In discussion of Pascal’s wager, one issue has been the persuasiveness of Pascal’s argument, as well as the holes in some of his reasoning. On the one hand, Simon Blackburn argues that we know nothing about this “God” we are supposed to believe in, so we do not know whether this is a jealous God who will send people to hell for not believing in Him, or if this “God” is the Christian God that Pascal presents. Blackburn eventually states that regardless of which type of God exists, “a God that punishes belief is just as likely, and a lot more reasonable, than one that punishes disbelief.” On the other hand, Linda Zagzebski contends that Pascal does have a compelling argument, yet his reasoning is flawed. Zagzebski states that it is wrong for people to believe in God because of their self-interest, based around the fact that if they do believe in God and if he does exist, they will be rewarded with infinite gain. Furthermore, Zagzebski employs an intriguing analogy by comparing one who chooses to believe in God just for infinite gain is similar to someone who chooses a mate with a high income, and then tries to love that person.
By persecuting his father is piety. But Socrates discards his definition because it is in fact not a definition but rather an example. It does not give reason on why things are pious. So, Euthyphro rebounds by claiming piety is what is pleasing to the gods. He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization.
With god/s grounding the moral the foundation of the moral becomes arbitrary because it would only be good because god says its so. Also calling god good would not make any sense since he decided what good is or isn't, so how could he be good unless the moral was grounding him? If piety was a certain care of the god’s we could look to do always what is Pious and in return we would be worshiping/caring for the god/s if they exists. If the God’s are looking to something the “moral,piety” then if you act pious in your actions through life you will be in a way worshiping the god’s, because you are honoring what they already honer. The problem with this idea is when people think god grounds the moral
When presented with the idea that there are many gods and each of them might have a different notion of what is pious and what is not, Euthyphro offers one last definition. Finally Euthyphro states that that which is pious is just to the gods, but there can also be things that are just for men but not the gods. They have returned to one of the definitions they began with, that piety is that which the gods love. Throughout their conversation
This quotes Socrates is asking Euthypro if the holy is the same action from one thing to another or it is might be holy at one time but it could be unholy in another time. They start their argument when Euthypro says “what is agreeable to the God is holy, and what is not agreeable to the God is unholy” (page 8; 6e, 15-7a). Euthypro explain to Socrates as the Gods do or do not agree with each other can be holy and unholy. Socrates then says to Euthypro that the Gods don’t always agree with each other, and they are actually at war all the time. So it is holy because the Gods agree of it but we still don’t know the reason why Gods is agree with it.
Socrates continued his point in saying that “an action or a man dear to the gods is pious, but an action or a man hated by the gods is impious” (Euthyphro, 7a). However, Socrates also points out that gods, just like people, can have their differences and disagreements about anything. Therefore, there could be no unification in what is right and wrong, good and bad, or pious and impious. Again, we see Socrates’ doubt in having more than one god. If the gods can have their disputes about piety and impiety, then how would we ever know what exactly is the right course of action?
Ward believes religion to be existential. However, not everyone shares my opinion. Richard Swinburne used the principle of Occam’s razor to illustrate that Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument has value for religious faith. Occam’s razor says that the simplest answer is the best one, and as God is the simplest answer for the first cause, it is the best one. Denys Turner makes the point that Aquinas is misread, he says that Aquinas is just clarifying the existence of God for people who already believe rather than in an attempt to persuade non-believers.
These experiences would be referred to as ‘I-Thou’ by Buber. Due to this, William James has justified this unfamiliarity with defining ineffability as one of his four characteristics of religious experiences. Not only does this help understand the inability to speak of religious experience as it is numinous but it also coincides with many existing perceptions of the divine. For example, the via negative would reinforce this idea as both concepts paint God as a supernatural, immeasurable being; this is a big strength for religious experience as it fits into traditional perceptions of God, making it more convincing for theists. On the other hand, atheists may be sceptical of this feature of religious experience.
The Theodicy of Irenaeus has many weaknesses. For example, the Theodicy states that God deliberately created an imperfect world where evil exists to achieve a higher goal (a world where humans can morally develop), however if it is not acceptable to do something bad to achieve something good, then why is it acceptable for God to do this? Another point to consider is that not all suffering leads to moral growth. Some people do not develop as a result of suffering, but instead morally degrade. This contradicts Irenaeus’ Theodicy because it states that moral development is achieved through the experience of pain and suffering.
I think because we do not know what death brings that we use consequences even in death and after lives to set guidelines while we are alive. Socrates is using the myth of Er as a way to show that being just is the only way to show that being just is the only way to true happiness. Someone who refuses justice and lives a life as an unjust person, and fallows all his desires no matter who they might hurt, will suffer the consequences in the end. Socrates believes the Gods will love the just and hate the unjust. while the just are alive they seem to be the once who suffer.