Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Pascal's Wager, as originally formulated, was addressed to an audience for whom only Catholicism and atheism had non-zero subjective probability.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Pascal's own correspondence and the Pensées show awareness of Islamic and Jewish traditions as live religious options in 17th-century Europe.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The 'many gods objection' raised by Diderot in direct response to Pascal demonstrates contemporaries immediately saw the wager as underdetermined by competing theisms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Acknowledging non-Christian monotheisms as live options for a Parisian intellectual audience undermines the claim that only Catholicism had non-zero probability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Attributing a restricted probability space to Pascal's audience conflates the rhetorical framing of an argument with its logical scope.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The philosophical validity of the wager's structure cannot be rescued by restricting its intended audience, since logical force must hold universally or the argument proves too little.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pascal's rhetoric is addressed to real agents — 'men of the world' in Paris in 1660.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
For that audience, the spectrum of religious theories to which they attached grounded subjective non-zero probability consisted of just Catholicism and atheism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.