Pascal's wager

There goes the boulder again....

 

No, that's not what I meant by "editors". I meant men that decided what pieces to keep and what parts to drop, and they did this effort well after the fact. Instead of scribes, it was more like a Chicago boiler room meeting of powerful king-makers.

But there really isn't any reason to debate this. Your belief system is absolute, and it tells you absolutely that the Bible is the Word of God. Any evidence to the contrary is by definition heresy, so debate is pointless.

Tom

 

Over a period of time, presumably by followers led by God, canonized the Bible. If there was anything out of place, false or otherwise, it would not have lasted the test of time. Though many have tried, they will never eliminate it.

Agreed,,, so what was your point? No wait, you said "evidence to the contrary"... what does that mean or what are you implying?

 

My faith is purrrfectly logical to me. I can look at the purrrfect order in creation and see God's hand in it. Just because you can't, doesn't make you right.

 

Logic is wasted on an illogical mind.

 

Totally agree that there are good and bad that believe and that don't believe. Belief without living a good life is silly. But even worse are those that use their belief as a pretense for doing harm.

Actually I did not make that assumption as it is unnecessary. Only some religions require belief for, others only require good living. What I found in common across religions with an infinite afterlife is good living. Reinterpreting Pascals wager in the broader context leads to conclusions about good living. The added issue of "belief" is still there for some models, but also still up to the individual. I would agree that if there is a just god, the requirement for belief in a particular religion's representation of that god, for belief in ONLY their representation, is a manifestation of human thirst for power and control. That is actually the point of my poem.

Belief without adherence to in a particular religions philosophy is not only possible, it is easy ;-). In that sense the wager is easy to accept even if the probably of winning is small.

Curious if you don't believe, then why live a good life and why worry about the environment after you pass away? Gas will last your lifetime..

 

Didn't you say once you preferred not getting personal? (as in evaluating whether or not someone's mind is logical)

What's wrong with just acknowledging there is a difference of opinion? .... Of course, that's exactly the problem with this topic.

 

So you are saying that without Martin Luther King, it would have been correct to keep the racial policies?

Besides, most people opposing King didn't think he was going the high road.

Sam Harris is about as gentle a disputant as you are going to find in any debate. Certainly more than Dr. King.

 

^ so if you disagree with me, twist my statements instead of addressing them? {sigh}

MLK advocated non-violence, was not a rabble-rouser, non-militant - not Malcolm X. In the context of my post, I mean militant rhetoric, not violence.

Last I checked, MLK's birthday is celebrated in the US.


I know Sam Harris less well than Dawkins or Hitchens, but I will give him credit for debating William Lane Craig.

 

Yes, and I'd still say the same thing. It applies to me as much as anyone else. Sometimes frustration gets the better of us.

Still, as personal insults go, 'illogical' isn't exactly a flaming, putrid epithet.

 

^ anyway, thank you for deciding to limit it to the ideas - not the members.

 

^ Again, MLK was not Malcolm X.

Some called MLK a Communist - that word is about as abused as Nazi - seriously....two words used way too often by very opinionated people that can't face most don't agree with their (often extreme) POV. (general observation - not directed at anyone on this thread) Even today, people considered archconservatives a generation ago are being tagged "socialists" and the like. Then there was Sen Joe McCarthy.

People are often not remembered well until they are dead, so MLK is not getting singled out.

Daniel, thank you for putting "Christian" in quotes, as the treatment to MLK often was anything but to this Baptist preacher.

 

So that is Pascal's wager? uh, I didn't know that, though I've heard of the concept of "live like there is a god, just in case you die and find out there is"...

Personally, I have a simple philosophy of what makes a "good" religion.
There are three simple tests:
1) Does it make you connected with the better part of yourself?
2) Does it make you feel connected with the divine? (this could be your higher self, god, goddess, His Noodly Goodness, or just the Universe in general)
3) Does it make you play nicer with others?

If you can say YES to all three of them, it's cool.

So, how many religious people are failing at #3? Doesn't matter what religion you are... and, yes, even atheists can take/pass/fail this test. If your life/ethical foundation isn't bringing out the best in you, and isn't connecting you to something bigger than you, and helping you connect to others better, it ain't working.

Daniel, I love you. Just the way you are.

 

Albert Camus: Dealing with the Absurdity of the human condition



So here we are: poor creatures desperately seeking hope and meaning in a hopeless,
meaningless world. Sartre, in his essay-review of The Stranger provides an additional
gloss on the idea: “The absurd, to be sure, resides neither in man nor in the world, if you
consider each separately. But since man’s dominant characteristic is ‘being in the world,’
the absurd is, in the end, an inseparable part of the human condition.†The absurd, then,
presents itself in the form of an existential opposition. It arises from the human demand
for clarity and transcendence on the one hand and a cosmos that offers nothing of the
kind on the other. Such is our fate: we inhabit a world that is indifferent to our sufferings
and deaf to our protests.

In Camus’ view there are three possible philosophical responses to this predicament. Two
of these he condemns as evasions; the other he puts forward as a proper solution.

Our first choice is blunt and simple: physical suicide. If we decide that a life without some
essential purpose or meaning is not worth living, we can simply choose to kill ourselves.
Camus rejects this choice as cowardly. In his terms it is a repudiation or renunciation of
life, not a true revolt.

Choice two is the religious solution of positing a transcendent world of solace and
meaning beyond the Absurd. Camus calls this solution “philosophical suicide†and rejects
it as transparently evasive and fraudulent. To adopt a supernatural solution to the problem
of the absurd (for example, through some type of mysticism or leap of faith) is
to annihilate reason, which in Camus’ view is as fatal and self-destructive as physical
suicide. In effect, instead of removing himself from the absurd confrontation of self and
world like the physical suicide, the religious believer simply removes the offending world,
replacing it, via a kind of metaphysical abracadabra, with a more agreeable alternative.

Choice three (in Camus’ view the only authentic and valid solution) is simply to accept
absurdity, or better yet to embrace it, and to continue living. Since the absurd in his view
is an unavoidable, indeed defining, characteristic of the human condition, the only proper
response to it is full, unflinching, courageous acceptance. Life, he says, can “be lived all
the better if it has no meaning.â€

The example par excellence of this option of spiritual courage and metaphysical revolt is
the mythical Sisyphus of Camus’ philosophical essay. Doomed to eternal labor at his rock,
fully conscious of the essential hopelessness of his plight, Sisyphus nevertheless pushes
on. In doing so he becomes for Camus a superb icon of the spirit of revolt and of the
human condition. To rise each day to fight a battle you know you cannot win, and to do
this with wit, grace, compassion for others, and even a sense of mission, is to face the
Absurd in a spirit of true heroism.

Don't sell this guy short, he has a lot more to say, such as:

The companion theme to the Absurd in Camus’ oeuvre (and the only other philosophical
topic to which he devoted an entire book) is the idea of Revolt. What is revolt? Simply
defined, it is the Sisyphean spirit of defiance in the face of the Absurd. More technically
and less metaphorically, it is a spirit of opposition against any perceived unfairness,
oppression, or indignity in the human condition.

More: Camus, Albert [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Albert Camus: THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS

 

1

 

Let us consider a small set of choice, like a let-make-a-deal scenario.
Let p1, p2, p3, p4 be probability of various binary variable v1,v2,v3, v4 that impact the outcomes. we'll use a normalized return on the choice

Code:

Choice A:  
               Return -1 if V1=1, V2=0
               Return .00000001 if V1=0
               Return 0  otherwise

Choice B:  
               Return 1 if V1=1, V2=1, V3=1
               Return 0 otherwise.  

Choice C:  
               Return 1 if V1=1, V2=1, V3=0, V4=1
               Return -1  if  V1=1, V2=1, V3=1, V4=1
               Return -1  if  V1=1, V2=1, V3=0, V4=0
               Return 0 otherwise.  

Choice D:  
               Return 1 if V1=1, V2=1, V3=0, V4=0
               Return -1  if  V1=1, V2=1, V3=1, V4=1
               Return -1  if  V1=1, V2=1, V3=0, V4=1
               Return 0 otherwise.   

Choice E:  
               Return -1 if V1=1, V2=0
               Return .00000001 if V1=1, V2=1
               Return .00000001 if V1=0
               Return 0  otherwise

Choice F:  
               Return -1 if V1=1, V2=1, V3=1
               Return -.00001 otherwise.  

Under what conditions on the probabilities p1, p2 and p3 would you choose A through F?

You don't need to answer the actual numbers just relative ordering of probabilities is often sufficient. E.g. it is rational to avoid choice 6 under any setting of p1, p2 p3, p4 and considering only a decision about choice C or D, its rational to choose C if p4 > .5 and prefer D if p4 < .5.

If you are forced to make a choice, which one do you choose and why?
(And don't complain its a false dichotomy, the number of choices could be larger but that does not change the analysis one does.. )

 

I find it strange that some here take J Edgar Hoover's accusations that MLK was a Communist without some skepticism > Martin Luther King, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is just a sideshow to divert from a point some of you are having difficulty with: Dawkins and Hitchens prefer militant rhetoric - MLK took a higher road and echewed violence and militancy....succeeded over Malcolm X, who happens to be the model most atheists are following.

 

That is funny.

Shall we talk about most christians now?