Indeed he was a mathematician - comparing God to the infinite,
neither odd nor even but unknowable in nature. Of course so was Plato
and he used the odd/even dichotomy to make a metaphysical point as
well. I don't think he was cynical in the modern sense, though the
idea of 'reward for faith' is questionable - it is however very
popular today. He also seems to have originate the existentialist
concept of being thrown into the world and being forced to choose. As
an agnostic, I choose not to choose.
There is some explanation of the decision matrix here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Apparently it was his conversations with Fermat which are the
foundation of probability theory.
I was amused to see that Richard Dawkins had offered an anti-Pascal
Wager - and it seems crude to me. I always preferred an anti-Wager
that suggested that if God exists and is benevolent, then s/he will
understand and accept my genuine doubt and lack of faith. (No loss).
If not, then God is not benevolent and unworthy of faith. Thus there
is a four part analysis with benevolent/malevolent on one axis and
exists/does not exist on the other. Living a 'good' ethical life
without faith then has the highest value.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/10/2009, at 2:20 AM, Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> Therefore, I may agree it is cynical (in the strict philosophic sense
> of cynical - and certainly ironic in a strictly socratic sense) - and
> not a simple statement in probability. Yet, Pascal was a mathematician
> and other things too .... ;-)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|