My younger brother, whose bicycling blog you can read here, has sent me an email drawing my attention to Pascal's Wager. I am familiar with this argument, and I went to write an email concerning my thoughts on it, and it turned into a blog post. Here goes.
Pascal's Wager, in short, analyzes four possibilities, which come about from flipping the switches on the on/off possibilities of a person believing in a god (presumeably the Christian one), and this god actually existing.
If you do not believe and you are right, you're fine.
If you do not believe and you are wrong, you're toast.
If you believe, you stand to lose nothing or gain everything. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, and if you're right, you've hit the jackpot.
Therefore it is better to believe.
The argument appears to have the following fatal flaws.
1) It supposes that it is possible to choose to believe something, as if belief were a matter of trifling convenience, like deciding what flavor of icing you'd like on your birthday cake.
2) Pascal's wager is an injunction to those who do not believe. He says, shouldn't you believe, just in case? In other words, even if you don't believe, pretend that you do. If the universe had an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infallible, perfect Creator, don't you suppose such an entity would fail to be deceived by such a feeble attempt at intellectual charlatanism?
3) Pretending for a moment that the above insurmountable obstacles were somehow of no consequence, let's go along with this egregious intellectual and moral cowardice for a moment. Believe just in case. Believe what? Believe Christianity? What if Islam is true? Then you burn just the same. What if Bahai is true? What if Zoroaster got it right? And so forth. The wager does not actually recommend any particular faith, and it cannot. If the universe has a creator who desires worship, and organized religion is its multiple choice question for you: A) Islam, B) Christianity, C) Hinduism, D) Scientology, and so on, then every believer should expect damnation by sheer probability. (I plagiarized this point from Sam Harris, neuroscientist and polemic author of "The End of Faith" and "Letters to a Christian Nation".)
4) What if there is a creator, but he rewards rationality, and punishes belief without evidence (aka faith)? You had better be rational, just in case, for if you believe, you have gained everything, and if you are wrong, you have lost nothing. This inversion of the argument shows how ridiculous it truly is.
I wonder, since the argument is so silly, whether or not the brilliant mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal was actually joking, and perhaps suggesting why he was a secret atheist, when to admit such a thing would have been to be tortured to death by those meek and mild Christians with their Biblical teachings.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Showing posts with label polemicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polemicism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
xenophobia, door to door evangelists, and defining fundamentalism
12/26/08
Christmas eve I attended a medium size church down the street, Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Brea. This congregation is a member of the Missouri Synod, which fits it under my current working definition of fundamentalism, which is a doctrine of the "infallible" or "inerrant" Bible, as opposed to merely "inspired". So far, most churches seem to hold to this idea. Further research is required before I determine whether it is so prevalent that I need to develop a different definition of "fundamentalism" in order to reflect what people actually mean by the word. I realize hundreds of millions of people can barely even agree what "Christian" means, but a working definition of fundamentalism would still be helpful for analyzing Christian issues.
I recognized a meme from the Christmas Eve sermon, that was familiar to me as a former fundamentalist, and I think that Christians in general will find familiar: an identification of the Christian perspective versus "the world's" perspective. This is essentially tribalism. In Christian circles, there is a certain usage of "the world" or "worldly" that is quite negative. I think all of us, believers and nonbelievers alike, tend to fail to recognize the harmful nature of this xenophobic Us and Them dichotomy.
This meme is so cherished, I think, that if you point it out to a Christian, most will defend it with the same kind of triangulations they tend to fall into when defending the core beliefs of their faith. I imagine a response along the lines of "Well, we're not pitting ourselves against the rest of the world, we're pitting ourselves against Satan." (They, of course, think no such thing; it is simply the world, vague and undefined.) I would find this inconsistent with another Christian idea, which is not that there are the people of Jesus and the people of Satan, but rather, the saved and the lost. The lost, Christians contend, can still become found, being neither the people of Satan nor the enemy. Surely, then, "the world" should not be something to teach people to be opposed to. It matters what words we use, and there are negative consequences of using "the world" to mean something negative.
Naturally, if Christians are wrong, and there is no Satan, then some unfortunate people are going to serve as a proxy for this imaginary enemy, and my contention is that this is exactly what happens. The burden falls on various groups, both real and imagined, some examples including the Jews, Islam, liberals, and the New World Order, depending on what circles you move in. This tribalism has real, detrimental, observable and measurable effects for millions, if not billions, of humans, Christian and otherwise.
~~
On a lighter note, I got a flash of inspiration recently about door to door evangelists. I have a new policy, and encourage all my fellow atheists to adopt it as well. Invite them in, and argue with them endlessly. I'll be polite and respectful in my discourse, and offer them a drink. I'll ask innocent and reasonable questions, and make polite objections on logical grounds. I'll be prepared to let this go on for six hours, and wait for them to take their leave.
If you have any experience with the religious, you know that evangelists never offer any new arguments. Employing circular argument (believe the Bible because it is from God, we know God exists because the Bible says so), appeal to emotion (Jesus will save you from your sins), and appeal to force (believe or burn forever), they clearly have no use for innovation, since they have such success with these. If you don't have much experience with their ideas, it doesn't take much to prepare yourself; intellectually, it is hardly heavy lifting.
There are a few good reasons I plan to do this, aside from the simple fact that it will amuse me to no end. Primarily, I'll be performing a vital service to my community. As long as they're in my house, they won't be knocking on anyone else's door. This could prevent dozens or even hundreds of my neighbors from being exposed to the evangelist's poisonous, backward, and immoral ideas. Additionally, to use a gambler's language, it is a total freeroll. I have nothing to lose from this, but I have a nonzero chance to gain, if I can plant a small seed of doubt that could shake their faith.
Christmas eve I attended a medium size church down the street, Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Brea. This congregation is a member of the Missouri Synod, which fits it under my current working definition of fundamentalism, which is a doctrine of the "infallible" or "inerrant" Bible, as opposed to merely "inspired". So far, most churches seem to hold to this idea. Further research is required before I determine whether it is so prevalent that I need to develop a different definition of "fundamentalism" in order to reflect what people actually mean by the word. I realize hundreds of millions of people can barely even agree what "Christian" means, but a working definition of fundamentalism would still be helpful for analyzing Christian issues.
I recognized a meme from the Christmas Eve sermon, that was familiar to me as a former fundamentalist, and I think that Christians in general will find familiar: an identification of the Christian perspective versus "the world's" perspective. This is essentially tribalism. In Christian circles, there is a certain usage of "the world" or "worldly" that is quite negative. I think all of us, believers and nonbelievers alike, tend to fail to recognize the harmful nature of this xenophobic Us and Them dichotomy.
This meme is so cherished, I think, that if you point it out to a Christian, most will defend it with the same kind of triangulations they tend to fall into when defending the core beliefs of their faith. I imagine a response along the lines of "Well, we're not pitting ourselves against the rest of the world, we're pitting ourselves against Satan." (They, of course, think no such thing; it is simply the world, vague and undefined.) I would find this inconsistent with another Christian idea, which is not that there are the people of Jesus and the people of Satan, but rather, the saved and the lost. The lost, Christians contend, can still become found, being neither the people of Satan nor the enemy. Surely, then, "the world" should not be something to teach people to be opposed to. It matters what words we use, and there are negative consequences of using "the world" to mean something negative.
Naturally, if Christians are wrong, and there is no Satan, then some unfortunate people are going to serve as a proxy for this imaginary enemy, and my contention is that this is exactly what happens. The burden falls on various groups, both real and imagined, some examples including the Jews, Islam, liberals, and the New World Order, depending on what circles you move in. This tribalism has real, detrimental, observable and measurable effects for millions, if not billions, of humans, Christian and otherwise.
~~
On a lighter note, I got a flash of inspiration recently about door to door evangelists. I have a new policy, and encourage all my fellow atheists to adopt it as well. Invite them in, and argue with them endlessly. I'll be polite and respectful in my discourse, and offer them a drink. I'll ask innocent and reasonable questions, and make polite objections on logical grounds. I'll be prepared to let this go on for six hours, and wait for them to take their leave.
If you have any experience with the religious, you know that evangelists never offer any new arguments. Employing circular argument (believe the Bible because it is from God, we know God exists because the Bible says so), appeal to emotion (Jesus will save you from your sins), and appeal to force (believe or burn forever), they clearly have no use for innovation, since they have such success with these. If you don't have much experience with their ideas, it doesn't take much to prepare yourself; intellectually, it is hardly heavy lifting.
There are a few good reasons I plan to do this, aside from the simple fact that it will amuse me to no end. Primarily, I'll be performing a vital service to my community. As long as they're in my house, they won't be knocking on anyone else's door. This could prevent dozens or even hundreds of my neighbors from being exposed to the evangelist's poisonous, backward, and immoral ideas. Additionally, to use a gambler's language, it is a total freeroll. I have nothing to lose from this, but I have a nonzero chance to gain, if I can plant a small seed of doubt that could shake their faith.
Merry Christmas
12/23/08
Yes, Merry Christmas. My usage of this phrase, as an atheist, may confuse theists and atheists alike. But I see no problem. Some people say "happy holidays". I am unsure whether this is due to an aversion to mentioning Jesus, or merely a desire to be politically correct; I am guessing either could be true depending on who says it. This doesn't seem to get anywhere if you're trying to endorse secularism, as "holidays" means "holy days". That's not what it means now, my fellow secularists may argue. Well, "Merry Christmas," when I say it, doesn't mean "Celebrate the birth of Jesus!" any more than I use "good-bye" to mean "God be with you", for which it is a contraction. I hang Halloween decorations, and so do you, be you secularist or theocrat, without any belief that they ward off evil spirits, as the originators of this tradition did.
While I'm at it, I note the absurdity of the politically correct who sing Chanukkah songs at Christmas time, but do not notice, let alone make any cultural concessions to, any other Jewish holiday. Chanukkah is a minor holiday. If you want your confused, uninformed, liberal "tolerance" to at least make a small amount of sense, then make a cultural nod to Passover, or to Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, at the appropriate time of year. Do you even know when the High Holy Days are? No? I find something condescending and hypocritical in this observation of Chanukkah by Christians.
But getting back to Jesusmas, I could celebrate the birth of Jesus if I so chose, I suppose. Peace on earth, goodwill towards men, is a nice enough sentiment, even if alleged miracles and fulfillment of prophecy is rubbish. Jesus had some good teachings on offer. Morally, as Dawkins points out, he was probably far ahead of his time. Personally, I'd probably rather celebrate the birth of Bertrand Russell, but I wouldn't be expecting many to join me. But the fact is, I enjoy the giving and receiving of presents, and Christmas trees and lights and decorations, and holiday music, from Michael Praetorius and Handel to Irving Berlin and Leroy Anderson; it has nothing to do with Jesus, for me. It's my cultural tradition and I love this stuff; I see no need to turn my back on it.
~~
NANCY GIBBS ESSAY ON HOLIDAY VALUES: COMMENTARY
Last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nancy Gibbs delivered a monologue on her impressions of this year's holiday season. I would like to point to two things she said: the first was thoughtless and ignorant; the second reveals what I think is an essential truth about the difference between religious and nonreligious people.
First, "The Black Friday news about the Wal-Mart employee trampled to death as he opened the doors at dawn seemed to promise an especially Darwinian holiday season; only the fittest survive." Darwinian? I have difficulty understanding how a graduate of Yale - summa cum laude - and Oxford could display such ignorance of the fundamentals of biology. Darwin would see no trace of his theory in this event. Natural selection did not kill Jdimytai Damour; bad luck, mass hysteria, criminal negligence by Wal-Mart in inadequate security, and irresponsible behavior by one of his co-workers in taunting the crowd, did. Survival of the fittest refers to adaptability to one's environment, not accidents due to stampedes. I doubt that Gibbs would contend that Damour's co-workers had some advantage, conferred by a genetic mutation in a common ancestor, that naturally selected them to survive the incident while he, lacking this gene, did not. If she actually understood the word she was using, that would literally be what she meant: that Damour died because of his genes, and that his untimely demise was natural and beneficial to humankind, in that it kept him from burdening the gene pool with offspring that would carry on his disadvantageous genes. But, I am willing to explain away her passing remark with ignorance rather than attribute it to malevolence.
Some may feel that I am splitting hairs or quibbling about an innocent remark. The fact is that anti-evolution propaganda has had a deleterious effect on the quality of our science education and the public understanding of important scientific issues, so this is an issue it is constructive to be sensitive about. While I assume Gibbs certainly did not intend to speak antiscientifically, it is important that our respected newspeople promote understanding, not ignorance.
Second, "December sometimes feels like one long final exam, a character test for many people of many faiths, whose holy days fall before year's end." At first, when I listened to this remark, I was offended, at the implication that cultural participation in our holiday traditions is for people of faith, and therefore, not for people without faith. But upon further reflection, despite the fact that I find the idea of "holiness", for a day or for any other thing, to lack meaning, I find this remark simply reflects on one of the greater truths about atheists. We need no character test, no holy-days, to be good. Insofar as I, as an atheist, am good, I am good of my own accord; my desire for philanthropy stems not from a desire to please any god, nor fear of punishment if I am not good. I require no Holy Ghost over my shoulder. As I am accountable to myself, my conscience is more reliable than an entity with whom you can have no observable contact, and whose existence, through religious ritual, you must constantly be reassuring yourself is plausible (i.e., not ridiculous!), lest you fail to keep the faith.
Peace on earth, goodwill toward humankind. Merry Christmas.
References:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good-bye
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holiday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween
http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayg.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec08/holidayvalues_12-22.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/nyregion/30walmart.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Gibbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection
Yes, Merry Christmas. My usage of this phrase, as an atheist, may confuse theists and atheists alike. But I see no problem. Some people say "happy holidays". I am unsure whether this is due to an aversion to mentioning Jesus, or merely a desire to be politically correct; I am guessing either could be true depending on who says it. This doesn't seem to get anywhere if you're trying to endorse secularism, as "holidays" means "holy days". That's not what it means now, my fellow secularists may argue. Well, "Merry Christmas," when I say it, doesn't mean "Celebrate the birth of Jesus!" any more than I use "good-bye" to mean "God be with you", for which it is a contraction. I hang Halloween decorations, and so do you, be you secularist or theocrat, without any belief that they ward off evil spirits, as the originators of this tradition did.
While I'm at it, I note the absurdity of the politically correct who sing Chanukkah songs at Christmas time, but do not notice, let alone make any cultural concessions to, any other Jewish holiday. Chanukkah is a minor holiday. If you want your confused, uninformed, liberal "tolerance" to at least make a small amount of sense, then make a cultural nod to Passover, or to Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, at the appropriate time of year. Do you even know when the High Holy Days are? No? I find something condescending and hypocritical in this observation of Chanukkah by Christians.
But getting back to Jesusmas, I could celebrate the birth of Jesus if I so chose, I suppose. Peace on earth, goodwill towards men, is a nice enough sentiment, even if alleged miracles and fulfillment of prophecy is rubbish. Jesus had some good teachings on offer. Morally, as Dawkins points out, he was probably far ahead of his time. Personally, I'd probably rather celebrate the birth of Bertrand Russell, but I wouldn't be expecting many to join me. But the fact is, I enjoy the giving and receiving of presents, and Christmas trees and lights and decorations, and holiday music, from Michael Praetorius and Handel to Irving Berlin and Leroy Anderson; it has nothing to do with Jesus, for me. It's my cultural tradition and I love this stuff; I see no need to turn my back on it.
~~
NANCY GIBBS ESSAY ON HOLIDAY VALUES: COMMENTARY
Last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nancy Gibbs delivered a monologue on her impressions of this year's holiday season. I would like to point to two things she said: the first was thoughtless and ignorant; the second reveals what I think is an essential truth about the difference between religious and nonreligious people.
First, "The Black Friday news about the Wal-Mart employee trampled to death as he opened the doors at dawn seemed to promise an especially Darwinian holiday season; only the fittest survive." Darwinian? I have difficulty understanding how a graduate of Yale - summa cum laude - and Oxford could display such ignorance of the fundamentals of biology. Darwin would see no trace of his theory in this event. Natural selection did not kill Jdimytai Damour; bad luck, mass hysteria, criminal negligence by Wal-Mart in inadequate security, and irresponsible behavior by one of his co-workers in taunting the crowd, did. Survival of the fittest refers to adaptability to one's environment, not accidents due to stampedes. I doubt that Gibbs would contend that Damour's co-workers had some advantage, conferred by a genetic mutation in a common ancestor, that naturally selected them to survive the incident while he, lacking this gene, did not. If she actually understood the word she was using, that would literally be what she meant: that Damour died because of his genes, and that his untimely demise was natural and beneficial to humankind, in that it kept him from burdening the gene pool with offspring that would carry on his disadvantageous genes. But, I am willing to explain away her passing remark with ignorance rather than attribute it to malevolence.
Some may feel that I am splitting hairs or quibbling about an innocent remark. The fact is that anti-evolution propaganda has had a deleterious effect on the quality of our science education and the public understanding of important scientific issues, so this is an issue it is constructive to be sensitive about. While I assume Gibbs certainly did not intend to speak antiscientifically, it is important that our respected newspeople promote understanding, not ignorance.
Second, "December sometimes feels like one long final exam, a character test for many people of many faiths, whose holy days fall before year's end." At first, when I listened to this remark, I was offended, at the implication that cultural participation in our holiday traditions is for people of faith, and therefore, not for people without faith. But upon further reflection, despite the fact that I find the idea of "holiness", for a day or for any other thing, to lack meaning, I find this remark simply reflects on one of the greater truths about atheists. We need no character test, no holy-days, to be good. Insofar as I, as an atheist, am good, I am good of my own accord; my desire for philanthropy stems not from a desire to please any god, nor fear of punishment if I am not good. I require no Holy Ghost over my shoulder. As I am accountable to myself, my conscience is more reliable than an entity with whom you can have no observable contact, and whose existence, through religious ritual, you must constantly be reassuring yourself is plausible (i.e., not ridiculous!), lest you fail to keep the faith.
Peace on earth, goodwill toward humankind. Merry Christmas.
References:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good-bye
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holiday
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween
http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayg.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec08/holidayvalues_12-22.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/nyregion/30walmart.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Gibbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
