Your words:
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
My response:
I don't really think most believers think Pascal's wager is a good proof of the existence of their god, or that they treat it as good evidence of their belief. I think it more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?
Some more of your words:
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
My Response:
I've figured out that there is a whole lot out there that I don't really comprehend all that well at all. To put it in more precise terms, My modes of perception and integrating data place hard limits on my ability to accept input and integrate that input in a way that accurately models reality. I like certain models and dislike others. A few things that I've figured out, about myself at least:
1) I don't like changing my model of reality.
2) I don't like it when my model of reality proves to be inconsistent with how I perceive reality. To put that in more concrete terms, if I've decided in my head that "X is true", and things happen that make it pretty dang obvious that "X really isn't all that true at all", I find it extremely upsetting.
I may be weird or crazy, but I can't live with that inconsistency when I see it. It weighs on me. Part of who and what I am is that I work at that point to figure out a way to either revise my mental model, or what pieces need throwing away, or if I need to throw it away entirely.
I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am.
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way. If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Pascals Wager
Yes! Once again you and I agree! I too think Pascals Wager is flawed because it is a purely pragmatic argument. Now, I don't suppose we agree on why it is flawed, but at least we both think it is flawed. All of what you said about reasons for it being flawed I do agree with. I would put it a little differently from a Christian point of view but I think it is almost the same.
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Better Response
You said
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
About Hell
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
What the Hell?
You said
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What if...
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
How do people believe what they believe?
This is intended to be kinds sorta an independant post. It will, to some extent, maybe address some of the things that you have been saying from my perspective.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
New Thoughts
So I have recently been doing more work on an article on Christian Mathematics. The other day a co-worker approached me (at break time) and asked what I was working on. When I told him he responded first with a puzzled look, and then had a thought come to him. "Oh, I see!" he said, "You are trying to prove that God exists by math and science!" I responded, "Actually, no. Its 180 degrees the other way. I am justifying the existence of math and science by God." I then proceeded to explain to him why mathematics and science are reliable guides to truth.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
