Readings: Aquinas, "The Harmony of Reason and Revelation" (pp. 92-95) AND Pascal, "The Wager" (pp. 96-97)
Reminder: Laura will be presenting on Aquinas. Brennan will be presenting on Pascal.
AQUINAS
As indicated by the title of this piece, Aquinas believes that faith and reason are not ultimately at odds. As he puts it at the end of this selection, what is known by revelation cannot conflict with truths "we are naturally endowed to know" via reason, for truth does not conflict with truth. Aquinas believed that truths about God fall into 2 categories -- those that are knowable via reason and those that are known only via revelation. He gives examples of each of these in your text. Truths about God that are knowable by reason may also be believed simply on the basis of faith or revelation; basing one's belief on faith rather than demonstration is not irrational. Insisting otherwise has three "awkward effects". After identifying these awkward effects, Aquinas discusses beliefs about God that fall into the second category -- those that cannot be ascertained by human reason. Aquinas gives us 3 reasons why divine revelation of truths that cannot be known through human reason is both necessary and beneficial. He then argues that belief that is based solely on revelation (and can only be based on revelation) is not foolish. Finally, he claims that reason and revelation do not conflict.
PASCAL
Most of you are probably familiar with Pascal's Wager. This excerpt is a bit abstract, but the central idea should be clear enough. Notice that Pascal begins by assuming that we can't prove whether God exists. He also thinks that we must bet one way or the other (this is the ultimate/cosmic version of You Bet Your Life). Given these assumptions, the real question is whether it is more rational to bet that God exists or more rational to bet that God does not exist. Pascal argues that it is more rational to bet that God does exist. In fact, he seems to think that it is irrational to bet against God's existence. To make this selection less abstract, as you read, imagine the consequences for each bet ("God exists" or "God doesn't exist"): What happens if you bet correctly? What happens if you bet incorrectly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pascal has a very reasonable argument. Believe in God because you stand to gain everything. If you're wrong, you lose nothing. In a debate so caught up in logic and reason, Pascal asks people to take a rational gamble. You really can't beat the odds he offers. My only problem with his essay is that he does not take into account most of the religions of the world. Why not take a gamble on Buddhism or Hinduism? His argument works as far as religion in general, but does not help me choose which faith to believe in (if any). Regardless, his argument is still appealing. Aquinas, on the other hand, seems to be writing for a Catholic (since Protestants weren't around in the 13th century) audience. I don't feel that anyone from outside the faith can really accept his argument, particularly since his premises are based on scripture. I wish he had written an essay more accessible to all audiences.
I dislike Aquinas' argument mainly because it would appear that he is claiming that those who take an extra effort to study and gain further knowledge of God are, in some way, closer to him or even more holy. Given the fact that within the article he claims that some are quite incapable of taking upon themselves the labor required to spend in study of God, are we simply to assume that these few people are stricken from truly knowing God and that simply they should be outcasts? Knowing God should simply be controlled by love and not by the human appetite for knowledge. Whether or not one decides to "know" God by seeking out and investigating all that is written, a true follower knows himself through and through and can determine on his own his level of love and understanding of the divine.
I’ve always liked Pascal’s wager. Rather than some magnificent argument, it tends to be a simple neat idea to think about. I found the reading interesting. I agreed with Pascal that the argument cannot be a reason for believing. For example you could agree that belief is less risky but if you don’t believe then you just don’t. Pascal addresses this appropriately in saying he is removing a potential obstacle, not trying to create a motivation. However, I wonder if we were to apply the wager in a broader sense, what would the result be? If there are many religions each with a variety of punishments for non practitioners, what is most rational then? Obviously you can avoid religions with no punishment for non practitioners. It is also too simplistic to simply choose the religion with the biggest stick. It seems most rational to consider both the severity of the religions consequence and the likelihood the religion is true. However, while the likelihood a religion is true seems to be a good reason to choose it, would you really want to chose a religion based on its ability to threaten?
Pascal’s wager is a convincing idea but I feel like it is presented to simply. He believes you have two choices to bet but I think there may be another option like betting on another religion. What if there was religion with a whole different set of rules and concept of “salvation” and a supreme deity? Wouldn’t this become another bet? Aquinas’ argument was kind of confusing mostly because his main point wasn’t very well supported. I didn’t feel like his logic was very compelling. Why should someone who is not very apt to reason well and who has had no revelations of God have a justified belief in God?
Aquinas:
Aquinas claims that revelation curbs individual presumptions, but I feel that the reality of this statement needs to be more closely examined. One is basically giving up their personal presumptions in favor of a shared system of presumptions by previous generations of believers. Aquinas also explores the possibility of miracles at the conclusion of his article, but seems to negate it by claiming: "Since, therefore, only the false is opposed to the true, as is clearly evident from an examination of their definitions, it is impossible that the truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally." If such divine revelations stand in direct opposition to what we know rationally about the world around us, then they simply cannot be accepted as truth. The articles we have read on miracles seem to better address this issue.
Pascal:
Pascal attempts to oversimplify the choice of belief in divinity in his wager. He basically proposes that there are two options: (1) God is or (2) God is not. Although this approaches the subject from the broad topic of creationism, Pascal quickly moves the argument into a specific region of Christian doctrine with his exploration of an eternal afterlife. He claims that we are placing a finite bet (our mortal lives) in hopes of an eternal reward (the existence of God and an afterlife) and that we stand only to win everything or lose nothing. Pascal is careful to avoid discussion of the specifics of such a wager. Although he briefly mentions happiness, Pascal ignores the obvious sacrifices in natural happiness required in adherence to strict doctrine. Belief in God in most religions (especially Christianity) is not sufficient to reach "heaven." Rather, the individual is expected to deny their natural urges and sacrifice physical pleasure for religious morality. Pascal also fails to address the specifics of doctrinal differences. Not only is the "player" wagering his mortal life by placing a bet on the divine, but the bet is also overly specific. What if Islam actually wins the divine lotto? The individual thus sacrifices their entire earthly existence (the only thing they can be sure of) in hopes of winning an eternity which would have been earned by placing the "proper" bet. The natural response to this is to claim that any bet whatsoever is a better alternative, but I simply cannot see the rationale for this assumption. If you were simply wagering belief in divine creation, that would make logical sense. Ascribing to a specific system of doctrinal beliefs with religious regulations comes at far too high a cost for this to be considered a "free" bet.
I have taken a similar standpoint as pascal in my stance on believing in God. If I believe and do what the bible says, I have risked my time and energy to achieve an eternal happiness, whereas if I am wrong I have only lost time and energy. However, if I was wrong, at least I had hope in life and thus all was not lost. This seems to be a more common arguement made by christians to non-believers. I do not see it as the most effective approach but it does offer a more logical explination than just having faith.
I like Pascals argument. It doesn't seek to prove God, because as we have seen can go either way. I like that he presents a reason to believe in God, however he may be taking it in a more broad sense. If he is talking about Christianity, if you just say, yes, I believe in God and do not truely accept it, does that mean anything? I think to truely believe in God you have to have more to stand on than a safety net. Reguardless, I still like the argument.
I like Pascals argument. It doesn't seek to prove God, because as we have seen can go either way. I like that he presents a reason to believe in God, however he may be taking it in a more broad sense. If he is talking about Christianity, if you just say, yes, I believe in God and do not truely accept it, does that mean anything? I think to truely believe in God you have to have more to stand on than a safety net. Reguardless, I still like the argument.
Aquinas, as many have already noted here, has a very circular approach to his argument. He begins with scripture and then uses it to bolster belief in it. Especially like Edward said, it's rather inaccessible to non-christian audiences because Aquinas doesn't start from natural principles and then move to chrisitanity. Quite frankly, I find his "argument" that reason leads necessarily to God to be wholly unconvincing. It's literally an assertion. On the other hand, I did like his argument for taking what we're told on faith. I take it on faith that space is devoid of atmosphere. Of course, I only do so because if I really wanted to I could find out for myself.
Pascal on the other hand makes a fantastic false dichotomy (as, again many here have already pointed out). Given his choices, it would be folly to not believe in God. The problem is that it's not simply a matter of saying "yes" and it's done and over with. Religions are a lifestyle change in just about ever case. You give up way more than simply changing the way you think.
I really don't have much to say about Aquinas, since I feel that the argument is geared toward men and women who are already of faith who struggle with the idea of revelation and their own personal experiences and the inability to fully know God. This isn't an issue of God existing, it's an issue of who believes what part of it. We're going to have to go over it in class for me to get a better grip on it.
As far as Pascal goes, I feel there are so many holes in the argument. First, he doesn't account for the possibility of religions other than Christianity. This argument really only works for a Christian God, or at the very most, the God of Abraham. Second, if you're a Christian, wouldn't you say that this is the *wrong* reason to believe in God? Out of fear of damnation instead of a true belief? Pascal's argument looks to be, up front, simple and sensical, but a deeper look shows some deep flaws.
Pascal's Wager is pretty straight forward and makes sense, but to me it seems like a very selfish way to go about believing in God. Say there's an atheist who comes across Pascal's Wager and embraces it. They take up the Christian faith and adopt all the practices and become fully engulfed in Christianity and believe in it. But when they stand in front of God to be judged and God asks "So why did you decide to start believing in me?" their answer would basically be because they had nothing to lose. Although it makes sense, this just doesn't seem like a good way to start believing in God.
Post a Comment