Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Pascal's statement that reason can decide nothing may imp... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If Pascal's claim that 'reason can decide nothing here' is interpreted as a decision under uncertainty (no probability assigned), then the argument is apparently valid

    Pascal's statement that reason can decide nothing may imply a decision under uncertainty framework

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A decision under uncertainty assumes no probability is assigned to outcomesIf Pascal's claim that 'reason can decide nothing here' is interpreted as a deci...

    Similar

    If Pascal's claim that 'reason can decide nothing here' is interpreted...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Natural Theology
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    92%
    The argument can be read as assuming no probability is assigned to God...83%
    But by Pascal's own account, the actual ground is that 'reason can dec...82%
    A decision under uncertainty assumes no probability is assigned to out...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: pascal-wager
    View source passageHide passage
    Without any assumption about your probability assignment to God’s existence, the argument is invalid. Rationality does not require you to wager for God if you assign probability 0 to God existing, as a strict atheist might. And Pascal does not explicitly rule this possibility out until a later passage, when he assumes that you assign positive probability to God’s existence; yet this argument is presented as if it is self-contained. His claim that “[r]eason can decide nothing here” may suggest th

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective