dq

INSTRUCTIONS: Please choose one of the following questions and post an answer/response by Thursday 11:59pm ET. Also please make sure to respond to at least two posts of your classmates and/or the instructor by Sunday 11:59pm ET. To earn full credit for this discussion assignment you need to make three substantive posts (see Discussion Guidelines under Course Home).  Make sure to include references to the course materials in your responses.
 

(1) Pascal makes an interesting argument about why we should believe in God.  However, some people would not view this as a "rational" argument for God's existence per se, but rather merely a "rational" argument for buying an insurance policy.  In other words, we buy an insurance policy for rational reasons, namely we believe that there might be a fire that destroys our property one day in the future.  However, we do not buy an insurance policy because we actually believe that a fire exists at present.  Indeed, if a fire did exist at present, we would call the fire department, rather than the insurance company—that would be the rational thing to do in a situation where an actual fire existed.  Is Pascal's argument merely a rational argument for buying an insurance policy just in case God does exist?  Or does Pascal's argument convince you that God does, in fact, exist?  Why or why not?  When answering this question make sure to include references to the assigned readings.

(2) Everyone makes mistakes.  A mistake, by definition, is not something that is done on purpose or intentionally.  Our beliefs also can be mistaken.  Sometimes our mistaken beliefs are due to the fact that we did not have enough information or evidence to know any better.  On the other hand, sometimes our mistaken beliefs are due to the fact that we were not paying close enough attention to the evidence that already was available to us.  Consider the following claim:  A person who does not believe in God is making a mistake (an epistemological error).  Could not believing in God ever be due to the fact that a person does not have enough evidence to believe in God?  What would Bergmann think?  Would he agree?  Why or why not?  When answering this question make sure to include references to the assigned readings.