h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello, Lucinda. Regarding the Born-again Druggies, I expect the subbies will pull it if there's no reference, but I'd like to see it stay in! Having worked in a prison, I'm sure it's true...

I was just re-reading and noticed something else:

"This is an old argument for the existance of the Christian god, and is known amongst philosophers and theologians as Pascal's Wager."

This sentence is the first from the first headed section, and it contains two errors. First, "existence" is spelled incorrectly. Secondly, the wager is NOT an argument for the existence of the Christian God!!!! As such, it would fail miserably! (Whether it fails miserably anyway is a question...) What it is - what Pascal intended it to be - and you touch on this near the end of the entry - is an argument for why a reasonable person should WANT to believe, and why they should TRY to believe. That's VERY different from an argument for existence.

Pascal was a very smart, talented mathematician and scientist before he started having pensees about all this junk. He certainly understood logic and proof at least as well as you and I do. He would not have claimed that the wager could convince an intelligent person of God's existence. He had other (less interesting) arguments for that sort of thing...

I suspect they'll pull it anyway for being unfair and somewhat bitchy - surprised it got so far, to be honest.

I certainly agree that Pascal was an intelligent fella - and I'd not call the Pensees junk at all - sure, with 350 extra years of philosophy behind us we can see a lot of flaws in the argument, but at the time this was cutting edge stuff, and advanced philosophy and theology, not to mention probability, by quite a bit.

errors fixed.

I understand that earlier versions (what I didn't see) were unfair and bitchy, but this one seems balanced to me. I expect I'll have another look, but first I'm going to re-read the wager from the Pensees. I'm trying to persuade my divinity school friend and researcher (kierkegaardvark) to read it and give his input. He's a BIG Pascal fan, and he'll be sure to let you know if it's not balanced.

You've certainly done a lot of good work, and there should be an entry on this subject in the edited guide. I don't see why it shouldn't be this one, maybe with a little more tweaking.

Oh, and I'm sorry if I've come across as combative, here and in the FFFF. Let's just say it's glandular and that I'm working on it.

Well be fast, or the subbies will have it first...

Hi Lucinda,
I just read the article: cool. I posted my response (in the wrong place?) attatched to you article as "A Few Ideas." I hope I was fast enough.

when my browser starts co-operating, I'll reply...

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!