- Joined: May 25th, 2016, 5:34 pm
Re: Renouncing Reason
You may be able to find a copy of it in your university library.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: May 27th, 2016, 5:34 am
Re: Renouncing Reason
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: Renouncing Reason
Are you Scruton's agent, YIOSTHEOY, you're always pushing his books.YIOSTHEOY wrote:Roger Scruton in his book "Modern Philosophy" has a chapter on religious philosophy.
You may be able to find a copy of it in your university library.
- Ormond
- Posts: 932
- Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm
Re: Renouncing Reason
Pascal's Wager seems pretty rational to me. The problem however is that one typically can't turn belief on and off like a light switch. Pascal's Wager seems to assume we have control over what we believe, which is probably a significant distortion of the truth. Thus rendering Pascal's Wager rather less rational.Blake 789 wrote:Pascal's The Wager? It means you may as well believe in God because if you're right you get something worthwhile from it and if you're wrong nothing happens so you haven't lost anything.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Renouncing Reason
Yes, I think that is one of the standard objections to Pascal's wager.The problem however is that one typically can't turn belief on and off like a light switch.
-- Updated Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:08 am to add the following --
Ralphalonzo (quoting Pascal):
To see it in context:"And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness."
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/pascal.htm
I think he's making the point that the promise of belief is the infinite after-life existence of happiness. If the promise is false, you cease to exist. So there is nothing to lose by gambling on belief. Whatever you're putting up as a stake - whatever the belief requires you to do - is a part of this life and is therefore finite. In gambling, by believing, the potential gain is infinite and the potential loss is finite. So clearly (it is argued) it makes sense to believe. It's a "no-brainer", as Pascal would probably have put it if he were alive today and wasn't French.
You may, or may not, find it useful to look at where Pascal's wager has been discussed before around here. For example here:
onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... mp;t=12945
-- Updated Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:13 am to add the following --
By the way, the book "Modern Philosophy" by Roger Scruton is very enlightening on the subject of religious philosophy and is available from all good book stores at a very reasonable price. But hurry, while stocks last.
-- Updated Sat Jun 04, 2016 7:18 am to add the following --
Error: When I said this: "In gambling, by believing, the potential gain is infinite and the potential loss is finite" I think it was misleading. I should have said this: "In gambling, by believing, the potential gain is infinite and the stake is finite".
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: Renouncing Reason
Sorry Pascal.
Kierkegaard is more sofisticated. Believing is jumping into the unknown. You cannot know. You will never know. It is irrational descision making. Of course a main issue was already that God's mercy was predestinated and there is nothing someone could do to change that. Modern belief is that God is love, and everbody receives mercy, sooner or later. Just as long as it takes to really understand the concept I think. Fases of hell are necessary, that why there's evil. It's part of the process of learning.
Someday you will be gratefull. (And other days you won't be)
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13815
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Renouncing Reason
Whereas you cannot voluntarily believe a matter of fact you can voluntarily trust. 'Trust' is sometimes what we mean when we say 'believe'.
It is reasonable to trust in some person, or some ethic. It is arguably less reasonable to trust in some nation, or some political or religious leader.
It is eminently reasonable to trust that love is god.
- Rederic
- Posts: 589
- Joined: May 30th, 2012, 8:26 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: South coast of England
Re: Renouncing Reason
It is at its worst when it deludes us into thinking we have all the answers for everybody else.
Archibald Macleish.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13815
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Renouncing Reason
The question won't arise because you never find out as there is no getting to heaven. On the contrary love, like god, is created by conscious humans who are aware of what we are doing.Rederic wrote:What if when you get to heaven you find out you've been worshiping the wrong god? You could be in more trouble than an unbeliever.
- Gross Ryder
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: June 8th, 2016, 5:25 am
Re: Renouncing Reason
The first issue is that of belief - merely believing without any inner force behind it, or for expected rewards, is highly misleadingLeon wrote:God however will see you through and condemn you for merely believing for gain.
Sorry Pascal.
Kierkegaard is more sofisticated. Believing is jumping into the unknown. You cannot know. You will never know. It is irrational descision making. Of course a main issue was already that God's mercy was predestinated and there is nothing someone could do to change that. Modern belief is that God is love, and everbody receives mercy, sooner or later. Just as long as it takes to really understand the concept I think. Fases of hell are necessary, that why there's evil. It's part of the process of learning.
Someday you will be gratefull. (And other days you won't be)
and most likely to boomerang on the believer - so I agree with your view, the only difference is that I think that God is not in the business of rewarding or condemning - it's an inherent process of Reality that is based upon the individual's actions rather than
beliefs (though no doubt believing does influence one's actions).
The main point I am making is that Pascals wager is devoid of the moral dimension, and merely believing is the supposed end -all.
This deep flaw in the thinking of all organized religions was well articulated by Kierkegaard (especially in attacking Christendom) , who was one of the most knowledgeable persons on religion and also very articulate with a unique writing style.
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: Renouncing Reason
Yes! Symmetry as process of Reality.Gross Ryder wrote:I think that God is not in the business of rewarding or condemning - it's an inherent process of Reality that is based upon the individual's actions rather than
beliefs (though no doubt believing does influence one's actions).
The main point I am making is that Pascals wager is devoid of the moral dimension, and merely believing is the supposed end -all.
This deep flaw in the thinking of all organized religions was well articulated by Kierkegaard (especially in attacking Christendom) , who was one of the most knowledgeable persons on religion and also very articulate with a unique writing style.
Still a lot of people belief that if you should follow rules, that you would be save. An enormous amount of rules, explanations and comments.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023