Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 74225929" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>If you've ever studied epistemology then you know how slippery definitions and theories of knowledge are.</p><p></p><p>For example, we don't <em>know</em> what happens at and after death. Therefore on your theory two nutritionists discussing the best nutrition for a long life are engaging in "problematic emotional manipulation." Why? Because their conversation is premised on the fear of death. Yet they don't <em>know</em> that death is bad! Heck, death might be freedom from the constraining limitations of the physical world!</p><p></p><p>The maxim, "One may only discuss motivational matters with others if those matters are built on strict and rigorous <em>knowledge</em>," is entirely unrealistic and unpersuasive. Indeed it probably devolves into base thought-policing fairly quickly given the fact that rigorous accounts of the justification required for true knowledge too often fall into subjective cracks.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why would two people who already agree to a premise spend extra time buttressing that premise? That makes no sense.</p><p></p><p>Again, the rational thing for an atheist to do is to call the argument unsound. But you feel the need to attack Pascal's motives. There is simply no warrant for that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 74225929, member: 342410"] If you've ever studied epistemology then you know how slippery definitions and theories of knowledge are. For example, we don't [I]know[/I] what happens at and after death. Therefore on your theory two nutritionists discussing the best nutrition for a long life are engaging in "problematic emotional manipulation." Why? Because their conversation is premised on the fear of death. Yet they don't [I]know[/I] that death is bad! Heck, death might be freedom from the constraining limitations of the physical world! The maxim, "One may only discuss motivational matters with others if those matters are built on strict and rigorous [I]knowledge[/I]," is entirely unrealistic and unpersuasive. Indeed it probably devolves into base thought-policing fairly quickly given the fact that rigorous accounts of the justification required for true knowledge too often fall into subjective cracks. Why would two people who already agree to a premise spend extra time buttressing that premise? That makes no sense. Again, the rational thing for an atheist to do is to call the argument unsound. But you feel the need to attack Pascal's motives. There is simply no warrant for that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
Top
Bottom