The question is from my introduction to Philosophy class and concerns Pascal’s Wager. PW attempts to convince the agnostic that one is better off believing in God and being wrong rather than disbelieving in God’s existence and being wrong. It argues that there are four possible alternatives:
- Believe in God and be correct (the consequence is eternal reward)
- Believe in God and be wrong (the consequence is a temporal loss)
- Disbelieve in God and be correct (the consequence is temporal reward)
- Disbelieve in God and be incorrect (the consequence is an eternal loss)
So on the whole, one’s best shot at the ultimate reward, and an avoidance of the ultimate loss is to believe in God. For a painfully precise explanation, see here.
One student (obviously a Kenny Rogers fan) wrote the following
A second student, an aspiring artist, simply wrote...
I jovially recorded two "F"s...
3 comments:
Taran,
Surely, a "C" at least for originality.....though I must admit most of my professors would have graded the same as you.
M
I remember a day when we cringed at Dr.Young's essay exams. Now, I am quite certain that there is a new generation of students who weep at the thought of Dr.Taran's tests...
DD
DD,
Dr. Young's exams were the scariest I've ever faced...at seminary or otherwise. Taking one of his exams was like a visit to the proctologist. Probing every nook and cranny.
But not me, my exams are cupcakes.
Post a Comment