詹姆斯继续讨论帕斯卡赌注,帕斯卡部队基督教我们假设真理是一样重要的游戏你的幸福的机会。他想象有一个游戏,结果会在审判日。如果你选择了上帝,那么你将赢得永恒的祝福,如果不是,那么你获得什么。帕斯卡确信即使有无限的可能性,且只有一个上帝,我们应该仍然选择了上帝,因为正如帕斯卡尔所说,“任何有限的损失是合理的,甚至某一个是合理的,如果只有无限的可能性获得“不这样做是无限的损失风险。他因此宣称我们应该采取圣水来净化我们的灵魂,因此,赢得比赛。他看到帕斯卡理论作为一种绝望,人们不相信上帝。然后使用自己的理论,他说,除非个人已经相信基督教的方式,提供的选项我们死了,因为没有行动的动机。例如,任何非基督徒不会感到有义务采取圣水寻找永恒的救恩,这意味着所有非基督徒的选择死亡和活着的基督徒。
相信什么,直到你看到证据的其他讨论,科学变得太极端。在这一点上,科学坚持足够的证据是疯狂以及高不可攀。例如,克利福德坚持一个信念“基于证据不足的错误总是无处不在,每个人都…“因为快乐源自相信是人类偷我们的责任。詹姆斯回答问什么是“足够的证据吗?“如果可以花一年收集证据的任何假设和从未达到难以捉摸的“足够的证据。“这是允许相信任何东西在克利福德的理论吗?或者在詹姆斯条款:当一个假说成为生活吗?这就是为什么他称克利福德的概念“只是愚蠢的”、“邪恶的”。后来,他提醒我们,我们的感情真实或错误只在任何情况下的表达我们的热情的生活,虽然声称Clifford担心自己成为下一个“欺骗”,盲目服从他的恐惧。
澳洲卧龙岗大学论文代写:詹姆斯
James proceeds to discuss Pascal's wager, where Pascal forces Christianity on us by assuming truth to be as important as your well-being in a game of chance. He imagines there is a game which the results will be known on Judgement day. If you chose god then you will win eternal beatitude, if not then you gain nothing. Pascal is convinced that even if there were infinite chances, and only one for god, we should still chose god, because as Pascal puts it, "Any finite loss is reasonable, even a certain one is reasonable, if there is but the possibility of infinite gain" to not do so is to risk a infinite loss. He thus claims that we should take to holy water in order to purify our souls and thus, win the game. He sees Pascal's theory as a desperation shot to people what do not believe in God. He then uses his own theory, stating that unless the individual already believed the Christian way, the option offered to us is dead because there is no motive to act on it. For instance, any non-Christian will not feel obligated to take holy water in search for eternal salvation, meaning that the choice is dead for all non-Christians and alive for all Christians.
The other alternative of believe nothing until you see evidence is then discussed, the point where science becomes too extreme. At this point, science's insistence on sufficient evidence is insane as well as unattainable. For example, Clifford insists that a belief based on insufficient evidence is "wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone..." because the pleasure derived from believing is stolen from our duty to mankind. James responds by asking what constitutes "sufficient evidence?" If the One could spend years collecting evidence for any hypothesis and never attain the elusive "sufficient evidence." Is it permissible to believe in anything at all in Clifford's theory? Or in James' terms: When does a hypothesis become a living one? This is why he calls Clifford's notion "simply silly" and "vile". Later on, he reminds us that our feelings either truth or error are in any case only expressions of our passional life, while claiming that Clifford fears becoming a "dupe" and slavishly obeys his fear.
如果您在悉尼学习遇到难题或没时间去写自己作业论文，需要学术帮助请联系我们专业的 悉尼论文代写服务
