Russian Roulette and Pascal’s Wager

_{Mark

July 2, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

According to Allen McNeil the Gallup poll results for American scientists are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 5%

Guided Evolution = 40%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 55%

For members of the National Academy of Sciences*, the results are:

Young-Earth Creationist = 3%

Guided Evolution = 14%

“Naturalistic” Evolution = 83%

*data from the Cornell Evolution Project, http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org

So here’s how I read it. One in six of the most accomplished living scientists believe in a living God responsible for the creation of mankind.

Pascal compares the risks of belief and disbelief:

1) If I disbelieve in God and I’m wrong, I lose everything.
2) If I disbelieve in God and I’m right, I gain nothing.
3) If I believe in God and I’m wrong, I lose nothing.
4) If I believe in God and I’m right, I gain everything.

The only rational position to take is #4 where you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. That is Pascal’s Wager.

Now if we take our odds of God being real from the greatest living scientists we find the odds of God being real are 1 in 6 (17%). So this is essentially like playing Russian Roulette with a 6-shot revolver with one bullet in it. If you pull the trigger and nothing happens you gain nothing but if you pull the trigger and the gun fires you lose your life. Why play that game? Even if the odds were a thousand or a million to one against getting a bullet in the head why play?

Dave Scott

Comments

vividbleau writes:
It is a FACT that to say that something can come into existence without a cause violates the law of non contradiction and is indeed a form of self creation.
No. If it were self-creation, the thing would be its own cause. We are talking about something coming into existence without a cause. That does not violate the law of non-contradiction. If you think it does, show us why.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

MF 172 "It might just not be there one second and there the next second." Then it is not simultaneous which does not violate the law of non contradiction. "But that just isn’t true." Sigh.. One cannot have a discussion when someone denies facts. It is a FACT that to say that something can come into existence without a cause violates the law of non contradiction and is indeed a form of self creation. Self creation is something coming into existence without a cause. No amount of protest can change those facts Mark. Mark call me crazy but I have a personal policy that when facts dont matter there is nothing more to discuss. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Re #171 "For something to come into existence without a cause would violate the law of non contradiction." But that just isn't true. Your argue turns on the additional premise: "For something to come into existence without a cause it must create itself" Well there is no law of logic that says this must be true. It might just not be there one second and there the next second. It might be extraordinary, you might regard it is effectively magic, but it is not logically impossible.Mark Frank_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Barb wrote:
Pharaoh was considered the direct descendent of the sun-god Ra. Admitting defeat would have dethroned him from the Egyptian pantheon.
Why did God harden Pharaoh's heart if it was unnecessary, as you claim? Isn't God supposed to be omniscient?
But Pharaoh repeatedly told Moses that he would let the Hebrews go and then changed his mind.
Pharaoh didn't change his mind. God changed Pharaoh's mind. For example:
Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, "I have sinned against the LORD your God and against you. Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me." Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the LORD. And the LORD changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go. Exodus 10:16-20, NIV
You wrote:
Remember that the Hebrews were kept as slaves in Egypt. Are you going to suggest that Pharaoh’s keeping them as slaves is morally correct?
Of course not. Where did you get that strange idea?
So, God’s causing the ten plagues in an attempt to get Pharaoh to let Israel go was one step in the development of that nation. You fail to see this historical narrative in the Old Testament.
Um, didn't you notice that Pharaoh wanted to let the Hebrews go until God hardened his heart? Read Exodus 10:16-20 again. I wrote:
Even if the above were not true, and even if Pharaoh really did harden his own heart without interference from God (contrary to the account), how is it fair for the Egyptian people to be punished for Pharaoh’s stubborn decisions?
You replied:
Oh, please. Think for a moment. A ruler’s actions always affect his or her people. How is it fair for us, the taxpayers, to bail out the financial industry when the decision was made by President Obama? How is it fair for people to starve to death in Africa when the warlords who control the country refuse to allow aid to be brought in?
You don't see the difference between those scenarios and the Exodus account, where God himself directly and personally punishes the Egyptians for the actions of Pharaoh -- actions that God himself causes by hardening Pharaoh's heart? Give me a break. I wrote:
They didn’t elect Pharaoh. They had no control over Pharaoh’s decisions. The story even tells us that Pharaoh’s servants implored him to let the Hebrews go, saying “knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” What kind of God would punish these innocent people who were urging Pharaoh to do the right thing? Why would God make them suffer? Why would God kill their firstborn children?
You responded:
They were given the opportunity to let Israel go, but they didn’t.
No, Pharaoh was given the opportunity to let Israel go, and Pharaoh didn't. Why? Because God hardened his heart. Why should innocent Egyptians lose their beloved firstborn children because God chose to harden the heart of their leader?
God told them beforehand what would happen. He gave them the opportunity to forestall the plague by letting Israel go. But they didn’t.
No, God gave Pharaoh the opportunity to let the Hebrews go. When Pharaoh tried to do just that, God hardened his heart so that he changed his mind.
Remember, too, that being open to new ideas and different viewpoints means being flexible enough to modify your ideas in the light of new information or better insight. Are you willing to do that?
Yes. Are you?
We all have a tendency to cling to the beliefs that we’ve been brought up with but, if we’re going to continue to grow as thinkers, we have to modify our beliefs when evidence suggests that we should.
As I told you earlier, I was once a biblical inerrantist. After pondering the evidence for a long time, I decided the Bible was not perfect. After pondering the evidence even longer, I decided that Christianity was not true. After still more pondering, I became an agnostic, and then an atheist. You certainly don't need to lecture me about being open to the evidence or about being willing to modify my beliefs.
You seem to want the scriptures to back you up. Sorry, but that’s not going to happen until you study them and examine the context.
You keep claiming that I am looking at the Exodus story out of context. What context are you referring to? What context makes it moral for God to punish innocent people for the actions of their ruler, actions that God himself causes by hardening the ruler's heart? How can anyone consider that behavior to be moral? Consider this hypothetical example. Suppose that the US issues an edict to the Taliban in Afghanistan, demanding their surrender. The Taliban leaders refuse. The US leaders confer and decide that "we're going to show the Taliban that you don't mess with the US." They issue an ultimatum to the Taliban leaders, saying "if you don't surrender, we'll launch airstrikes that will wipe 25 Afghan villages off the map." The Taliban leaders refuse to surrender, and so 25 Afghan villages are obliterated the next day. If this happened, the world would be outraged at such an immoral act. It would be condemned and regarded as a war crime. Yet when God does something even worse, you defend it as moral. Read this:
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD." Exodus 10:1-2, NIV
He's talking about punishing innocent people so that "you may know that I am the LORD." This is moral, how? The sad thing is that as horrible and immoral as the hypthetical US action would be, it is actually morally superior to the action of God in Egypt. Why? Because the US "only" destroys 25 villages, not the entire nation, and the US, unlike God, cannot reach in and "harden the hearts" of the Taliban leaders. Barb, if it would be immoral for the US to do this to innocent Afghans just to prove that "you don't mess with the US", then why is it moral when God does something even worse for nothing more than bragging rights? I wrote:
It’s beyond me how anyone could argue that God is behaving morally in this story.
You responded:
It’s beyond me how unbelievers can attempt to use the Bible to prove their worldview correct when, in fact, the Bible does just the opposite.
I don't use the Bible to prove my worldview. The Bible's not reliable, after all. What I'm doing is showing that if you take the Bible to be inerrant, then the only rational conclusion is that God is immoral. It should be obvious by now that it is a huge mistake to regard the Bible as inerrant.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

I wrote:
Even if the folks at Apologetics Press were correct in their rationalization, the story of the plagues still depicts unjust and immoral behavior on God’s part.
Phinehas responded:
Sez who?
Anyone who thinks it is immoral to punish someone for something he or she didn't do. Suppose we imprison you for a murder you did not commit. Will you appeal, or will you decide that we are acting morally and accept the sentence?
So?
If you want to worship an immoral God, be my guest. It's a free country. Most of us find that idea appalling.mereologist_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

MF 167 "I think we must disagree of the meaning of the word “logic" Yes we do.Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic has its own rules and laws such as the law of non contradiction, etc. "If something is logically impossible then it is no amount of empirical evidence can even begin to suggest it is true." I agree. "The fact that we can imagine for something to appear without cause and even have evidence to support the proposition shows that it is logically possible" False. For something to come into existence without a cause would violate the law of non contradiction. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

@Alan Fox
Anyone here think they can decide what they believe?
I'd say that you cannot help but decide what you believe. You have a choice about what you believe, but you don't have a choice about choosing. :)Phinehas_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

@mereologist
Even if the folks at Apologetics Press were correct in their rationalization, the story of the plagues still depicts unjust and immoral behavior on God’s part.
1. Sez who? 2. So?Phinehas_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

“God hardens Pharaoh’s heart over and over during the ten plagues.” Pharaoh was considered the direct descendent of the sun-god Ra. Admitting defeat would have dethroned him from the Egyptian pantheon. “No sane ruler would have failed to let the Hebrews go after three or four plagues at most. However, Pharaoh’s behavior makes sense given that God kept hardening his heart.” But Pharaoh repeatedly told Moses that he would let the Hebrews go and then changed his mind. Remember that the Hebrews were kept as slaves in Egypt. Are you going to suggest that Pharaoh’s keeping them as slaves is morally correct? “Exodus specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that “my wonders may be “multiplied in the land of Egypt.” God did it, and Exodus tells us why he did it.” Also keep in mind that Israel sprung from Jacob, who was the descendent of Abraham. God promised Abraham in Genesis that his descendents would be a mighty nation. So, God’s causing the ten plagues in an attempt to get Pharaoh to let Israel go was one step in the development of that nation. You fail to see this historical narrative in the Old Testament. “ Even if the above were not true, and even if Pharaoh really did harden his own heart without interference from God (contrary to the account), how is it fair for the Egyptian people to be punished for Pharaoh’s stubborn decisions?” Oh, please. Think for a moment. A ruler’s actions always affect his or her people. How is it fair for us, the taxpayers, to bail out the financial industry when the decision was made by President Obama? How is it fair for people to starve to death in Africa when the warlords who control the country refuse to allow aid to be brought in? It’s not pleasant, but it’s reality. Start learning to deal with it. “They didn’t elect Pharaoh. They had no control over Pharaoh’s decisions. The story even tells us that Pharaoh’s servants implored him to let the Hebrews go, saying “knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?” What kind of God would punish these innocent people who were urging Pharaoh to do the right thing? Why would God make them suffer? Why would God kill their firstborn children? “ They were given the opportunity to let Israel go, but they didn’t. They suffered because of the stubbornness and selfishnesss of their ruler. This can also be proven by looking at any one of many nations today and in the past. God told them beforehand what would happen. He gave them the opportunity to forestall the plague by letting Israel go. But they didn’t. Remember, too, that being open to new ideas and different viewpoints means being flexible enough to modify your ideas in the light of new information or better insight. Are you willing to do that? We all have a tendency to cling to the beliefs that we've been brought up with but, if we're going to continue to grow as thinkers, we have to modify our beliefs when evidence suggests that we should. You seem to want the scriptures to back you up. Sorry, but that's not going to happen until you study them and examine the context. Otherwise, your repeated quote mining does nothing but prove that you really don't know that much about the Bible. “It’s beyond me how anyone could argue that God is behaving morally in this story.” It’s beyond me how unbelievers can attempt to use the Bible to prove their worldview correct when, in fact, the Bible does just the opposite. Egypt was the dominant world power at the time and Israel was held in captivity. Is slavery good? Should God not have intervened and freed the slaves? Should God have allowed the Egyptians to think that their pantheon of anthropomorphic gods would save them instead of proving that he was the only true God? God made a promise to Abraham to multiply his seed, and that his seed would become a great nation. This was one step in the development of that nation. For you to stubbornly refuse to examine the context of the scriptures and continually harp on how bad you think God is crosses the line from ignorance to stupidity.Barb_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

vividbleau I would suspect that the difference between you and I has to do with the prorities we assign between logic and empiricism. I think we must disagree of the meaning of the word "logic". As I understand it there is no way that you can have different priorities between logic and empiricism. If something is logically impossible then it is no amount of empirical evidence can even begin to suggest it is true. It would like trying to find evidence that all swans are white and at least swan is black. The fact that we can imagine for something to appear without cause and even have evidence to support the proposition shows that it is logically possible. Just very strange - like triangles whose angles add up to less than 180 degrees. PS I think there was a misunderstanding in #158. When I say Nothing creates it I mean there is no thing which does the creating. I don't mean that the absence of things does the creating. I mean it in the same sense of "nothing" as in "nothing phases him". That doesn't mean that the absence of things phases him - it means there is no thing capable of phasing him.Mark Frank_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

"It is not my beliefs that requires me to believe that a neccessary self existence must exist rather logic requires me to believe such an existence exists." Let me correct the above to It is not my beliefs that requires me to believe that a neccessary existence must exist rather logic requires me to believe such an existence exists. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

dbt 161 Doubting Thomas "I do understand how problematic and paradoxical this notion is. That’s a good reason to be skeptical." I am sincere when I say I am happy to read this. "It is not a reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand" But I do dismiss the possibility out of hand that something can come from nothing, that the law of noncontradiction is inviolable. Let me explain. I would suspect that the difference between you and I has to do with the prorities we assign between logic and empiricism. I may be wrong about this and please let me know if I am. However I would guess that for you the empirical supersedes logic. That is if the empirical gives evidence that contradicts logic you will throw logic overboard, that is you give the empirical more weight than logic. I on the other hand, in my hiearchy of importance put logic over the empirical. That is to say that there is no empirical evidence that would convince me something can come from nothing because that would violate logic so it cannot be correct. We have to be missing something, our knowledge must be incomplete. Am I accurately stating what are our evidential differences? "Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of reality, confirmed beyond reasonable doubt" Agreed. "It explicitly allows things to just appear and disappear, or occupy two positions simultaneously, and even requires that this be so. But it tells us nothing about how this works, nor does it give us any inkling of a mechanism." To occupy two position simultaneoulsy or to tranverse space instantaneoulsy would violate the law of non contradiction therefore FOR ME there must be more going on based on our incomplete knowledge. remember for me logic trumps the empirical. Let me also say that I do not doubt that this appears to be what is going on. I am not saying that what we are observing are anything different than how you have explained it. "As opposed to magic, poofery and the Designer-not-necessarily-known-as-God did it?" To invoke something from nothing is magic , poofery ( to quote Mark Frank "it just happens") and nothing did it. It is a perfect description. If people who embrace such nonsense take umbrage I would suggest they not embrace irrationality. "And, one last time: I do not “embrace” anything, by which I take it you mean “believe”. To continue this theme of seeming contradiction and superposition, I neither believe there is no cause for a virtual particle, nor do I believe there is one. I simply accept that what appears to be the case may actually be the case." Mea culpa. If I misrepresented, and it appears that I have,I would hope you would accept my apologies. "I’ll leave you with some questions: are you absolutely sure that no entities are ever uncaused? Your beliefs do not require such a thing to exist? I.e., is the chain of causation infinite in either direction?" In 142 I stated "Something can be self existent without violating logic, but it cannot be self created" Self existence is an uncaused existence. It is not my beliefs that requires me to believe that a neccessary self existence must exist rather logic requires me to believe such an existence exists. Hope this helps and will facilitate a better dialog going forward. Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

Vivid @ 156:
Interesting you deny the law of non contradiction yet use it in order to convince me that it does not apply to science and the indeterminacy principle.
It's more interesting that I didn't deny it, and yet you claim I have. What part of "you have to take seriously the idea that this may just be the way things are" did you not understand? I am not denying that these phenomena may have causes as we normally understand the concept. I simply accept the possibility that our normal understanding of and intuitions about reality may not be correct in every situation and at every scale. Make no mistake: I do understand how problematic and paradoxical this notion is. That's a good reason to be skeptical. It is not a reason to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Anyway after reading your post I will try to take the Queens advice to Alice and try real hard to imagine 6 impossible things everyday before breakfast.
That's a lovely strawman. What's his name? You see, I'm not imagining things. Uncertainty is a fundamental feature of reality, confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. It explicitly allows things to just appear and disappear, or occupy two positions simultaneously, and even requires that this be so. But it tells us nothing about how this works, nor does it give us any inkling of a mechanism.
Perhaps in a few weeks I too will embrace these great scientific principles that you do, magic, poofery and nothing did it.
As opposed to magic, poofery and the Designer-not-necessarily-known-as-God did it? And, one last time: I do not "embrace" anything, by which I take it you mean "believe". To continue this theme of seeming contradiction and superposition, I neither believe there is no cause for a virtual particle, nor do I believe there is one. I simply accept that what appears to be the case may actually be the case. I'll leave you with some questions: are you absolutely sure that no entities are ever uncaused? Your beliefs do not require such a thing to exist? I.e., is the chain of causation infinite in either direction?dbthomas_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

vididbeau @ 161 You said..."We cannot even conceive of nothing." I'll give it a go. "Nothing" is the absence of anything natural in the universe. If that definition is true (and I think most naturalists would agree it is), then the universe is necessarily the result of a non-natural cause.Bantay_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

dbThomas @ 160 Yeah, but if Darwinism was all the rage that they wished it was, then you wouldn't hear anyone complaining about being called a "darwinist". Only since Darwinism has been exposed to more public critique have they tried to distance themselves from the term. Regarding "creationism", I do not find the term offensive at all. Like you, I agree it is more of a descriptive term. However, the term "creationist" has been used in the pejorative sense by ID critics who try to associate the term with ID (while never seeming able to show any religious premise of ID). Maybe they don't know that there are some ID proponents who are atheist and agnostic (whoops! the secret is out!)Bantay_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

MF 158 "Not true." True "The whole point is that this an event without a cause." That is exactly what self creation is, an event ( effect) without a cause. "Nothing creates it" Nothing can create nothing. It (actually there is no it to nothing) has no causal power.There is no it there. This is an absurd and irrational statement....it's unintelligible We cannot even concieve of nothing.Nothing is what rocks dream of.To even try to concieve of nothing you have to think of something. "It just happens." Wow!! This is what science has degenerated to?? It just happens?Oops there's that song going off in my head again ....Do you believe in magic da da da da... Vividvividbleau_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

Bantay @ 157: Congratulations, you've understood my entire point. There is not a thing wrong with "Darwininst", "Materialist", "Atheist", "Creationist", "Christian" or any other label. They are primarily descriptive. I tried in vain to explain all this to Jerry on another thread, but he still insists that is simply inappropirate to use the term "creationist". Clive appears to agree. And no, it has no fundamental connection to whether or not a world-view is in style. This often happens, I agree. It is not, however, universally the case.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank @ 158 You said "Nothing creates it (not even itself). It just happens." Are you implying that something that does nothing (nothing itself) does something (creates itself?). William Lane Craig has an interesting reply to this topic, but I'll make an abbreviated version of it. Mark and his friend are walking along in a forest and suddenly they both hear what sounds like a gunshot. Pow! (bang?) Mark exclaims.."What could have caused that?" Mark's friend replies "Nothing!" and they both continue walking as if nothing had happened.Bantay_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Re #142 For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself. Not true. The whole point is that this an event without a cause. Nothing creates it (not even itself). It just happens.Mark Frank_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

dbThomas @ 129 You said..."Searching this site for the words “Darwinist”, “atheist”, and “materialist” will certainly yield many more examples of negative mockery on the part of the positive and polite design proponents implied by Jerry’s categorization of anti-ID folk." I'm really glad you brought this up, since it is Darwinists themselves who have historically attached the term to themselves, including in scientific journals. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=994 ...at least 39 times in the scientific journal "Nature", among others. Also, the term "atheist" is in no way derogatory, unless atheists themselves are in the habit of being self-deprecating. What good reason does a person who believes God doesn't exist have to insult him/herself by participating in membership of a national organization called "American Atheists", which has the website atheists.org? Maybe there is some watered down version of the term? Why not just initialize it? ATST? Or just call it something more politically correct, like...Secular Humanism? Oh...somebody's already tried that. Shucks. And finally, the term "materialist". Referring to the armchair materialst's (whoops) favorite scientific reference guide, Wiki, we see under the heading "Scientific Materialists"..the following names. Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Fodor, Paul Churchland and others. Is Wiki wrong? *shudders at the thought* This is what happens when a world view begins to go out of style. The mere mention of the term (like materialism) that associates the idea with its adherents (materialists) eventually becomes derogotary to the adherents themselves.Bantay_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT}

dbt151 Interesting you deny the law of non contradiction yet use it in order to convince me that it does not apply to science and the indeterminacy principle. Typical invoke it when its convenient and deny its efficacy when its not. Anyway after reading your post I will try to take the Queens advice to Alice and try real hard to imagine 6 impossible things everyday before breakfast. Perhaps in a few weeks I too will embrace these great scientific principles that you do, magic, poofery and nothing did it. Vividvividbleau_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

David, Reiteration doesn't help me understand your point of view. I understand that you find it dissatisfying and do not want to believe things that you don't think have the best correlation to reality. I don't understand why. Again, they're not necessarily going to be the most helpful, or enjoyable, or productive beliefs; they're not likely to have significantly greater correspondence to "actual reality" than most other beliefs (when one considers that after a thousand years of technological advancement, what we currently believe to be true will likely be regarded as quaint myths from erroneous assumptions), and even if they do have a significantly greater correspondence to reality .. so what? What difference does that make? What's the point? It's not my intent to badger you, I just don't understand your perspective here. Is "the truth" as it is defined as "close correlations to reality" meaningful to you in some way you can describe?William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Jerry, have you read the "contest question 7" thread?Hoki_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray, I'm fascinated.
You seem to think that it is self-evident, but I can’t see what is so important about believing “close approximations to reality” that one would prefer them to simply believing what is the most enjoyable, profitable, or helpful to believe.
Well, I don't think it's "self-evident." Let's just say that I would find it quite dissatisfying to embrace something of such global reach that seems very likely false. In fact, I don't think I could believe in an afterlife even if I wanted to. And because I don't think there is one, I don't want to.David Kellogg_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Vivid @ 141:
For something to create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same tmie and in the same relationship.
How do you feel about things existing in more than one place at a time? In other words, a particle that is both here and not here, and is also there and not there. This is no more or less logical than your "to be or not to be" dilemma. It is also a direct consequence of uncertainty, and whole atoms (namely, beryllium) have been placed into just such an "illogical" state. Quantum field theory, especially in the form of QED, is an extraordinarily well-confirmed theory, and while you may think there's some additional explanation for phenomena like this (many in fact do), we have no evidence to suggest that there actually is, and so as illogical as you feel these things to be, you have to take seriously the idea that this may just be the way things are. Or are not, depending on when and where you look.dbthomas_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

I'm not mocking you at all, David. I also believe things provisionally. However, I don't understand your commitment to "evidence" when it comes to adopting a belief, or your assertion that this system correlates to an "authentic" life. First, I don't understand how one can lead a "non-authentic" life, if they are just products of accumulative interactions of materials (physics). Second, from my perspective looking over the history of mankind, the odds of my beliefs being "true", or corresponding to some actual reality, are very low (IMHO), especially when one looks over the fundamental paradigm shifts in history concerning the very essence of being and nature of our existence - not to mention what nature is, at a fundamental level, and even the mechanisms it operates through (discounting any god for the time being). I'm not the most intelligent person that ever lived in the world, nor the most informed; I'm not a great philosopher or scientist. I'm just a regular guy; I think the odds are against me figuring out what "reality" is, and stumbling upon true beliefs about it (out of billions throughout the history of Earth). Also, if my physicality is all that really exists, then holding beliefs that correspond to reality is of no ultimate importance (as attested by the billions of people that have lived and died in the history of earth that believed untrue things). So, why should I be committed to believing that which seems to correspond to reality, per se? I can see believing things that benefit me in some way, but I don't see how "correspondence to reality" is in itself a meaningful goal, if my chances of such beliefs actually corresponding to reality are apparently quite low, and there is no ultimate or personally meaningful reason for me to even try to find such beliefs. However, you seem to think that this search for and accumulation of "approximately truthful" beliefs (i.e., close correspondence to reality) is the only way lead an "authentic life", and that you find your system so compelling that you consider it "a lie" to live in any other way. You even seem distressed that I have apperently advocated simply believing what is convenient and comforting and enjoyable. Is there a reason you think that accumulating beliefs that are approximations to reality is the only way to lead an "authentic life"? Why do you find it so important? What does it get you? What is the point? You seem to think that it is self-evident, but I can't see what is so important about believing "close approximations to reality" that one would prefer them to simply believing what is the most enjoyable, profitable, or helpful to believe.William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray, I'm not sure if your recent loopy comments are serious or if you're trying to suggest in a mocking way how you imagine I must embrace beliefs. I try believe things tentatively, provisionally, but (as much as I can) on the basis of evidence. That doesn't mean I my beliefs are noncommittal or whimsical.David Kellogg_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

BTW, I use the term "belief" in the following manner: "To act as if true." Since I don't believe in anything absolutely, the most I commit to when I believe anything is to act - and think - as if the thing is true, but to not be commited to it in any absolute sense. Beliefs are my tools, not my masters.William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg: I'm not sure how I, as a product of physics (if I am nothing more than the product of physics), can be anything other than "my authentic self". What else could I be, and how could I be other than whatever I am?William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

I believe whatever I wish, regardless of evidence pro or con.William J. Murray_{July 4, 2009
July
07
Jul
4
04
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply