---------------------------------
Pascal addressed his argument not to a skeptic but to someone who has pondered proof for and against the reality of God, and who is undecided. For that man, the decision must be at best a guess, a leap in the fog, since clear and final definitive proof is unavailable.
In the example above, please note the crucial element in the hypothetical is that contents of the two boxes cannot be determined.
The wager says that if we assign the burden of proof to the skeptic, so that we are Christian if the skeptic fails to make the case, we break even at death: non-God cannot send us to non-Hell for being unfaithful to faithlessness.
But if we assign the burden of proof to the Christian, so that we are skeptics if the Christian fails to make the case, we win paradise in the next life, and the benefits of community with Christian civilization in this.
All else being equal, then, and final proof being unavailable, prudence says to place the burden of proof on the party less likely to inflict terrible and permanent harm on us should we prove mistaken.
This is not a case of forcing oneself to believe something unbelievable because of self-interest.
It is a case of deciding which should be the default assumption when assumptions are all we have to work with, and proof is unavailable. As a faithful Catholic, and, indeed, a Thomist, I myself must dismiss this assumption of the hypothetical as unrealistic: Providence has provided the mind of man with faculties sufficient, by examining himself and his world, to deduce the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator.
Pascal addressed his argument not to a skeptic but to someone who has pondered proof for and against the reality of God, and who is undecided. For that man, the decision must be at best a guess, a leap in the fog, since clear and final definitive proof is unavailable.
In the example above, please note the crucial element in the hypothetical is that contents of the two boxes cannot be determined.
The wager says that if we assign the burden of proof to the skeptic, so that we are Christian if the skeptic fails to make the case, we break even at death: non-God cannot send us to non-Hell for being unfaithful to faithlessness.
But if we assign the burden of proof to the Christian, so that we are skeptics if the Christian fails to make the case, we win paradise in the next life, and the benefits of community with Christian civilization in this.
All else being equal, then, and final proof being unavailable, prudence says to place the burden of proof on the party less likely to inflict terrible and permanent harm on us should we prove mistaken.
This is not a case of forcing oneself to believe something unbelievable because of self-interest.
It is a case of deciding which should be the default assumption when assumptions are all we have to work with, and proof is unavailable. As a faithful Catholic, and, indeed, a Thomist, I myself must dismiss this assumption of the hypothetical as unrealistic: Providence has provided the mind of man with faculties sufficient, by examining himself and his world, to deduce the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment