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.
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
He cannot fathom that there would be a disconnect. It is this same reasoning that compels him to investigate Martha Corey after Giles talks about her reading. Hale simply cannot see something wrong in an investigation as he believes it is being conducted by flatly religious people. Hale changes in that he is forced to understand that there might be a disconnect in the psyche of individuals. The most spiritual of people might not be the ones that are considered to be so and the ones who are considered to be so might not be.
The article, based on a passage by R. Paul Wolff, addresses the topic of belief in religious creeds. The author states two ways of thinking. The first is that a person thinks there is no reason for believing in any religious doctrine. The other argument is a person does believe and has a personal commitment of faith. The author concludes that the person who has no faith in religion could watch religious debates go on and never be affected, either positively or negatively.
However, the Grand Inquisitor’s rejection that the nature of man has potential to change when we accept Christ as our savior highlights the weak link in his argument. The inability to handle freedom appears to the Grand Inquisitor as one flaw possessed by humans. “… For nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom” (Dostoevski 29). He claims that man is too weak and rebellious to bear the weight of free will and therefore believes our paths should be decided for us. However, as Christians we believe that man should have freedom to choose whether he will follow Christ or not.
Furthermore, private experiences are, ultimately, terribly subjective and will be dependent on a person’s religious stance or even their sobriety at the time of event. William James’ point regarding the experience to bring a positive outcome is puzzling if you examine the case of Abraham being told to execute his son; whilst God eventually told him not to proceed, the event would not have brought about a good disposition which goes against James’ criteria. Ultimately, I feel that these points alone prove that arguments for religious experience are
If something is always right or wrong, this does not take into account aspects such as motive or intention, it also discredits other cultures and religions, are they wrong because their actions enforced by their beliefs do not agree with someone else’s moral absolutism? If something bad is going to come from this moral absolutism, such as always telling the truth and it results in hurt feelings and a breakdown of a relationship, how can it be worth it. Poor consequences of absolutism may be more significant than the action itself. However, moral absolutism allows for clear rules to be set and followed, nobody is discriminated against and predictability is enforced. Moral absolutism allows humans to be held to account for their
Now I will explain situation ethics, the idea developed by priest Joseph Fletcher in the 1960’s. Situation ethics is deciding the best thing to do in a situation when we feel there are no particular moral guidelines to follow. Some people would describe situation ethics as a modern day dilemma, and that maybe it makes you more confused about a situation if you already had your mind partially made up- as it often comes to two conclusions that you have to decide which one is best; it does however help you make an informed decision. Some would argue that situation ethics is immoral because it gives everyone the chance to prove everything in a positive light, which surely is not beneficial for our society. Through practicing situation ethics, you show pragmatism, the Christian goal is love, and you must try and achieve love no matter what.
Descartes wonders if God deceives him or not. Which God cannot do because he is the Ultimate and would not do that to something he created. Descartes states “the desire to deceive without doubt testifies to malice or feebleness, and accordingly cannot be found in God” (73). So God does have power and some people believe that a man of power will use his power to deceive, but the fact that something wants to deceive and show God to be a coward. God cannot be a coward because he is the Supreme.
If there were no government, there would be absolute chaos, and even more horrible things would go on because there would also be no consequences. Government keeps order and is a good thing to obey, but is there ever a time we should disobey? We should disobey the government when it goes against Gods law. God is the Almighty, and when someone goes against him, the Christians should not follow that example but should create their own.