Rationality Conspiracy Theory

It is said that man, to survive, has always needed something or some belief to hold on; be it science, religion or magic. Man without a belief lacks hope (Walker, 1997). Lack of hope makes a man vulnerable to unforeseen circumstances. To avoid this vulnerability man has been holding onto different belief systems.

Brian Keeley’s short essay, “Of Conspiracy Theories” discusses conspiracy theories and their value in an epistemological context. Keeley defines a conspiracy theory as “a proposed explanation of some historical event (or events) in terms of the significant causal agency of a relatively small group of persons-the conspirators-acting in secret (Keeley 1999, pg. 116).” Keeley seeks to answer the question of why conspiracy theories are unwarranted. His interest in the warrant of conspiracy theories focuses on ¬the unfalsifiability of conspiracy theories and how conspiracy theories are founded upon an extraordinarily large amount of skepticism. In section III, Keely discusses what a conspiracy theory is, and contends that there is no grounds for

Additionally, she also uses compelling anecdotal evidence to support her argument that the brain of a rational person forms these conspiracy theories as it is a human tendency to latch onto interpretation of facts as they become available. The writer also uses scientific terms like amygdala and theories such as ‘confirmation bias and the ‘backfire effect’ to persuade the readers that conspiracy theories are formed by rational people due to psychological reasons.

1. Examine the strengths and weaknesses of the argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. (18) 2. ‘The argument merely indicates the probability of God and this is of little value to a religious believer.’ Discuss. (12)

In this paper I will be discussing Pascal’s Wager. What I first plan to do in this paper is explain the argument of Pascal’s Wager. Next I will explain how Pascal tries to convince non-theists why they should believe in God. I will then explain two criticisms in response to Pascal’s argument. Finally, I will discuss whether or not these criticisms show Pascal’s reasoning to be untenable.

When a person is introduced to a conspiracy theory, it has the potential to severely affect the way they view the world, as well as the way their brain processes information. With numerous theories surfacing in the world, and more than 50 percent of Americans believing in at least one conspiracy; it is hard to determine which are real, and which are fiction. As a result of conspiracy theories people stop trusting each other and become less social. An experiment instructed by Sander van der Linden,a Dutch social psychologist in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cambridge, show that the belief in conspiracy theories can cause a person to be less pre-social. In his experiment Dr. Linden separated his participants into three groups, the first group watched a video about conspiracy theories of global warming, the second group watched a video about taking action on global warming, and the third group was a control group which did don't watch any video.   Studies conducted by Willem Prooijen,a social and organizational

Perfectly sane minds possess the possibility of creating the most fascinating narratives. Conspiracies are a way to react to being powerless or uncertain. Economic recessions, terrorists’ attacks, and deaths of the young and famous happen and when they do people do not know what to think or believe. Their minds react in overdrive

In this essay I will discuss the ontological problem of the existence of God and discuss Pascal’s Wager and how it solves the issue. The problem with the proof of the existence of God is that it is not something we will know for sure until our dying day. We can speculate and bet on his existence and “feel” his presence but at this point it is just that, only a bet. This wager is famous for opening up minds to look at the problem in a bigger picture. The problem with the existence of God is not in the answer but instead in the question. Pascal is responsible for refocusing this discussion on God to the bigger problem of the existential context of human life. In a way this can all be broken down to very black and white terms “Either God is or he is not.” But upon looking further we realize that this is a much bigger issue with many grey areas than something as simple as ‘is or is not’.

In this philosophical paper I will be referencing the works of Blaise Pascal’s, “The Wager”, Simon Blackburn’s “Pascal’s Wager”, and Linda Zagzebski’s “Pascal’s Wager: An Assessment”. I will be comparing Pascal’s beliefs with the beliefs of Blackburn and Zagzebski as they discuss different ways to believe in God and if believing in God is a gamble on ones after-life, or simply just religious preference. I will discuss the works of these three philosophers and explain how their works may correlate and differ. The question presented in Pascal’s work is still relevant, being over 350 years old, and still left unsolved. Even though times are much different and technology is much more advanced than when Pascal presented this work in the mid 1600’s.

The wager is neatly-structured and clearly explained, each conclusion is supported by the premises and they all make sense from a structural-level point of view. Yet, it is a bold attempt to clarify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. Pascal’s wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering

In this paper, I will evaluate blackburn's objection to how he deems Pascal’s use of notion "metaphysical ignorance" as a problematic starting position to arrive the conclusion of Pascal's Wager argument. In “Metaphysical ignorance”, which refers to the idea that Pascal posits in the beginning of his Wager argument, that we know neither what God is nor what kinds of attributes and properties God has. As a result of this knowing, Pascal sets out four options to wager, which is four possible consequences of belief or disbelief whether God exists or not, by implying us to choose the one which offers eternal happiness and gains; However, the options are flawed since Blackburn thinks Pascal can not assume there is an eternal gain or loss especially

French physicist and mathematician, Blaise Pascal, had a set of notes found after his death. These notes would then be collected, compiled, and printed into “The Wager”. “The Wager” is a philosophical argument that aims the reader to vindicate the reasonings of God’s existence rather than not believing in god’s creation at all. Even assuming that God’s existence is improbable, the likely benefits of believing in God are extensive in regards to the benefits and infinite gains that are believed to be achieved, unlike not believing in God. Pascal concluded that it is most rational to take trust and shelter within religious views (r-views) rather than other minor insignificant and lowly views such as Atheist views (a-views) and dumb views (d-views).

The Wager, as introduced by Blaise Pascal, addresses the hypothesized outcomes for all possibilities regarding God’s existence. I think that following Pascal’s instructions and choosing to believe in God because it may give you the most rewards in return is not beneficial because believing in anything without proper support for the claim is problematic and may lead to unintended consequences. Additionally, I think Pascal’s suggestion should not be followed because the guarantee of a more developed lifestyle and what we know to be certain now should overpower and be viewed as more important than the slight possibility of achieving a rewarding eternal afterlife. In this essay I will first explain Pascal’s general viewpoints expressed throughout

The central problem of this paper that I am going to try to convince my atheist friend is that god existed. I will argue in favor of a higher being by first presenting and evaluating two argument that will be used to persuade my atheist friend. First I will explain Pascal’s argument. Second I will explain one of the arguments of Aquinas’s that is in favor of the existence of god. Then I am going to explain what’s the central difference between the two arguments is. I will conclude by stating whether I was successful in converting my atheist friend.

In this paper I will contrast the ways that Blaise Pascal and Saint Anselm of Canterbury attempted to convince people to believe in God. Before getting into the two arguments I should first clarify a few key terms. Firstly, the difference between ordinary and religious beliefs. An ordinary belief is exactly what it sounds like, it’s a typical belief based on adequate evidence. An example would be “I believe the sky is blue because I’ve observed it as blue countless times”. Religious beliefs on the other hand, are not based on reasoning, but instead “Sola Fide”, or faith alone suffices, meaning that these beliefs are based only on trust that the proposition is true. A basic example of a religious belief would be “God exists” despite a lack of evidence for the claim. The major conflict between the two different types of beliefs is that in ordinary belief its considered shame worthy to belief something without have reasons to support it while belief without evidence is the core of religious belief. Another key term that must be understood to understand the arguments is “faith seeking understanding”. This idea was championed by Anselm and is crucial to understanding his argument. In short, he means that if someone begins with just faith in God then through that God will help them attain understanding.