If you suspend judgment, then you are denying yourself the good that comes with religious belief. That's as close as it gets to Pascal's wagerie. The view that he's arguing against, we might call now evidentialism. He thinks that there's always some sort of step of faith in any of our beliefs.
David and Tamler argue about William James' classic essay "The Will to Believe." What's more important - avoiding falsehood or discovering truth? When (if ever) is it rational to believe anything without enough evidence? What about beliefs that we can't be agnostic about? Are there hypotheses that we have to believe in order for them to come true? Does James successfully demonstrate that faith can be rational?
Plus, a philosopher at Apple who's not allowed to talk to the media - what are they hiding? And why are academics constantly telling students that academia is a nightmare?
Support Very Bad Wizards
Links: