2007-06-16 06:22:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In reading it, it seems he was trying to bring some reasoned thinking to those who might otherwise reject God out of hand. If there is only one person who paused and reflected on what he said and was led to the Lord later by really thinking about it, it was a God send.
2007-06-16 06:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by Esther 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Blaise Pascal was a mathematician and an expert on the science of probability. He was also a bit of a wag. He was writing in the context of a Christian culture and in simplest terms setting forth the proposition that it was more reasonable to be believing than to be unbelieving.
I don't think most of the critics of Pascal's wager even understand it. He is laughing at them from heaven.
2007-06-16 13:30:20 · answer #2 · answered by wefmeister 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never enjoyed Pascal's Wager. From the first time I heard of it in my philosophy class, I saw a bit of weakness in it. I can't speak for Pascal, but every time that I hear it said on here, I shudder because I know it holds no weight in society today. But just because it holds no weight today doesn't mean that it couldn't have in his age.
Oh yeah, and I am a Christian just to let you know.
2007-06-16 13:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. A 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was thinking he could add to the coffers of the church by using faulty logic on uneducated people. Its obvious there are more than the four options suggested by Pascal.
2007-06-16 13:30:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was trying to convince his gambling buddies that believing in god was a "safe bet." Of course the flaws in his logic go so deep that you'd need a flashlight to look into them.
2007-06-16 13:29:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe he was trying to make a logical argument of why one should believe in god as opposed to not.
2007-06-16 13:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by honestoverture 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Trying to make a name for himself.
2007-06-16 13:27:26 · answer #7 · answered by The Angry Stick Man 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's better to be safe than sorry.
2007-06-16 14:29:28 · answer #8 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
His motives may well have been rather mixed, he might even have been being rather tongue in cheek.
2007-06-16 13:26:22 · answer #9 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That he was a wishy washy philosopher with no courage and no conviction.
2007-06-16 13:25:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋