Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
Thank's Jed I'll follow this up. Its nice to have a true scholar on the other side of a debate. Jed Rothwell wrote: I forgot to mention that Pascal's argument is also a logical fallacy: appeal to the consequences of a belief. This was defined thousands of years before Pascal was born. All in all it was a sloppy analysis, and Pascal -- who was a sharp thinker -- should have been ashamed of himself. I wish that people would learn basic logic in grade school. They should be drilled on a dozen or so common logical fallacies that have been known for thousands of years. The subject is no harder than addition and subtraction, and armed with this knowledge you can avoid innumerable stupid errors. The world would be a better place for it. A lot of political rhetoric, for example, boils down to one fallacy or another. You can take a refresher course here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Wesley Bruce wrote: I have seen people cured of the incurable. This assertion makes no sense. If they were cured it was not incurable, q.e.d. I think you mean that you have seen people cured when the odds were against them. No doubt this is true, but it proves nothing about faith because most people who are seriously ill and who pray die anyway, and some atheists survive. Causality has long been searched for but never found. Even the so-called placebo affect has now been shown to be pure moonshine. Regarding the applicablity of this to science, I suggest you read Francis Bacon, who wrote in "Novum Organum" (1620): "The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. It was well answered by him [Diagoras] who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognise the power of the gods, by an inquiry; "But where are the portraits of those who have perished in spite of their vows?" All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgment, or the like; in all of which the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common. But this evil insinuates itself still more craftily in philosophy and the sciences; in which a settled maxim vitiates and governs every other circumstance, though the latter be much more worthy of confidence. Besides, even in the absence of that eagerness and want of thought, (which we have mentioned,) it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives, whereas it ought duly and regularly to be impartial; nay, in establishing any true axiom, the negative instance is the most powerful." - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
I forgot to mention that Pascal's argument is also a logical fallacy: appeal to the consequences of a belief. This was defined thousands of years before Pascal was born. All in all it was a sloppy analysis, and Pascal -- who was a sharp thinker -- should have been ashamed of himself. I wish that people would learn basic logic in grade school. They should be drilled on a dozen or so common logical fallacies that have been known for thousands of years. The subject is no harder than addition and subtraction, and armed with this knowledge you can avoid innumerable stupid errors. The world would be a better place for it. A lot of political rhetoric, for example, boils down to one fallacy or another. You can take a refresher course here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ Wesley Bruce wrote: I have seen people cured of the incurable. This assertion makes no sense. If they were cured it was not incurable, q.e.d. I think you mean that you have seen people cured when the odds were against them. No doubt this is true, but it proves nothing about faith because most people who are seriously ill and who pray die anyway, and some atheists survive. Causality has long been searched for but never found. Even the so-called placebo affect has now been shown to be pure moonshine. Regarding the applicablity of this to science, I suggest you read Francis Bacon, who wrote in "Novum Organum" (1620): "The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. It was well answered by him [Diagoras] who was shown in a temple the votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he would then recognise the power of the gods, by an inquiry; "But where are the portraits of those who have perished in spite of their vows?" All superstition is much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams, omens, retributive judgment, or the like; in all of which the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common. But this evil insinuates itself still more craftily in philosophy and the sciences; in which a settled maxim vitiates and governs every other circumstance, though the latter be much more worthy of confidence. Besides, even in the absence of that eagerness and want of thought, (which we have mentioned,) it is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives, whereas it ought duly and regularly to be impartial; nay, in establishing any true axiom, the negative instance is the most powerful." - Jed
Re: OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
Jed Rothwell wrote: Wesley Bruce wrote: In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. Pascal's argument is based on the notion that belief is voluntary; i.e., we can choose what we believe, and what we do not believe. This is false. To take a dramatic example, consider a person in her 40s who is dying of an incurable disease. She may want to believe she will survive by some miracle, but if she is educated and understands disease and probability, she will believe with as much certainty as a person can muster that she is doomed. No amount of wishful thinking or desire on her part will affect this belief, or impair her judgement. I have seen many people in this situation, both theists and atheists, including a friend who died last month. They can no more choose to believe one way or the other than I can choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. (In some cases the disease, drugs or extreme fear will impair the patient's judgement, but I have never seen this happen.) Not only is Pascal's argument false, it is contrary to everyday experience, since we all know that we cannot make ourselves think that 2 + 2 = 5, or night is day, or up is down. In my opinion this argument is also preposterous and cruel, since it tries to impose a "guilt trip" on people who cannot bring themselves to believe in fairy tales. - Jed You have a good point but I suspect your immune to the guilt trip bit. You don’t strike me as the type and I don't see you doing anything wrong anyway. Your argument assumes an absolute truth but not my absolute truth. I have seen people cured of the incurable. It may be random chance or an act of God but either way faith is involved. One has faith in probability and naturalism the other has faith in God thanks to experience and witnessed events. We have lived in an age where Atheism used guns to attempt to enforce its will. Christians like me don't mind the harmless atheists. It's the ones that try to out law belief or kill it by force or guile that are the big problem. 2 + 2 does not equal 5 but 2 +3 does. If you only see the 2's where I see a 3 then we have a minor problem. As for fairy tales; is the big bang any more or less of a tale that any of its alternatives? Starting assumptions are the difference between a good theory and a bad one. Starting assumptions often go unstated or even unknown, sub-conscious, to the user. Our fusion opponents assume that all nuclear reactions should have the same branching ratio. It is an assumption they don't question. Its is to them as real as your dieing friends beliefs in the incurability of the disease. But in their case that belief, while strongly held by many, does not change the truth of cold fusion one bit. Absolute truth must be the bigger of the two tales.
OFF TOPIC Pascal's false argument
Wesley Bruce wrote: In other words * If I believe in God and I am right what do I gain? All the pleasures of eternity. * If I am wrong what do I loose? A few passing pleasures and then oblivion. * If I disbelieve in God and there is life after death and some judgement. Pascal's argument is based on the notion that belief is voluntary; i.e., we can choose what we believe, and what we do not believe. This is false. To take a dramatic example, consider a person in her 40s who is dying of an incurable disease. She may want to believe she will survive by some miracle, but if she is educated and understands disease and probability, she will believe with as much certainty as a person can muster that she is doomed. No amount of wishful thinking or desire on her part will affect this belief, or impair her judgement. I have seen many people in this situation, both theists and atheists, including a friend who died last month. They can no more choose to believe one way or the other than I can choose to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. (In some cases the disease, drugs or extreme fear will impair the patient's judgement, but I have never seen this happen.) Not only is Pascal's argument false, it is contrary to everyday experience, since we all know that we cannot make ourselves think that 2 + 2 = 5, or night is day, or up is down. In my opinion this argument is also preposterous and cruel, since it tries to impose a "guilt trip" on people who cannot bring themselves to believe in fairy tales. - Jed
