1. Pascal is one of the most quoted writers in all of history. Cite a line or two from Pensee that you think is particularly worth quoting and expalin why you think this an idea particularly worth passing on.
2. Pascal knows that it is next to impossible to convince anyone who doesn't want to believer. Before citing his evidences for Christianity, Pascal gives reasons for us to wish Christianity were true. What stands out to you as particularly important in Pascal's attempts to persuade us to at least hope that Christianity is true?
3. Pacal talks quite a bit about miracles and the way people respond to miracles. Why do you suppose he includes this material? How does his discussion of miracles strengthen (or weaken) his overall argument?
4. Like many earlier (and later) apologists, Pascal includes the fulfillment of prophecy as proof of the special nature of the scripture. How convincing are the particular examples he gives? Do you see anything different (and perhaps better) in the way Pascal uses fulfilled prophecy in his defense of Christianity?
“To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher.” - Blaise Pascal, Pensees
ReplyDeleteThis quote strikes me as most true because of some of the philosophers that we have covered so far. Not only did some criticize or even condemning of the philosophies of the people at that time (before Christianity was dominant), but some even did it in a sarcastic manner and then presented their own ideas.
Kent Johnsen
277. The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. I say that the heart naturally loves the Universal Being, and also itself naturally, according as it gives itself to them; and it hardens itself against one or the other at its will. You have rejected the one and kept the other. Is it by reason that you love yourself?
ReplyDeleteI see three elements in this, loving the Universal Being, loving ourselves, and a tendency to exclude one or the other.
I see the love of the Universal Being as perhaps a genetic memory or connection going back to the point of the creation of man. It seems that mankind has always been searching for a way to reconnect to the Universal Being. All primitive peoples have some sort of deity and creation myths sharing similarities even when isolated by oceans and distance. I believe the reason it that we all share a common ancestor or creator. The genetic need to love or worship this Universal Being is why we developed religions.
As for loving ourselves, that is probably the root of self preservation, but we will also give that up to save the life of someone dear to us. It also makes us selfish and full of desire. By being selfish we do things that will get us more of what we desire. So we study to get better jobs, do better work to advance, treat other people ethically so we will be treated ethically, do things for others to make ourselves feel better, we build houses so we don’t have to live in caves, and make our lives better. Used wrong it makes up steal, lie, cheat, misuse alcohol and drugs, and make our lives worse. Same coin – different sides.
The hardening that makes a person make a choice between loving the Universal Being or loving ourselves is in one sense a red herring. I saying that you do not need to make a choice, you can love the Universal Being and yourself without rejecting either. Love is not a commodity that finite, you can apply as much as you want to both without conflict. This assumes you understand the consequences of your actions.
Jerry Taylor
84. “The imagination enlarges little objects so as to fill our souls with a fantastic estimate; and, with rash insolence, it belittles the great to its own measure, as when talking of God.”
ReplyDelete226. “If you care but little to know the truth, here is enough of it to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. This would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where it concerns your all.”
These two quotes seem in my mind to be related, although I’m not sure if I can explain the connection clearly. Pascal seems to me to be saying that when it comes to the ultimate question you would think people would want to settle – where they will spend eternity – they don’t seem to take it seriously enough to put the required time or effort into it. And the first quote also seems to me to say that humans are bent on giving tons of attention to trivial matters, and inflating their importance, while on the other hand, talking of God with familiarity that borders on disrespect. I think that is so very evident in today’s culture. So many people seem to idolize, hang on every word, and follow and emulate every move of professional athletes, music and movie stars, and even people whose only claim to fame is being followed around on a “reality” show. Yet these same people, when talking of God, act like He is some sort of simpleton who didn’t think things through in creating the world. They act like they could run the universe much better if given the chance, and they blame God for everything that’s wrong in the world. C. S. Lewis says, “God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we [in ignoring and ridiculing God] have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again.” I think that many, many people have absolutely no concept of the God who could speak everything into existence.
I reason I believe that Pascal includes miracles in his work is because he wants to cover all his bases to make the best argument. The problem with the fact he wrote so in depth is that he also runs the risk of alienating those that don't believe in miracles. it wouldn't hurt if he only touched on the topic, but people tend not to like read what they don't like. on the other hand this gives people who do believe reinforcement in what they believe.
ReplyDeleteTrent Dean
Pascal's Pensées, while thought-provoking, are not quite the intellectual justifications for faith that many have envisioned them to be. Pascal's reasoning is, in many places, supported only by leaps of logic and false equivalencies that circle the discourse toward a preordained conclusion—Christianity's reasonability. That said, while reading Pascal's Pensées I could not help but agree with him purely in principle at several points, although my interpretation of his notes offers a rather different endgame than Pascal suggests. Its worth noting that my reading was from Section VII: Morality and Doctrine. The lines I've chosen to quote are as follows:
ReplyDelete425. They have learned that the true good should be such as all one can possess at once, without diminution and without envy, and which no one can lose against his will.
437. We desire truth, and find within ourselves only uncertainty.
485. The true and only virtue, then, is to hate the self (for we are hateful on account of lust) and to seek a truly lovable being to love. But as we cannot love what is outside ourselves, we must love a being who is in us and is not ourselves; and that is true of each and all men.
I interpret these selections (and much of what Pascal wrote in his Pensées) to be proposing that humans need an external concept or idea that they may devote themselves to and look to for answers in times of trial in order to attain happiness. Pascal posits that devotion should be to God. I would suggest that it doesn't matter what one devotes oneself to, insofar as achieving happiness is concerned. Devotion to (for example) a particular cause, one's country, another human being, or even just a set of principles could, I would propose, provide just as much emotional and/or spiritual fulfillment as religious belief. A concept would likely be an ideal subject of devotion as I tend to accept most of the initial reasoning Pascal uses to dismiss people as a focus for faith, and a concept can meet most of his criteria given the right lens to interpret it.
Most of my dissection of the Pensées hinges on a loose interpretation of most of what Pascal says, but when you're dealing with such abstract concepts as god, religion, and existential happiness, I think there's much room for interpretation.
Q #2:
ReplyDelete100. “The nature of self-love and of this human Ego is to love self only and consider self only. But what will man do? … He wants to be great, and he sees himself small. He wants to be happy, and he sees himself miserable. He wants to be perfect, and he sees himself full of imperfections. He wants to be the object of love and esteem … and he sees … only … hatred and contempt.”
I think the above section is reason for us to hope that Christianity is true. Humans are flawed, imperfect beings, and we’re constantly aware of our shortcomings. From children feeling weaker, slower, and less smart than their classmates, to adults feeling less successful than their neighbors with the nicer cars or their friends with the prettier wives, we’re rarely satisfied with ourselves. Christianity gives us 1) knowledge of what’s really important and 2) knowledge of a perfect God who tells us we are good enough for Him.
Q#2
ReplyDeleteI picked in chapter 13 verse 808 "Jesus Christ has verified that He was the Messiah, never in verifying His doctrine by Scripture and the prophecies, but always by his miracles. He proves by a miracle that He remits sins. Rejoice not in your miracles, said Jesus Christ, but because your names are written in heaven".
I think that this section give Christians hope of a future Jesus is saying that there will be miracles in your life and you need to be grateful to your father in heaven. Having that hope in a higher power is huge for religion. Especially if that higher power is someone who is like Jesus Christ.
Skimming/reading through Pascal's notes, I found a quote that really stuck out to me. “To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher.” This quote is unique in making note that if a philosopher cannot make light of their opinions, they can't see where there may be flaws in their thinking and rethink the solutions they have made up in their mind. This quote also brings up the fact that philosophers are quick to critique others, but not themselves. This again is a very scary thing to think about since they think that there is no way that they could be wrong ever.
ReplyDelete