Sep 27– From Pascal’s "Thoughts" translated by William Finlayson Trotter

 Music

Sep 27– From Pascal’s Thoughts translated by William Finlayson Trotter

Summary: Strawmanning and circular logic.

Commentary: On the surface, this is the same "Christian Fundamentalism is incompatible with a liberal education" rant that I've done three or four times this year.

But Pascal is by far the worst of them all. At no point in this do any of his arguments even begin to make sense, and he does a fantastic job of insulting everyone he can and (accidentally) painting God as evil.

The Christian religion then teaches men these two truths; that there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him

This is Pascal's main point, repeated at least a dozen times throughout the essay. At no point does he actually manage to muster any support for it, it's just accepted as a given and rephrased 9001 times. And it's a terrible foundation to build an argument on. The Bible itself claims that we can't know/understand God many times, and most mainstream Christian sects will point to this unknowability as a key tenant of the faith. I don't know what Pascal is actually arguing for, but it doesn't seem to actually be Christianity as it was commonly understood at any time. He can't even seem to make up his mind on how the Trinity works within the essay itself, flipping between Jesus being a separate, independent being vs an eternal part of God paragraph to paragraph. Also, unlike the very knowable God, the fall of man is apparently completely incomprehensible. And don't try to reason your way through it since "reason may be bent to everything." 

He spends a good amount of time shit talking Jews (who he calls "irreconcilable enemies" of Christians) , and even attempts to claim some OT Jews as Christians. I'm reasonably sure Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not followers of Jesus.

If you handed this to me, I'd assume an modern day internet athiest wrote it in his fedora to mock Christians. But now, it's an actual passage by one of the most respected Christian Philosophers of all time:

Objection. The Scripture is plainly full of matters not dictated by the Holy Spirit.—Answer. Then they do not harm faith.—Objection. But the Church has decided that all is of the Holy Spirit.—Answer. I answer two things: first, the Church has not so decided; secondly, if she should so decide, it could be maintained.

Not only does he do the obnoxious philosophical dialogue, "I'll write my own questions to make me smart" thing, but he builds a ridiculous straw man and creates an impossible "objection." "We didn't say that, and if we did, it'd be true."

Great, really settling the argument there. Not that we can accept reasoning anyway.

In the end, it all comes down to spiritual eugenics:

577

God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.

578

There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sebond.

You couldn't write a better argument for anti-theism if you tried.