Download Free Sample

Assignment 1. Based On The Course Materials For Weeks 6 And 7, Explain In Your Own Words How Gary Gutting Reinterprets Pascal's Wager Argument In His Article "Pascal's Wager 2.0." In Your Answer, Make Sure To Explain The Differences Between Pascal's Argument And Gutting's Reinterpretation. Give Examples

Answer: Pascal’s wager is determined by the idea that since there is no certainty of God’s existence the burden of proof does not rest on the actual proof of God’s existence rather the belief in God is determined by a calculative approach to God’s existence. Using the example and method drawn from gambling Pascal believes that it is but a wager, to believe or not to believe in God. So, the best bet in this wager is the one that would be able to fetch the best and the most lucrative of returns on less investment. So, not believing in God has a higher stake since a lot might be lost - infinite bliss and happiness is compromised by being a nonbeliever. However, by being a believer things of great value can be accomplished and even if God is not real in this case it would not be much of a loss or a compromise because there are still inherently good things that come out of pious practice. Also, the time spent in adoration of the divine is not ill-spent or at least it does not bear any negative consequences.

The contention that Pascal offers is that instead of finding proof that God is real one should convince themselves to believe in God. This decision to convince oneself to believe in God might be motivated by desires for rewards but over time this would turn into a conviction.

Gutting reinterprets the wager by moving the focus from believing and the onus is placed on doubting. He says that two approaches come by when one considers doubting. Either one can be indifferent and shut to the possibility of something existing and this surmounts denial or one can practice what he calls the doubt of desire. This brings one close to the idea of religious agnosticism thus one is vested with the knowledge that something is unknowable. In this approach, it is recommended that by acknowledging that there are greater benefits of engaging in certain practices one can be drawn to serious involvement, and thus deception is kept at bay.

There are two fundamental ways in my eyes in which Gutting and Pascal differ in terms of their perception of the wager. The first is that Pascal might at times be seen to compromise on the ethical or virtuous nature of conduct by either expecting rewards for piety or by recommending that one must trick themselves into believing God. There is no such deception in the case of Gutting’s reinterpretation. Also, the second difference is that Gutting’s reinterpretation unlike the traditional form of wager theory, focuses on the idea that there might be different ways to approach the facets of religion and the actual core matter might be different from the official or formal depiction of the religion by a set of rituals or rules. This broadens the scope of one’s relation to God’s existence and brings one closer to the true nature of things.

Do you find Gutting’s ideas convincing? Which idea or ideas? Explain why and give examples. Also, are there any of his ideas that you do not find convincing? Which ones? Explain why and give examples.

Answer: Gutting’s ideas help us to minimize the shortcomings of the original wager theory. Both the views of Pascal, as well as that of Gutting, are based on a pragmatic approach. Gutting’s ideas are convincing because they appeal even to individuals who are antagonistic to the established forms of religion. They call upon one to come closer to the truth and via the modality of doubt Gutting has eliminated the need to trick oneself into believing in God. The problem of tricking oneself into believing in God was twofold- it was difficult to develop piety when one is insincere and also it meant that one had to factually hold the possibility of God’s existence being real to be a solid proposition that might seem absurd to many. The elimination of the need to believe and rather to doubt with the desire to move closer to the knowledge of truth is free of deceit and thus is an honest take on the problem of the existence of God. It rectifies the flaws of the previous theory while remaining within the realm of pragmatism and helps to broaden the scope of ideas to a larger debate on knowledge of the truth which is remarkable.

The idea that might not be convincing is that Gutting highlights the possibility of the original content of religion might be different from the official version of the religion in an institutionalized form. While this is a good attempt to pique intellectual interest yet self-knowledge on matters such as this is hard to come by when one is posed with such a profound question as relating to the existence of God. So, in such a situation it seems unlikely that if one decides to give oneself to the serious engagement one would be able to move past the traditional and established forms of ritualistic ideas and modes of worship. So, in this form of inquiry into the true nature of God's existence, one has to inevitably take heed of the established forms of religious ways of life, and unlike the picture as painted by Gutting it might not be easy to bypass the same with the help of self-reflection. Knowledge about the divine and the ultimate form of truth might be elusive but resorting to the idea of religious agnosticism as highlighted by Gutting might also mean that we might give in to the bias and inherently flawed beliefs that come with traditional forms of religion. The intellectual form of inquiry on which Gutting bases his reinterpretation might not be able to take root if one is enmeshed in the forms of ideas and beliefs that are invested in taking a ritualistic approach to understand religion alone. This would defeat the purpose of an intellectual inquiry into the existence of God and for this, there has been no definite remedy as provided by Gutting throughout his piece. This appears to be a drawback of his reinterpretation and it might again lead to deception just like in the case of the original wager theory.

Assignment 2. Explain Camu’s idea of the absurd and how he argues one can deal with the absurd based on his ideas from both “The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel. Do you find his ideas convincing? Explain why and why not.

Answer: Albert Camus has been regarded as one of the best examples of thinkers evolving out of the French Existentialist strand of philosophy from the 1940s. Existentialism in general and the ideas of Camu reliant on this strand of thought, in particular, have been based upon the meaningless and futile nature of humane existence in the face of an absence of higher power or God as the guiding source. His stream of thought ran counter to other existentialist thinkers because he not only emphasized the presence of inherent claim to human freedom but also understood the presence of adversities and challenges to this freedom. This ultimately contributed to the formation of Absurdism which is another important school of thought. The major contention of absurdism is that there is primarily a lack of meaning in human life and that there is no overarching purpose to which one can yolk their earthly existence. The presence of no definitive meaning and the lack of a larger purpose leads to the situation of hopelessness.

The absence of divine intervention and the lack of a grand scheme of things pushes one to despair as one can find no purpose in an infinite universe surrounded only by chaos all around. In such a situation, one finds themselves condemned towards futile actions that yield no real meaning just like Sisyphus’ punishment as given to him by the Greek Gods for disobeying them. The absurd is thus both the lack of meaning in actions and the fact that even if actions are given effect to they yield no real effect and thereby they cease to matter. However, absurdity must not be a prelude to inaction or complete surrender to the absurdity that is a constant part of human existence.

It is observed by Camus in discussing the myth of Sisyphus that even though the act of rolling the rock uphill only to have it all come tumbling down once it reaches the summit, might be futile but Sisyphus was able to make sense of this absurdity. Camus has stated in his contention that Sisyphus despite the mundane and utterly repetitive nature of the ordeal was able to win over the absurdity. He was able to find purpose by deciding to do the task that he was punished to do, and by exercising his will he was able to exercise his freedom. The rock which is the symbol of his eternal damnation was able to be superseded in spirit by Sisyphus. This was done by consciously deciding to roll it uphill and to start over again when it inevitably tumbles, Sisyphus was able to determine his fate and thus turn a situation of despair into one of purpose and purported happiness. His agency was put into action and thus despite the chaos and the meaninglessness he was able to rebel and exert his thought and action. This freed him from the expectations of a grander power or a higher will at work, it was his consciousness and his free will of determination that sealed his fate. In doing so he was able to chart his meaningful course despite the inherent chaos. So, the beauty of the meaning of human existence as per this vein of thought can be admired and determined only through human effort in finding happiness in a place or an action destined for despair.

Camus' ideas appear to be convincing because he was able to provide a distinct answer to the question of futility. He was able to determine that even though there might be no overarching meaning human beings can still find a purpose in life by deciding to be engaged and active despite the challenges. Rebelling against uncertainty instead of surrendering to uncertainty is the key lesson that can be drawn from Camus' thoughts. This helps us to overcome rampant hopelessness in crisis and overcome the crisis without any hope for a miracle or cosmic intervention but by our agency and effort. Camus' ideas convince us to seek purpose within ourselves and to determine the course of action despite the impending despair by being the determining factor and exercising control over the situation. His way of thinking saves one from consequences like attempting to end one's life or committing suicide because it teaches one to rise in the face of adversities. This is a great conceptual epiphany that can help individuals looking for motivation especially when one is a non-believer in higher powers. Human agency and individual faculties are a great source of power and following Camus' ideas, it seems likely that one can reinstate the faith and belief in this power. Therefore, the arguments made by Albert Camus seem reasonable.

You Might Also Like:-

Engineering Materials Technical Writing Report Sample

Refine Your Written Materials From Good to Great With the Best MBA Assignment Help in the UK and Get Your Desired Grades

Arts and Humanities Assignment Help