Introduction to Philosophy
PART TWO: Philosophy & Religion
The Problem of Faith & Reason
 Early Christian Thought
 Greeks
 Jewish Tradition
 Cause of the problem






Two sources: faith & reason
Classic Questions
Points of Disagreement
Points of Agreement
Biblical tradition: anti-philosophy
Biblical tradition: pro-philosophy
The Problem of Faith & Reason
 11th & 12th Century
 Introduction
 Reason as predominant




Faith as predominant




Monastic reforms
Peter Damian
St. Bernard
Anselm’s View



John Scotus Erigena
Roscelin
Abelard
Reason & Faith
Proof through deduction
Synthesis of faith & reason-Aquinas

Theology & philosophy
The Nature & Existence of God
 Questions
 Metaphysical questions



What is the nature of God?
Does God exist?
Epistemic Questions


How do we know the nature of God?
How do we know God exists?
 Reason & Logic
 View
 A priori reasoning and God



A Priori Reasoning
St. Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz
A posteriori reasoning and God


A posteriori reasoning
St. Aquinas, David Hume
The Nature & Existence of God
 Rejection of Reason & Logic
 View
 Approaches
God can be known through faith.
 God can be known through mystical experience/divine revelation.
 God cannot be known by any means.
 Pascal’s Wager

Regresses & Absurdity
 Regress & Absurdity Methodology
 Introduction
 Circular Regress
 Defined
 Form & Examples



A requires A
A requires B, B requires C…Z requires A
Job-Experience
 Infinite Regress
 Defined
 Form




1 requires 2
2 requires 3
3 requires 4
X requires X+1
Regresses & Absurdity

The Evil Bureaucrat
 Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reducing to Absurdity)
 Defined
 Form #1
Assume P is true.
 Prove that assuming P leads to something false, absurd or contradictory.
 Conclude that P is false.


Form #2
Assume P is false.
 Prove that assuming P is false leads to something false, absurd or
contradictory.
 Conclude that P is true.


Example
Regresses & Absurdity

Example
 Using a regress in a Reductio Ad Absurdum
 Introduction
 Example
St. Anselm
 Background
 Background (1033-1109)
 Goal
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
 Anselm’s A Priori Argument for God’s Existence
 The fool understands
“God”: a being than which nothing can be conceived (NGCBC).
 Fool says there is no God.
 The understands what he hears.
 What he understands is in his understanding.
 It is one thing for an object to be in the understanding.
 It is another to understand the object exists.
 Painter analogy
 The fool is convinced something exists in his understanding.


From Understanding to Reality
Whatever is understood is in the understanding.
 That than which NGCBC cannot exist in the understanding alone.
 If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone, it is something GCBC.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Suppose it exists only in the understanding-it can be conceived to exist in
reality, which is greater.
 If NGCBC exists in the understanding alone it is GCBC.
 This is impossible.
 There exists NGCBC in reality & understanding.


God cannot be conceived not to exist
NGCBC exists so truly it cannot be conceived not to exist.
 It is possible to conceive of a being that which cannot be conceived not to
exist and this is greater than one that can be conceived not to exist.
 If NGCBC can be conceived not to exist, it is not NGCBC.
 This is a contradiction.
 There is so truly a NGCBC that it cannot even be conceived not to exist.

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument

God alone cannot be conceived not to exist
God exists and cannot be conceived not to exist.
 If one could conceive of a being better than God, the creature would rise
above its creator, which is absurd.
 Everything, except God, can be conceived not to exist.
 God alone exists more truly than all others and hence in a higher degree.
 Whatever else exists does not exist so truly so it exists to a lesser degree.
 So the fool denies God because he is a fool.

Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
 Challenge & Doubt
 Gaunilo’s Challenge
Suppose it is said a being which cannot be even conceived in terms of any
fact, is in the understanding.
 Gaunilo accepts that this being is in his understanding.
 He will not accept that it has a real existence until a proof is given.


Gaunilo’s Doubt
Anselm claims this being exists-otherwise the being which is greater than all
will not be greater than all.
 Gaunilo doubts that this being is greater than any real object.
 The only existence it has is the same as when the mind, from a word heard,
tries to form the image of an unknown object.

Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
How is the existence of that being proved from the assumption that it is
greater than all other beings?
 He does not admit that this being is in his understanding even in the way
which many objects whose real existence is uncertain and doubtful, are
in his understanding.
 It should be proved first that this being really exists.
 Then, from the fact that it is greater than all, we would conclude it also
subsists in itself.

Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm
 Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Argument
 The Perfect Island





There is an island that is impossible to find, the “lost” island.
This island has inestimable wealth and no owner or inhabitant.
Hence it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited.
If someone claims there is such an island, Gaunilo would understand his
words.
The parity of reasoning: But suppose he said:
You cannot doubt that this most excellent of island exists somewhere.
You have no doubt that it is in your understanding.
It is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist in the
understanding and in reality.
 Hence, the island must exist.
 If it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent.
 Hence, the island understood to be more excellent will not be more
excellent.



Gaunilo’s Answer to the Argument of Anselm


Gaunilo’s Criticism of this line of reasoning.
 If someone tried to persuade him by such reasoning, he would assume the
person was jesting or regard him or himself a fool.
 It ought to be shown that:
 The hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact.
 It is not an unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain in Gaunilo’s
understanding.
A note of Gaunilo’s method.
 He is combining parity of reasoning with a reduction to absurdity.
 Parity of reasoning: to use reasoning that parallels the reasoning in question.
 In this case Gaunilo is using the same line of reasoning as Anselm.
 Reducing to absurdity: to prove that a claim is implausible by drawing an absurd
or contradictory conclusion from it.
 In this case Gaunilo draws an absurd conclusion by using Anselm’s method.
 He thus concludes that the method is flawed.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
 The Island
 Anselm’s Summary of Gaunilo’s Objection
 One
should suppose an island in the ocean, which surpasses all lands
in its fertility.
 Because of the impossibility of discovering what does not exist is
called a lost island.
 There can be no doubt that this island truly exists in reality.
 Hence one who hears it described understands what he hears.

Anselm’s Challenge

If any shall devise anything existing in reality or in concept alone
(except that than which a greater cannot be conceived) to which he
can apply Anselm’s reasoning, he will discover it.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo
 Anselm’s Reply
 Part one: God cannot be conceived not to be.




This being than which a greater is inconceivable cannot be conceived not to be.
Because it exists on so assured a ground of truth.
Otherwise it would not exist at all.
Part Two: The dilemma





So, if one claims he conceives this being not to exist, at the time when he
conceives of this either he conceives of a being than which a greater is
inconceivable or he does not conceive at all.
If he does not conceive, he does not conceive of the nonexistence of that of
which he does not conceive.
If he conceives, he certainly conceives of a being which cannot be even
conceived not to exist.
If it could be conceived not to exist, it could be conceived to have a beginning
and an end.
This impossible.
Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo

Part Three: It’s inconceivable.




He who conceives of this being conceives of a being which cannot be even
conceived not to exist.
But he who conceives of this being does not conceive that it does not exist.
If he does so, then he conceives what is inconceivable.
The nonexistence of that than which a greater cannot be conceived is
inconceivable.
St. Thomas Aquinas
 Background (1224-1274)
 Early Life
Son of the count of Aquino
 Imprisoned in a tower
 Albert the Great
 Eastern Orthodox Church
 Mystic Experience
 Canonized in 1323
 1879 Pope Leo XIII


The Ox
Nickname
 The flying Cow


Works
25 Volumes
 Summa Theologica

St. Thomas Aquinas
 Aristotle & Aquinas
 Complete Works
12th-13th Century: the complete works of Aristotle became available in
Europe.
 Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy.


Conflict
Aristotle: the world is eternal and uncreated.
 Apparently did not accept personal immortality.
 Ibn Rushd’s commentaries on Aristotle
 Neo-Platonism


Aquinas’ View
Aristotle’s view could be adopted without heresy.
 Regarded Aristotle as a rich intellectual behavior.
 “The Philosopher.”
 Aristotle as a pagan lacking divine revelation.

St. Thomas Aquinas

Shift from Plato to Aristotle
Platonic notions of the eternal & other worldliness.
 Aristotle’s works presented a systematic and developed philosophy.

 Faith & Reason
 Reconciliation: Augustine
Sin damaged reason
 Grace
 Faith as necessary condition for philosophical understanding


Reconciliation: Aquinas
Sin did not criple our rational facilities
 Reason as autonomous source of knowledge
 Distinguishes between philosophy & theology
 Two sources of knowledge
 Theology yields knowledge via faith & revelation
 Philosophy yield knowledge via reason and experience

St. Thomas Aquinas

Truth: Christian teachings that a matter of faith
Known via revelation
 Beyond reason, not contrary to reason
 Objections and problems
 Cannot be proven/disproven by reason
 Examples: trinity, incarnation, original sin, etc.


Truth: Empirical Knowledge & Self Evident Philosophical Principles
Not known via revelation
 Examples: Aristotle’s logic, biological functions of heart


Truth: Overlap of philosophy & theology
Known via revelation or reason
 Examples: God’s existence & qualities, existence of the soul, immortality,
natural moral law


Two Type of Theology
Revealed supernatural
 Natural theology
 Conflict

St. Thomas Aquinas
 Aquinas’ Epistemology & Metaphysics
 Epistemology
Aristotle’s Influence
 Blank slate
 No innate knowledge
 Senses provide reason with content
 Intellect
 Intellect
 Passive & active
 Passive operations
 Objects of experience
 Active aspect
 Potential
 Natural process

St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics: Hierarchy

Actuality & Potentiality
 Prime matter-potentiality
 Forms-actuality
 God-pure actuality
 Change

Great Chain of Being






Hierarchy
Variety
Angels
Knowable
Purpose
Objective Values
St. Thomas Aquinas

Metaphysics: Existence & Essence

Essence & Existence
 Essence
 Existence

God





His essence entails He exists
God
Necessity
Rejection of ontological argument
Empirical experience
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 Introduction
 Introduction
Aristotle
General Form
 If the world has X, then God exists.
 The world has X.
 God exists.



Cosmological argument

Assumption: infinite regress of causes is not possible
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 The First Way (the Way of Motion)
 Some things are in motion
 Whatever is moved is moved by another
 Potentiality
 A thing moves
 Reduction from potentiality to actuality


Fire
Actuality & potentiality in different respects
Hot
 Cold


Impossible to be both moved and mover.
Whatever is moved is moved by another

Moved by another

St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways


Moved by another
This cannot go on to infinity
No first mover
 No other mover
 Moved by first mover
 Staff

First mover
 This everyone understands to be God

St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 The Second Way ( Efficient Cause)
 Order of efficient causes

Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself

Not possible to go on to infinity
Efficient causes following an order

First
 Intermediate




Take away the cause
If no first cause, then neither intermediate nor ultimate
If it is possible to go on to infinity
No first efficient cause
 No ultimate effect
 No immediate efficient causes
 Plainly false


First efficient cause to which everyone gives the name God.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 The Third Way (Possibility & Necessity)

Possible to be and not to be
Impossible for these to always exist
One time there was nothing
Nothing would exist now
Impossible for anything to have begun to exist
Thus now nothing would be in existence
There must exist something whose existence is necessary
Every necessary thing either has its necessity cause by another or not

Impossible to go on to infinity









Therefore we must admit the existence of a being




As per efficient causes
Having of itself its own necessity
Not receiving it from another
Causing necessity in others
This all men speak of as God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 The Fourth Way (Gradation)





Among beings are some more and some less
More or less are predicated by resemblance to a maximum
There is something truest, best, noblest
There is something most in being
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus



Fire
There must be something which is the cause of being, goodness, perfection
This being we call God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 The Fifth Way (Governance of the World)





Things that act from knowledge act for an end
Evident from acting in the same way
Whatever lacks knowledge must be directed
Therefore some intelligent being directs all natural things
This being we call God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 Common Mistakes in Interpreting the 5 Ways

Everything must have a cause




Does not assume this
What is potential must be cause by what is actual
Created beings
The world has a beginning in time










Does not attempt to prove this
Does not disprove
Aristotle’s eternal world and unmoved mover
Possibility of an eternal universe
First cause
 Eternal flame
God as a continuously sustaining cause
Not possible to prove an eternal world
St. Bonaventure
Beginning in time
Revelation, not proof
St. Thomas Aquinas: Five Ways
 Common Criticisms

Five beings






Five different beings
Being distinguished by qualities
Perfect and unlimited being
Two perfect beings would be identical
Cannot be two unlimited beings
“And this everyone understands to be God”




Different from the personal God
Not a complete view of God
Important qualities
Way of gradation
Gottfried Leibniz
 Background

German Culture





Stagnant
Languages
Reformation & 30 Years Way (1618-1648)
No other significant thinkers
Background for Leibniz





Early Years
Professional career
Diplomacy
Works
Logical Method
Leibniz: Arguments for God
 God

Proofs for God’s Existence




Ontological argument
Eternal & necessary truths
Design argument
Cosmological argument
 Proof of God’s Existence for God’s Existence
 God





Supreme substance
Unique, universal, necessary
Nothing else independent
Incapable of limits, as much reality as possible.
Perfection


God is absolutely perfect
Perfections from God, imperfections from their own nature
Leibniz: Arguments for God

Existence



God is the source
Existence of a necessary being
God alone must exist if he is possible
Leibniz: Arguments for God
 The Cosmological Argument

Two principles on which reasons are founded



Contradiction
 False
 True
Sufficient reason
 Reason why it is so
 Known
Two kinds of truth
Those of reasoning
 Necessary
 Analysis
 Those of fact
 Contingent
 Possible

Leibniz: Arguments for God

Sufficient Reason
Contingent truths
 Resolution
 Contingents
 Sufficient/final reason


God
Necessary substance
 Change exists eminently
 God suffices

Leibniz: Problem of Evil
 Best of All Possible Worlds

The best world





God’s Choice







“best of all possible worlds”
Single event
Entirety
God’s choice
Infinity of possible universes
Reason
Best
Wisdom
Goodness
Power
Diversity



Only God is perfect
God must pick the best
Variety & order
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
 No Better World Possible

Intellectualist view


The problem and reply





God lacks goodness
Defects
Big picture
Not made for us alone
The Best



God’s will
Impossible
Reply
Denial of Pantheism




Infinite divisibility
Infinity is not a whole
God
Universe is not an animal or substance
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
 Evil as Privation

Whence does evil come?

Origin of Evil-Ancients



Origin of Evil-intellectualist view




Matter
Uncreated
Eternal verities
Original imperfection
Errors
Understanding & Necessity









Plato
God & Nature
Understanding
Necessity
Understanding
Primitive Form
Ideal Cause
Formal cause
Evil is deficient
Leibniz: Problem of Evil
 The Analogy of the Boat

Boats





The Analogy










Cargo
Slower
Receptivity
Slower
Current is like God
Inertia is like imperfection
Slowness is like defects
Current causes motion not retardation
God causes perfection
Limitation in receptivity
God causes the material element of evil not the formal
Current is the material cause of retardation but not the formal
 It causes the speed but not the limit
God and sin
Defects




God produces all that is positive, good and perfect
Imperfections arise from the original limitations
God cannot give all
Degrees of perfection
David Hume
 Background (1711-1776)

Life & Philosophical Writings





Born 1711
Edinburgh University
France
Works
 A Treatise of Human Nature
 An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
 An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals
 Natural History of Religion
 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
 History of England
Died 1776 (still dead today)
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
 Skepticism

Introduction









Skeptical
A priori & a posteriori arguments fail
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
Cleanthes: a posteriori arguments
Demea: faith & a priori arguments
Philo: skeptic
All arguments for God fail
First cause arguments
Reason






Matters of fact
Existence
A priori reasoning
Conceiving
Demonstrable
Relations of ideas
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God

Causation







Assumption
Causality as habit
House analogy
Universe
No constant conjunction
No empirical argument based on causation
Rejection of Design




Mechanistic assumption
Resembles animal/vegetable more than a machine
Matching environment
Ideally suited
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God
 Five Problems

Introduction


First Problem



Finite effect
Cause as great as the effect
Second Problem





Like effects
Perfect
Perfect universe
Falls short
No other universes
Third Problem




As good as possible
Many worlds
Labor lost
Slow improvement
Hume’s Philosophy of Religion: Existence of God

Fourth Problem



One God
Analogy
Fifth

God as physical being
Hume’s Problem of Evil
 Establishing the Misery

Philo-Feeling




Demea-Truth





Learned
Poets
Demea-Writers & Misery


Truth
Miseries
Cannot be doubted
Philo-Agreement


Misery
Eloquence
Feel it more
All complain
Philo-Leibniz

Denied
Hume’s Problem of Evil

Demea-Leibniz



Demea-Catalog of Evils






Earth
War
Necessity
Birth
Weakness
Philo-Chain of Misery




First
Denial
Prey
Torment
Enemies
Demea-Man as an exception


Partial exception
Master lions, tigers and bears
Hume’s Problem of Evil

Philo-Man creates his own demons





Demea-Society




Real enemies
Imaginary enemies
Death
Timid flock
Man is the greatest enemy of man
Torments
Dread
Demea-Problems






External problems
Labor & poverty
Few
Goods of life
Stranger visiting the world
Pleasure
Hume’s Problem of Evil

Philo-Misery







Cleanthes


No reason to complain
Why stay alive
Objection: false delicacy
Reply: delicacy
Objection: rest
Rely: rest leads to disappointment
Sees problems in others, not self
Demea-Reply to Cleanthes

Cleanthes is unique
Hume’s Problem of Evil
 Philo-The Problem of Evil

Philo challenges Cleanthes


Power argument





Power is infinite
Wills
No happiness
Does not will
Wisdom Argument





Anthropomorphism
Wisdom is infinite
Never mistaken
Not to felicity
Not for that purpose
Conclusion


Benevolence
Epicurus’ Questions
 Willing but not able
 Able, but not willing
 Able and willing
Hume’s Problem of Evil
 More Problem of Evil

Philo-Refutation of Divine Benevolence








Cleanthes


If proven unhappy, all religion ends.
Demea-big picture reply to the problem of evil




Cleanthes: nature has a purpose & intention
Preservation and propagation
No resources for the happiness of individuals
Racking pains
Mirth
Divine benevolence
Mystics
Point & moment
Other regions & future
Benevolence
Cleanthes-Enjoyments outweigh pains


Deny misery & wickedness
Exaggeration
 Health
 Pleasure
 Happiness
Hume’s Problem of Evil

Philo-Pain exceeds pleasure

More violent & durable
Pain
 Torment
 Pleasure
 Pain
 Death


Philo-No foundation for religion unless
Human life is happy
 Existence is desirable


Philo-Not what we expect
Estimate
 Uncertain
 Does nothing
 Not what we expect

Hume’s Problem of Evil

Philo-why any evil at all?
Not by chance
 Contrary to his intention
 Attack


Philo-Compatibility
Compatible
 Mere possibility
 Pure from impure
 Insufficient
 Insufficient


Philo-Conclusion

Faith alone
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
 Soul & Substance

Reason


Difficult to prove
Metaphysical, moral or physical
 Metaphysics

Unknown Substance






Immaterial & material
Confused & Imperfect
Unknown
Cause & effect
Abstract reasoning
Spiritual Substances analogous to Material Substance




Analogy
Clay
Dissolved
Immortal substance
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul

Memory, Consciousness & Substances




Animals



Loss of memory & consciousness
Incorruptible & ingenerable
Existence before birth
Animals
Souls
Moral Arguments

God’s Justice





Present Life



Moral arguments
Punishment
Attributes
This universe
Present Life
Fostering fears
Fear the Future




Fear
Riches
Present life
Deceit
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul

Humans & Animals



Women







First cause
Ordained by Him
Nothing
Punishment without purpose
Proportion in punishment



Mortal soul
Religious theory
Equal
No Object of God’s Punishment


Powers
Parity of reasoning
Proportional
Damnation
Additional concerns



Heaven & Hell
Lenience
Infancy
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul
 Physical


Physical Arguments
Sleep Argument



Proportion Argument




Analogy
Dissolution
Souls of Animals



Proportional
Dissolution
Condition Argument


Connected
Sleep
Mortal
Analogy
Change Argument


Flux
Immortal
Hume & the Immorality of the Soul

Infinite Number of Souls


Infinite
Planets

Lack of Argument Argument

Insensibility Argument
Horrors & Passions








Horrors
Nothing in vain
Postpone
Death
Passions
Hopes
Defending a Negative




Advantage
Arguments
New logic
Divine revelation
Immanuel Kant
 Background

Personal Information


1724-1797
Contributions
 Arguments for God

Introduction



Reason cannot be used
Three ways
Method of elimination
Immanuel Kant
 Ontological Argument









Can conceive of a perfect being
The conceivable is possible
Possible a perfect being exists
If PB exists, then has all perfections
Existence is a perfection
If PB exists, then it has existence
Possible that a PB necessarily exists
Absurd
Thus a perfect being must exist of necessity
 Kant’s First Refutation of the Ontological Argument





Concept of God includes concept of absolutely necessary being
Compares to nature of a triangle
Does not show triangles exist
If God, then being exists necessarily-deniable.
Cannot go from concept to existence.
Immanuel Kant
 Second Refutation of the Ontological Argument




Existence is not a predicate
Existence is not a property that adds to the concept of X
If existence is not a property, then it cannot be an essential part of God’s
concept
Merchant analogy
 The Cosmological Argument




A necessarily existing first cause
Assumes the principle that everything has a cause
The principle only applies to the realm of experience
Defects of the ontological argument
 The Teleologicial Argument




Intelligent designer
Praise
Design imposed on pre-existing matter
Need for cosmological argument
Immanuel Kant
 Conclusion





Attempts to prove God’s existence are fruitless
Impossible to prove God does not exist
Theist and Atheist cannot know
Possibility of basing religion on practical or moral faith
“To deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.”
Blaise Pascal
 Background

Life



1623-1662
Contributions
Major Works


Lettres Provinciales
Pensees
Pascal’s Wager
 Part One

God



God cannot be known





Do not know God’s nature or existence
Existence is known through faith
If God exists, He is infinitely incomprehensible
No parts or limits, so no affinity to us
Incapable of knowing if or what He is
Dare not undertake
God’s Existence Cannot be Proven



Christians cannot be blamed
If the proved it
Objection
 The Wager



God is or He is not
Reason can decide nothing here
What to Wager?
Pascal’s Wager

Choice




Which to Chose





Two things to lose: true, good
Two things at stake: reason & will, knowledge & happiness
Two things to shun: error & misery
Must choose
Wager for God





Don’t Reprove
Blame
Must wager
Weigh gain and loss
If gain, gain all
If lose, lose nothing
Wager that He is
Objection & Reply



Perhaps one wagers too much
Equal risk, 2 lives
3 lives to gain
Pascal’s Wager








Eternity of life & happiness
Infinity of chances, wager 1 to win 2
1 against 3, 1 in infinity, infinity of infinitely happy life
There is
What you stake is finite
Give all
Renounce reason
Uncertainty





Useless to say
 Uncertain gain
 Certain risk
 Infinite distance
Not so: staking a certainty against an uncertainty
Not an infinite distance
Infinity between certainty of gain and certainty of loss
Uncertainty of gain proportioned to certainty of stake
Pascal’s Wager

Risks




If equal risks, then play even
Certainty of stake = uncertainty of gain
Proposition has infinite force
Demonstrable
 How to Make Yourself Believe


Seeing the cards
Believing






Force to wager
Learn inability to believe
Attain faith
Learn
Follow
Lessen passions
Concerns Regarding Pascal’s Wager
 Disjunction


The disjunction
False dilemma/many gods


False dilemma
Options
 Knowledge of God

Lack of knowledge


Need the wager
Problem



If we cannot know God, we cannot know how He will react
Payoff and loss cannot be known
No rational way to bet
 Ethics


Abandoning reason
Ethics