Monday, September 24, 2012
Sec19 Grp1: _Pascal_
Pascal famously invented his Wager, which basically meant he calculated the odds of God's existence and acted accordingly, becoming a monk in his later years so he'd have a better chance of getting into Heaven. Today we discussed how this concept held up in modern times, and what it really meant to be accepted into Heaven. Random acts of kindness is what it came down to. Whether or not you believe in God, he prophesied but we refuted, regardless of how good a person you are, will ultimately tip the scales for or against your favor. But since we all have individual views, who is to say what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not? And if all human beings are intrinsically evil, as Pascal claims, then why should we bother trying to better ourselves in His eyes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was glad to see everyone in our group continues to open up more and more in our discussions. I think being outside and building rapport adds to our trust in one another which allows us to express our views without apprehension. I like how he incorporated logic and chance into his argument on why we should believe in a God. I usually saw believing in a God as a leap of faith. He brings up a good point about how even if there is no God if you live as though there is the cost may be minimal yet the reward may be infinite. I reject the notion he gave that you can “trick” yourself into believing there is a higher power. No matter how much I pretend 1+1=3 I will always know deep down it doesn’t. There is the argument of brainwashing someone into believing in God but that is not true faith and as such, should there be a God I think he would know the difference.
ReplyDeletePascal seemed to never take anything for what it was, he had to question everything scientifically. If it didn't make sense don't believe in it. This view brought him to logically believe in God, though morally this was probably the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeleteFQ:Berkley's views can be summed up in one phrase, which is?
DQ:If Berkley was able to defend what seems to be going against sense, then what makes him different than a delirious man?
Pascals view to never believe something that you are not positive about was interesting. That is a good way to not just believe something because it is the standard belief.
ReplyDeleteFQ: Did Berkley believe that objects are physically at all times?
DQ: In today's would could Berkley's idea even be an option? Or does today's scientific knowledge make it a more ridiculous claim then it already was back then?
FQ: Locke believed the greyness of an elephant was what? a 'secondary quality'
ReplyDelete(Berkeley) DQ: If everything exists only in our minds, are we all hallucinating?
I think I'd like to change my factual question to:
ReplyDeleteWhat does Berkeley's 'Esse est percipi' mean? to be (or exist) is to be perceived