This week’s reading focuses on understanding evidence in human faith. Pascal’s “Wager” is probably one of the strongest arguments in philosophy when people should be ready to put their lives on the line to demonstrate if God exists or not. The author used a simple logic in his discussion – “either God is or he is not” (qtd. in Rosen et al. 69). There is no place for reasonable or fair opinions in this wager because “an infinite chaos” separates people, and a game must be “played at the far end of this infinite distance” (qtd. Rosen et al. 69). This wager means the necessity to give something and take something back or mislay forever. In Pascal’s case, a person stakes reason and will or loses “the true and the good” (qtd. Rosen et al. 69). It is interesting to realize that Pascal did not try to impose one opinion but offered options so one could believe that his or her faith depends on personal decisions. At the same time, Pascal proved that it was in the best interest of humanity to believe in God’s existence and obtain benefits. Anyway, every person is free to use different reasons and make conclusions.
Gettier’s Counterexamples
The main idea of Edmund Gettier’s counterexamples is to prove what a person who has a justified true belief does not know. Gettier developed two cases to underline the controversy of knowledge’s definition. The first counterexample (the number of coins in Smith’s and Jones’ pockets and the possibility to get the job) shows that it is possible for an individual to be justified in believing in something false (qtd. Rosen et al. 145). The second counterexample (Jones’ Ford and the location of Brown) proves that a person may have a belief that is true and justified but never knowledge. Despite a specific impact of the statement on different theories, there is one approach that did not change under the pressure of counterexamples. Timothy Williamson was the author of the knowledge-first theory, according to which it was impossible to analyze knowledge as justified true belief but consider it as something more serious. According to Williamson, belief cannot imply knowledge, but knowledge can imply true belief with an extra component (X) (qtd. Rosen et al. 151). The facts that knowledge involves everything that the knower may relate to the content and that belief remains neutral make Williamson’s theory invulnerable to Gettier’s thoughts.
Work Cited
Rosen, Gideon, et al. The Norton Introduction to Philosophy. 2nd ed., W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.