This post is part of a series
In Part 1 of this series, I examined Pascal’s wager as a risk calculation exercise. In Part 2, I proposed some criteria by which one could evaluate various faith claims, even though those criteria were outside of direct empirical observation. In this part, I perform a heuristic, self-reinforcing example of how said evaluation might look when comparing the claims of Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, Zeus, Superman, and the FSM.
Admittedly, I have not backed up my Yes/No assertions with argumentation and data, but for the sake of this exercise, that is unimportant – an actual evaluation may come up with different answers. The point is, when evaluated by important, empirical and non-empirical criteria, faith claims can be differentiated, and some may be eliminated as serious candidates for faith, while others remain under consideration.
No faith can be ‘proven,’ that is the point of having faith. But some may be eliminated as pretenders, as not worthy of faith. Click on the chart in the image to see a full sized version.
In Part 4, I address the host of minor objections.
Oh ya, completely objective. :P
Hi Cin:
it doesn't need to be objective. The methodology daniel proposed is the set QUESTIONS. Now he gave you HIS answers which explains why HE finds Christianity to be relatively more probable than the other religions (actually he didn't mention any personal religious experiences which ought to be part of the evaluation since we use personal experience as part of every evaluation we make). Each person has to come to whatever probability estimate he can based on his best judgment and the things he has seen. Using this evaluation, the Pascalian Wagerer can "calculate" the expectation value of whatver choice he makes. You may have "calculated" a different choice than daniel in which case your decision will be different. The point of Pascal's wager is to clarify the risk/reward issue. Pascal was of the opinion that a lot of people made gambles that were (given their own probability estimates about the Christian question) irrational. His argument illustrates that point.
your friend
Keith
I could have added a couple rows for experience, which would be a valid method of testing ideas and gathering data. In fact, I think that teaching ideas that have not been tested in real experience is dangerous.
…and completely worthless.
Having watched this debate re: Pascal with some interest, I have a personal observation.
The Pascalian wager leaves me cold. In fact, I think it's a cold-hearted and invalid path to faith. To me, spirituality is a matter of the heart, not the head. To decide on the basis of pure self-interest (ie, avoiding hell, gaining heaven) attained through a cold risk analysis, has to be the height of cynicism. Do you xians really think God wants such a "conversion"? And, where is concern for truth? If I tell myself that, on the off-chance that xianity is right, I better "believe" in order to avoid hell, am I really concerned with the truth of xianity or with my own selfish needs? And is this really faith at all? As far as I'm concerned this is the worst possible reason to believe.
I'll answer these objections in my last post – but in brief, he is not providing a path to faith, but to OPENNESS to faith.
Fear can not create faith, but it can wake us up. This is one reason why scripture says "The FEAR of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom" – it is not the ongoing motivation, but the often necessary initiator or reminder that we are far from God, and there are consequences. It wakes us from our apathy and hardness.
You are right that intellectual arguments don't create faith, since faith is a heart thing. I will be posting on that in a few days in a series on Why Do Apologetics. Intellectual arguments can't create faith, but they can remove mental obstacles to faith, which is a work that Paul the Apostle endorses.
But I could be wrong ;)
GASP!!
Anyway, the quote you provide is interesting. The word fear has changed somewhat over the centuries. I prefer the old meaning: not just terror, but awe. In this case, one experiences awe when confronted with something that, in Merriam-Webster's terminology, inspires
an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime .
Common fear (as in being afraid for one's personal safety) is far from this religious experience. Thus, I feel awe in the face of reality, and that awe inspires me to investigate it. This may open one up to exploring mankind's history of investigations in their religions and philosophies, but it certainly does not require one to land on Christianity as the final and supreme expression of man's encounter with the sublime. In fact, the threats and promises and theologies that have been constructed to explain (or, rather, replace and exploit) that experience of the sublime inspire me more to contempt than anything else. The genuine experience of the awe-ful insulates one from the pettiness that finds one expression in Pascal's wager and in the typical antics and prejudices of fundamentalist/evangelical religion that we see on display here. Intellectual arguments are more often mental obstacles than their opposite.
>> LOUIS: Common fear (as in being afraid for one's personal safety) is far from this religious experience.
I agree that the word 'fear' has lost its broader connotations and meaning, but to strip it of the component of personal risk is also a mistake – I think that when scripture uses the word fear, it is NOT merely saying 'awe' or 'respect,' but also includes real fear of punishment and judgment – cf. Sodom.
Our current rejection of God employing or creating this type of fear is a result of our one-sided, humanistic knee jerk approach to the abuse of fear, fear-based religion and decision making, but we have thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
While God's ways are not ours, and 'perfect love casts out all fear,' our unbalanced global application of such single concepts gets us into, not a godly biblical theology, but a man-centered humanism which leads to such doctrines as pacifism, universalism, and and excuses for sin.
Gee, thanks for the sermon. You know, you have a constitutional inability to address others as individuals. Instead, you love to lay down the law and banish all discussion. Who cares what your dogmatic views are? You become more and more irrelevant to my spiritual quest. In fact, you embody everything that turns me off from religion. Congratulations.
Hi Louis:
You raise a very good point wrt Pascal's wager. Here's my opinion about some of what you said:
I think it's [Pascal's Wager] a cold-hearted and invalid path to faith. To me, spirituality is a matter of the heart, not the head. To decide on the basis of pure self-interest (ie, avoiding hell, gaining heaven) attained through a cold risk analysis, has to be the height of cynicism. Do you xians really think God wants such a "conversion"?
I think this is a good point: we Christians talk about the importance of loving God but is it even love if your only reason for "loving" is just to gain entrance into paradise? Well here's what I think about that. It;s not really love if you only do it for a reward–you are right about that. But what if the reward itself turns out to be that you become the kind of person who loves God and others WITHOUT needing a reward. What if the reward itself is that you end up with the kind of faith and spirituality that you (Louis I mean) were talking about. Before that transformation our "faith" would not be very worthy, but (I am telling you what I personally believe here, not trying to make any argument or persuasive case) but since God loves us he works with this inferior spirituality and turns it into something good.
And, where is concern for truth? If I tell myself that, on the off-chance that xianity is right, I better "believe" in order to avoid hell, am I really concerned with the truth of xianity or with my own selfish needs?
To be fair to Pascal, his argument doesn't talk about hell. It talks about losing the infinite good of a life with God. And his argument doesn't discount truth either. It only applies in those circumstances when Reason cannot supply us with the answer to the question.
And is this really faith at all? As far as I'm concerned this is the worst possible reason to believe.
Pascal's claim was that this inferior religiousness would eventually lead (by God's grace) to true faith. True faith is still the point.
your friend
Keith
I came across the Pascal wager in college and I felt the same way about it as I feel now. In fact, decades later, I feel the same way about organized religion now as I did then: it is an almost unmitigated evil. Leaving aside everything else, it's treatment of gays alone disqualifies it from my consideration. Really: I prefer eternity in hell to the heaven christianists propose on their terms. The religion of the likes of Aaron and stinker and Lawanda and the rest makes me want to puke. God have mercy on them.
End.
Hi Louis:
I will not defend the homophobic attitudes displayed by so many of us Christians. But it seems to me that Pascal's wager, at least as described by Pascal in his Pensees (if not the version often mistakenly presented by Christian apologists) is really an argument that when there is no evidence to decide an issue we ought to wager on hope rather than meaninglessness. THAT POV doesn't seem cynical at all. That's all I'm saying.
your friend
Keith
…we ought to wager on hope rather than meaninglessness.
Keith,
1. It's an unreasonable wager.
2. You set up a false dichotomy, hope vs meaninglessness.
Sorry Cin but IMO you haven't accurately understood what the Wager even says. It is addressed to the very people after they consider all the things they know face that very choice–accept the idea that life is without meaning or embrace the idea that there exists a God whose plan is to give us a life with meaning. It is not a false dichotomy for those people–it is exactly the dichotomy their experience has led them two. People like you (who believe the other logically possible options are actually live options) are NOT the ones Pascal was talking to.
your friend
Keith
Like I said, false dichotomy; hope vs. meaninglessness. You don't have to be a theist to have hope and the lives of non-Christians ARE meaningful. I understand Pascal's Wager much better than you do. I see it objectively. Unlike Zeus, Odin, etc. you think your particular magic man is special. Zeus might exist. Zeus punishes those who don't worship him. Why take that risk? That's untenable since it's a God you don't have faith in. However, keep the framework of Pascal's argument intact but replace the name of the God with your brand and viola, I find myself in a pointless discussion with people defending an untenable argument because they are motivated by faith and not reason.
Hi Cin:
YOu wrote: Like I said, false dichotomy; hope vs. meaninglessness. You don't have to be a theist to have hope and the lives of non-Christians ARE meaningful
I did not claim otherwise, nor did Pascal (although ultimately I'd say Christ actually IS necessary for full meaningfulness, but that's my opinion and NOT part of the argument). That you don't see this IMO is clear evidence you didn't accurately understand Pascal's argument. You mention replacing Zeus' name for our deity and (presumably) you say the argument would be the same pointless one. But Pascal would agree that his argument could be applied to other religious beliefs. For a person who believes Zeusiantiy is a live option, the Pascalian argument might well apply. But Pascal wasn't addressing his argument toward THOSE people–Pascal didn't claim that his argument applied to every person, only those who considered Christianity vs. atheism as the live options.
your friend
Keith
…we ought to wager on hope rather than meaninglessness.
I just don't think you should be setting up false dichotomies like hope vs. meaninglessness, Keith. You don't have to be a theist to have hope and the lives of non-Christians ARE meaningful. If you don't claim otherwise then don't claim it's a wager between the two.
"(although ultimately I'd say Christ actually IS necessary for full meaningfulness, but that's my opinion and NOT part of the argument). That you don't see this IMO is clear evidence you didn't accurately understand Pascal's argument."
That just means I don't have a religious bias, like you. I understand Pascal's Wager much better than you do. I see it objectively. Unlike Zeus, Odin, etc. You plead that your version of god is a special case.
[Pascal's addresses his argument to] …only those who considered Christianity vs. atheism as the live options.
If someone actually believes Superman exists, then the argument "one should not be a criminal because there is a chance that Superman is real and he beats criminals up. Why take that risk?" is pertinent. However, it's untenable. One can make the same argument for all superheroes as long as they believe their particular superhero is a special case, that he/she exists whereas the others don't. Using gods instead of superheroes doesn't change how impractical the argument is.
Solution to Pascal's Wager [deity version]: I had better worship every God ever just to be on the safe side.
Solution to Pascal's Wager [super hero version]: I had better not become a criminal because if any superheroes exist, I might get beat up.
Hi Cin:
Hi Cin: You still aren't getting what the Wager says IMO. I think there are a lot of problems in your superhero analogy, but since I think your point was to provide an analogy to the "Many gods" response to Pascal's wager, and since you DO make the "many gods" response below, I'll just comment on it.
Solution to Pascal's Wager [deity version]: I had better worship every God ever just to be on the safe side.
You rightly mention that this solution is untenable because the different religions often contradict each other–believing for example that Jesus was the 2nd person of the Trinity contradicts the Muslim belief that Jesus was merely a prophet from God. In fact, if you assume that each religion is equally probable then the expectation value calculation would NOT determine which bet was the best bet. But different people know different things. For any particular person it is probably the case that the conditional probability of religion X (given their experiences nad background knowledge) is higher than other religions. For that person–not for every person–betting on religion X might be the best wager he can make. THAT'S what Pascal was arguing. He didn't argue that every person on earth ought to bet on Christianity. He did believe (as I believe) that Christianity is true. But he didn't argue that his Wager applied to every person. This is an essential point of his argument that you are missing.
your friend
Keith
"You rightly mention that this solution is untenable because the different religions often contradict each other…"
Keith, you've missed the point, again. Pascal's wager is not untenable because the different religions contradict each other. The DC and Marvel comic book universes contradict each other. It's untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist. That's untenable. When that happens, what's the outcome? Say it with me, "Solution to Pascals Wager: I had better worship every God ever just to be on the safe side. That's just not practical."
"But different people know different things."
You should rephrase this to, "…different people believe different things." Someone could "know" Zeus exists or "know" Jehovah exists but there is zero substantive criteria that one can use to differentiate between supernatural entity X and Y.
For any particular person it is probably the case that the conditional probability of religion X (given their experiences nad background knowledge) is higher than other religions. For that person–not for every person–betting on religion X might be the best wager he can make. THAT'S what Pascal was arguing. He didn't argue that every person on earth ought to bet on Christianity. He did believe (as I believe) that Christianity is true. But he didn't argue that his Wager applied to every person. This is an essential point of his argument that you are missing.
This is nonsense. Let's keep the structure of your argument intact but use Superman for X and comic book universes for religions and lets see how your argument sounds…
What am I missing? Where do the DC comic book believers fit in? How about the independent comic book readers? See now, Keith? This is nonsensical.
Hi Cin:
Keith, you've missed the point, again. Pascal's wager is not untenable because the different religions contradict each other. The DC and Marvel comic book universes contradict each other. It's untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist. That's untenable. When that happens, what's the outcome? Say it with me, "Solution to Pascals Wager: I had better worship every God ever just to be on the safe side. That's just not practical."
1. It's not POSSIBLE to worship every God ever, because worshipping some deities would mean rejecting others. It also might be impossible to worship every one of a set of non-contradictory deities for the practical reasons you allude to. In that case, if the expectation value were the same for all of them, the argument would say you should pick one of them, not reject them all. it'd be like buying a raffle ticket-you don't have to buy them all but if you buy NONE you can't win.
2. But Pascal's wager doesn't REQUIRE worshipping every deity anyway. All it requires is for an individual to (a) come to his own estimate of the relative probabilities of his worship choices and the impact of each one and (b) embracing the choice that has the best expectation value. The individual who finds himself estimating Christianity to be much less probable than Islam (for example) would "calculate" a different expectation value than other people.
You should rephrase this to, "…different people believe different things." Someone could "know" Zeus exists or "know" Jehovah exists but there is zero substantive criteria that one can use to differentiate between supernatural entity X and Y.
Cin it is absolutely certain that different people know different things. For example, you know your mother's maiden name but I do not know YOUR mother's maiden name. I know why it is that there is no greatest prime number, my mom doesn't even know what a prime number is. Different people know different things and thus conditional probabilities (the probability that X is true given background knowledge B) different for different people. You assert there is no way to estimate the relative probabilities that supoernatural claim A is true or B is true, but it seems to me that you have merely asserted such. I don't see that any of your arguments have been sound.
[You restated my argument with "superman" rather than some deity] "For any particular person it is probably the case that the conditional probability of Superman (given their experiences and background knowledge) is higher than other comic book universes. For that person–not for every person–betting on Superman might be the best wager he can make. THAT'S what Pascal was arguing. He didn't argue that every person on earth ought to bet on the Marvel comic book universe. He did believe (as I believe) that the Marvel comic book universe is true. But he didn't argue that his Wager applied to every person. This is an essential point of his argument that you are missing."
What am I missing? Where do the DC comic book believers fit in? How about the independent comic book readers? See now, Keith? This is nonsensical.>
Without basing your evaluation of the "superman argument" on the idea that it is silly to imagine superman exists, how do you determine that the Superman argument IS nonsense? How does substituting a comic character for a deity demonstrate this so-called nonsensicalness?
your friend
Keith
"It's not POSSIBLE to worship every God ever, because worshipping some deities would mean rejecting others."
Rejecting Superman in favor of Thor because they conflict? It's untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist.
"The individual who finds himself estimating Christianity to be much less probable than Islam (for example) would "calculate" a different expectation value than other people."
The "calculation" is based on mythology and religious opinion. There is no substantive way to compare supernatural entity X with Supernatural entity Y. You need to deal with that.
"Cin it is absolutely certain that different people know different things. For example, you know your mother's maiden name but I do not know YOUR mother's maiden name."
That's an example of a lack of knowledge. She only has one maiden name no matter what name you believe it might be. You don't actually know differently than I do regarding her maiden name. You could know incorrectly. What you think you know might be a misconception.
"I know why it is that there is no greatest prime number, my mom doesn't even know what a prime number is."
Another example of lack of knowledge. You either know a particular fact or you don't.
"You assert there is no way to estimate the relative probabilities that supoernatural claim A is true or B is true…"
Cut and paste from the other thread…
It's a fact. It's like asserting the Earth is round. When I say, "…there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y" Christians act as if they don't get it. It's obvious, isn't it? Right now, God is sitting on one of my shoulders and a fairy is sitting on the other. Which shoulder is God sitting on, the left or the right? How about the fairy? Well?
"…how do you determine that the Superman argument IS nonsense?"
Bingo! That's my point. You can't determine the Superman argument is nonsense. There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a planet Krypton where Superman lives. There is a possibility gods exist no matter how far fetched it might seem. But, there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with Y. Superman, Zeus, Jehovah, Thor arguments are open to question.
"How does substituting a comic character for a deity demonstrate this so-called nonsensicalness?"
Think, Keith. It's the same argument, Pascals Wager. Same structure. You think it's valid when using particular supernatural entities but substituting different supernatural entities makes it fall apart. For example: I had better not become a criminal because if Superman exists, I might get beat up. It's untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist.
Hi Cin:
Are we at an impasse again? You make a number of points that I’ll try to address:
“It’s not POSSIBLE to worship every God ever, because worshipping some deities would mean rejecting others.”
Rejecting Superman in favor of Thor because they conflict? It’s untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist.
Pascal’s Wager doesn’t actually ask you to believe something that you don’t really think is true, it asks you to bet on the claim that you “calculate” to have the highest expectation value. What is untenable about that?
“The individual who finds himself estimating Christianity to be much less probable than Islam (for example) would “calculate” a different expectation value than other people.”
The “calculation” is based on mythology and religious opinion. There is no substantive way to compare supernatural entity X with Supernatural entity Y. You need to deal with that.
It is not BASED on superstition. It is based on the background knowledge and experience of the wagerer. You keep asserting that there is no substantive way to compare different supernatural claims. I challenge you to prove that assertion and I don’t see that anything you have said thus far DOES prove it.
“Cin it is absolutely certain that different people know different things. For example, you know your mother’s maiden name but I do not know YOUR mother’s maiden name.”
That’s an example of a lack of knowledge. She only has one maiden name no matter what name you believe it might be. You don’t actually know differently than I do regarding her maiden name. You could know incorrectly. What you think you know might be a misconception.
Cin I have NO IDEA what your mother’s maiden name is. The set of things YOU know includes that name, the set of things I know doesn’t. You know different things than I do.
“I know why it is that there is no greatest prime number, my mom doesn’t even know what a prime number is.”
Another example of lack of knowledge. You either know a particular fact or you don’t.
My point exactly!
“You assert there is no way to estimate the relative probabilities that supoernatural claim A is true or B is true…”
Cut and paste from the other thread…
It’s a fact. It’s like asserting the Earth is round. When I say, “…there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y” Christians act as if they don’t get it. It’s obvious, isn’t it? Right now, God is sitting on one of my shoulders and a fairy is sitting on the other. Which shoulder is God sitting on, the left or the right? How about the fairy? Well?
1. God isn’t sitting on your shoulder; I can’t say about a fairy:-)
2. That you can come up with ONE supernatural claim that cannot be substantively evaluated doesn’t mean NO supernatural claims can be evaluated. I’ll address this issue below
“…how do you determine that the Superman argument IS nonsense?”
Bingo! That’s my point. You can’t determine the Superman argument is nonsense. There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a planet Krypton where Superman lives.
In that case why did you SAY it was nonsense?
There is a possibility gods exist no matter how far fetched it might seem. But, there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with Y. Superman, Zeus, Jehovah, Thor arguments are open to question.
But there IS. You can see how well the claims comport with your moral intuitions or intuitions of what makes sense. That might eliminate quite a few religious claims (the whole Zeus story might not resonate with your intuition). You could consider historical arguments about the religions claims (eg. Christian apologists sometimes argue that 1st century Jews making UP the empty tomb story would not have made women the first witnesses, given how society viewed their credibility at the time, thus it isn’t likely they CONCOCTED the story). There are LOTS of ways you can estimate the various probabilities.
And, if you came to see a bunch of different religions having the same expectation value, the most prudent thing would be to make a bet on one of them if betting on all of them was untenable.
“How does substituting a comic character for a deity demonstrate this so-called nonsensicalness?”
Think, Keith. It’s the same argument, Pascals Wager. Same structure. You think it’s valid when using particular supernatural entities but substituting different supernatural entities makes it fall apart. For example: I had better not become a criminal because if Superman exists, I might get beat up. It’s untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist.
But what IS untenable about asking someone to bet on a mere possibility when the expectation value is high enough?
your friend
Keith
"Are we at an impasse again?"
Well, you're not the most receptive person to the things I have to say about religion. Faith is non negotiable. One can't reason with someone's faith so an impasse is inevitable.
"…it asks you to bet on the claim that you "calculate" to have the highest expectation value. What is untenable about that?"
I've already told you a few times, "It's untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist." The "calculation" is predicated upon mythology and religious opinion. It's like calculating who would win in a fight, Superman or The Hulk.
"It is not BASED on superstition. It is based on the background knowledge and experience of the wagerer."
That's what they all say. My god is special; he's not a superstition unlike the rest.
"My point exactly!"
You got off track. Here is my point. You should rephrase this to, "…different people believe different things." Someone could "know" Zeus exists or "know" Jehovah exists but there is zero substantive criteria that one can use to differentiate between supernatural entity X and Y.
"1. God isn't sitting on your shoulder; I can't say about a fairy:-)"
That's an assertion. You haven't provided any substantive criteria to support your assertion. See my point yet?
"In that case why did you SAY it was nonsense?"
Pascal's wager itself? His argument. The notion that if someone is truly agnostic about god/gods, that means they would have to worship them all. Untenable. What did you think I was saying was nonsense?
"You can see how well the claims comport with your moral intuitions or intuitions of what makes sense."
Like I said, nothing substantive. That's the religious opinion I mentioned. If you are an ancient Greek, the claims will comport very well with the existence of Zeus. However, your intuitions about Zeus tell you nothing substantive about the truth value of that claim.
"You could consider historical arguments about the religions claims…"
And here we have the mythology I mentioned. Most religions have their own mythology, Christianity included. Once again, that's not going to give you any insight about differentiating God from a fairy, or Thor, or any other supernatural creature. Which shoulder of mine is god sitting on and which shoulder the fairy? The Superman fan can appeal to the mythology of the DC comic book universe and her intuition as much as he wants but that's not substantive.
"There are LOTS of ways you can estimate the various probabilities."
You can't even estimate which shoulder of mine god is sitting on and which one the fairy is sitting on. You can assert something, but you have nothing substantive to differentiate between the two supernatural entities.
"I had better not become a criminal because if Superman exists, I might get beat up." – But what IS untenable about asking someone to bet on a mere possibility when the expectation value is high enough?
DC fan, you have not provided adequate justification for the exemption of Superman from the imaginary pantheon of super heroes. By the same token, theists don't provide adequate justification for the exemption of Allah, or Jehovah, or Zeus, etc. from the imaginary pantheon of supernatural creatures and entities.
Hi Cin:
I believe I have been seriously considered your claims; I just don’t agree with your arguments. You think that is because MY faith is not negotiable; I;d probably say the same about yours. But that’s neither here nor there. Continuing:
“…it asks you to bet on the claim that you “calculate” to have the highest expectation value. What is untenable about that?”
I’ve already told you a few times, “It’s untenable because it asks one to believe in a superhero [god], like Superman [Zeus], on the mere possibility he might exist.” The “calculation” is predicated upon mythology and religious opinion. It’s like calculating who would win in a fight, Superman or The Hulk.
remember that you called the existence of these superheros an open question. In that case, what is the UNTENABLE part of the calculation of their CLAIMED fighting abilities? If you compare the Hulk’s claimed powers with Superman’s ppowers there is no contest. Superman can travel through time, can fly into outer space where he can still breathe, he has been described as carrying entire chains of planets away from dying galaxies. Now of course these are just things the comic books said, but if their accuracy is an open question as you say, then where is the untenableness in performing the calculuation?
“It is not BASED on superstition. It is based on the background knowledge and experience of the wagerer.”
That’s what they all say. My god is special; he’s not a superstition unlike the rest.
No. The wagerer doesn’t already BELIEVE in the God, the wagerer hasn’t decided the deity isn’t a superstition. That’s why he has to wager one way or the other.
“My point exactly!”
You got off track. Here is my point. You should rephrase this to, “…different people believe different things.”
Not at all, you aren’t getting my point. My point is that different people know different sets of things. People encounter claims they cannot verify and they have to estimate the probability of those claims based on the stuff they DO know. Different sets of knowledge quite properly produce different probability estimates. I look at my cards and I see I have 2 kings, which means that to ME the probability that you have at least one king in your hand is something greater than 0%. On the other hand, you KNOW what you have in your hand and a king isn’t one of your cards, so to YOU the probability that you have at least one king is exactly 0%. We know different things so the probabilities are different.
Someone could “know” Zeus exists or “know” Jehovah exists but there is zero substantive criteria that one can use to differentiate between supernatural entity X and Y.
The wagerer doesn’t KNOW that EITHER exists, that’s the point of the wager.
“1. God isn’t sitting on your shoulder; I can’t say about a fairy:-)”
That’s an assertion. You haven’t provided any substantive criteria to support your assertion. See my point yet?
No.
“In that case why did you SAY it was nonsense?”
Pascal’s wager itself? His argument. The notion that if someone is truly agnostic about god/gods, that means they would have to worship them all. Untenable. What did you think I was saying was nonsense?
I agree that worshipping all Gods is untenable, but Pascal’s wager doesn’t require such. The Pascalian argument would say they should pick ONE from among the religious claims with (as best as they can tell) the highest expectation values and worship that one. There is nothing untenable about that.
“You can see how well the claims comport with your moral intuitions or intuitions of what makes sense.”
Like I said, nothing substantive. That’s the religious opinion I mentioned. If you are an ancient Greek, the claims will comport very well with the existence of Zeus. However, your intuitions about Zeus tell you nothing substantive about the truth value of that claim.
Not true and also not relevant. There is no guarantee that being an ancient Greek would lead your moral intuitions to support Zeusianity. And I would claim that your moral intuitions can certainly tell you something substantive about a religious claim, namely whether or not the deity makes moral sense to you. You may come to the judgment that IF god exists he must have certain moral attributes, a God whose claimed atrributes were inconsistent with your moral intuition would thus not be a viable bet.
“You could consider historical arguments about the religions claims…”
And here we have the mythology I mentioned. Most religions have their own mythology, Christianity included. Once again, that’s not going to give you any insight about differentiating God from a fairy, or Thor, or any other supernatural creature. Which shoulder of mine is god sitting on and which shoulder the fairy? The Superman fan can appeal to the mythology of the DC comic book universe and her intuition as much as he wants but that’s not substantive.
You can evaluate their claims against the things you know about history to see how plausible their claims are. I gave a specific example and you said nothing about it.
“There are LOTS of ways you can estimate the various probabilities.”
You can’t even estimate which shoulder of mine god is sitting on and which one the fairy is sitting on. You can assert something, but you have nothing substantive to differentiate between the two supernatural entities.
So what that I can’t estimate the shoulder most likely to have a fairy on it? That doesn’t have anything at all to do with whether or not I can estimate the relative probabilities between different religious claims. Your fairy example is a red herring, surprisingly close to creationist arguments:-)
“I had better not become a criminal because if Superman exists, I might get beat up.” – But what IS untenable about asking someone to bet on a mere possibility when the expectation value is high enough?
DC fan, you have not provided adequate justification for the exemption of Superman from the imaginary pantheon of super heroes. By the same token, theists don’t provide adequate justification for the exemption of Allah, or Jehovah, or Zeus, etc. from the imaginary pantheon of supernatural creatures and entities.
You’ve said the existence of those superheroes is an open question; now you say they are in fact imaginary. Which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you take? I can’t answer until I know whether you think it is an open question the way you previously said
your friend
Keith
"You think that is because MY faith is not negotiable; I;d probably say the same about yours."
I'm an atheist, Keith. I have no religious faith. If you can't agree with me on that then we are just wasting our time. You are not receptive to the things I, as an atheist, have to say about religion. That's understandable.
Now of course these are just things the comic books said, but if their accuracy is an open question as you say, then where is the untenableness in performing the calculuation?
What I actually said was this: "There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a planet Krypton where Superman lives. There is a possibility gods exist no matter how far fetched it might seem. But, there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with Y. Superman, Zeus, Jehovah, Thor arguments are open to question." However, they must still meet the burden of proof before I'd believe them.
Not at all, you aren't getting my point. My point is that different people know different sets of things.
Keith, you did get off track. You are attacking something I never disagreed with. What I'm saying is, "She only has one maiden name no matter what name you believe it might be. You don't actually know differently than I do regarding her maiden name. You could know incorrectly. What you think you know might be a misconception." Basically, you can't know that the Earth is flat while at the same time I know that the Earth is spherical. One of us is wrong even though you "know" the Earth is flat and I know the Earth is round. I really hate arguing minutia. The card analogy you provided is suited to calculating the probability of things we know, subject to nature, not fairies and gods. Fairies and gods is the subject matter here so it's better to say, "That's why I say it's better to say we have different beliefs instead of, "different people know different things."
"The wagerer doesn't KNOW that EITHER exists, that's the point of the wager."
Do you know if God exists, Keith? Or, is it your belief? It's better to say it's your belief.
"That's an assertion. You haven't provided any substantive criteria to support your assertion. See my point yet?" Keith: No.
How can I simplify this? The reason why you can't provide any substantive criteria is because what I said is true, "There is no substantive way to compare supernatural entity X with Supernatural entity Y."
The Pascalian argument would say they should pick ONE from among the religious claims…
Why just one? Why not a bunch of them? Hindus are inclined towards polytheism. So were the ancient Greeks. Would Pascal's Wager work in ancient Greece or does the time, place, and culture invalidate his wager?
"There is no guarantee that being an ancient Greek would lead your moral intuitions to support Zeusianity."
Naturally, since there is no such thing as "Zuesianity." You made that up. What I said is true though, "However, your intuitions about Zeus tell you nothing substantive about the truth value of that claim."
"And I would claim that your moral intuitions can certainly tell you something substantive about a religious claim, namely whether or not the deity makes moral sense to you."
Again, that's not substantive. One can have an incredibly strong intuition that Zeus exists but nothing about the truth value of that claim can be derived from it. You can feel very strongly that god is sitting on my left shoulder however, that doesn't mean he is. Maybe he's on the right shoulder. Maybe he is not there at all.
"I gave a specific example and you said nothing about it."
Wasn't it a Biblical example? There are historical elements of the real world in comic books as well. Metropolis looks a lot like NYC in the early 1940's. However, that tells you nothing about the truth value of the claim, "Superman exists."
"So what that I can't estimate the shoulder most likely to have a fairy on it?"
You can estimate the relative probability of Superman defeating The Hulk. As you said, it's high. However that estimation is based upon a mythology and a set of beliefs, not knowledge.
"That doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not I can estimate the relative probabilities between different religious claims."
Let's put that to the test. I'm making a religious claim that god is sitting on my shoulder. What is the probability he is sitting on my right shoulder? What is the probability he is sitting on my left shoulder. What substantive criteria do you use to answer that? Will you say that you have a strong intuition?
Hi Cin:
You think that is because MY faith is not negotiable; I;d probably say the same about yours.”
I’m an atheist, Keith. I have no religious faith.
I wasn’t talking about your RELIGIOUS faith Cin, I was talking about your philosophical faith.
Now of course these are just things the comic books said, but if their accuracy is an open question as you say, then where is the untenableness in performing the calculuation?
What I actually said was this: “There is a possibility, no matter how remote, that there is a planet Krypton where Superman lives. There is a possibility gods exist no matter how far fetched it might seem. But, there is no substantive criteria that one can use to compare supernatural entity X with Y. Superman, Zeus, Jehovah, Thor arguments are open to question.” However, they must still meet the burden of proof before I’d believe them.
The thing is, if a claim MET the burden of proof there’d be no NEED for the Pascalian argument. The argument doesn’t ask anyone to BELIEVE something they don’t think is true. Pascal’s argument was about claims that hadn’t yet been answered by reason, but that had some probability of being true. This would be similar to what you say about comic characters possibly really existing. I’d say the chances that the Superman stories are true is far LESS than the probability that Zeus exists, since IF the comics were accurate then Superman would have been on national news programs, the President would have referred to Superman in speeches etc. None of that has occurred (FYI:-). The same is true for the marvel heroes as well, at least the ones I know about. I know nothing at all about those modern characters that appear in books that nerds refer to as “graphic novels”.
Not at all, you aren’t getting my point. My point is that different people know different sets of things.
Keith, you did get off track. You are attacking something I never disagreed with.
But you DID disagree. When I pointed out that different people know different things you said I should have rephrased it to say that different people BELIEVE different things, and started talking about Zeus and Jehovah. But I didn’t SAY anything about knowing that either of those exist.
What I’m saying is, “She only has one maiden name no matter what name you believe it might be. You don’t actually know differently than I do regarding her maiden name. You could know incorrectly.
I do NOT know your mother’s maiden name incorrectly. I correctly know that I have no IDEA what her maiden name is.
What you think you know might be a misconception.” Basically, you can’t know that the Earth is flat while at the same time I know that the Earth is spherical.
of course not. What I said doesn’t conflict with this point of yours. I am not saying that I can KNOW God exists while you KNOW that the Hulk exists. That’s not the kind of thing I was talking about when I said different people know different things. Do you understand WHY I mentioned different people having different sets of things they know?
The card analogy you provided is suited to calculating the probability of things we know, subject to nature, not fairies and gods. Fairies and gods is the subject matter here so it’s better to say, “That’s why I say it’s better to say we have different beliefs instead of, “different people know different things.”
So you don’t see the connection between the card argument and an argument about supernatural claims?
“The wagerer doesn’t KNOW that EITHER exists, that’s the point of the wager.”
Do you know if God exists, Keith? Or, is it your belief? It’s better to say it’s your belief.
I believe that God exists and I think my belief is justified enough to call this knowledge. But none of that has much to do with Pascal’s wager. I am not a Pascal wagerer.
How can I simplify this? The reason why you can’t provide any substantive criteria is because what I said is true, “There is no substantive way to compare supernatural entity X with Supernatural entity Y.”
I claim I HAVE provided substantive ways to compare religious claims (as did Daniel). But even if I hadn’t, you have the burden of proof when yuo claim it is IMPOSSIBLE.
The Pascalian argument would say they should pick ONE from among the religious claims…
Why just one? Why not a bunch of them? Hindus are inclined towards polytheism. So were the ancient Greeks. Would Pascal’s Wager work in ancient Greece or does the time, place, and culture invalidate his wager?
The wagerer should (according to the argument) do what maximizes his expected payoff. if worshipping more than one religion maximized the expected value then the argument advises that action. But you seemed to be saying that the argument demanded that ALL deities be worshipped and yuo seemed to say that such is untenable. being untenable means it’s not an action the pascalian can even take.
“There is no guarantee that being an ancient Greek would lead your moral intuitions to support Zeusianity.”
Naturally, since there is no such thing as “Zuesianity. You made that up.
Jeez Cin you are rather pedantic today:-) Of course I made that up. I was using the word to stand for “worshipping Zeus” or whatever it is that the Greek religion demanded of its adherents.
What I said is true though, “However, your intuitions about Zeus tell you nothing substantive about the truth value of that claim.”
So you say, but say if your judgment tells you that IF deity X exists it will display certain moral characteristics, one can easily compare what was claimed about Zeus to see if those claims are consistent with those moral characteristics. You CLAIM that’s not substantive, but I challenge you to prove this assertion. You made the claim of non-substantiveness so you have the burden of proof, right?
One can have an incredibly strong intuition that Zeus exists but nothing about the truth value of that claim can be derived from it. You can feel very strongly that god is sitting on my left shoulder however, that doesn’t mean he is.
That’s not the intuition I am talking about. I am talking about MORAL intuition, your sense of right and wrong. You can certainly have a legitimate moral intuition that deity A (as described by a particular religion) is inconsistant with right and wrong.
“I gave a specific example and you said nothing about it.”
Wasn’t it a Biblical example?
No. It was an example of applying known historical fact TO a biblical claim to determine how likely it was that the biblical claim was a concoction of the original christians.
“So what that I can’t estimate the shoulder most likely to have a fairy on it?”
You can estimate the relative probability of Superman defeating The Hulk. As you said, it’s high. However that estimation is based upon a mythology and a set of beliefs, not knowledge.
You are wrong. The estimate is based on my objective knowledge of what those comics books have “claimed” about each hero. I didn’t assume that either one actually existed, I just assumed (as per your claim) that their existence is an open question.
“That doesn’t have anything at all to do with whether or not I can estimate the relative probabilities between different religious claims.”
Let’s put that to the test. I’m making a religious claim that god is sitting on my shoulder.
I didn’t claim to be able to test THAT claim. My claim is that there exist SOME religious claims that can be tested for relative probability. Your red herring is leaking strawman straw:-)
your friend
keith
“I wasn’t talking about your RELIGIOUS faith Cin, I was talking about your philosophical faith.”
Which is what exactly? I don’t even know what it is but maybe you know me better than I know myself.
“I’d say the chances that the Superman stories are true is far LESS than the probability that Zeus exists, since IF the comics were accurate then Superman would have been on national news programs…”
Superman stays on his home planet so he is never seen or heard from by Earthlings. If that’s the argument, why is there less of a probability for Superman than Zeus?
“When I pointed out that different people know different things you said I should have rephrased it to say that different people BELIEVE different things…”
Given the religious nature of this discussion, that’s right.
“But you DID disagree.”
I disagreed with your use of the word “know” instead of “believe” in a discussion about supernatural beings and comics.
“I do NOT know your mother’s maiden name incorrectly. I correctly know that I have no IDEA what her maiden name is.”
Which is why I replied, “That’s an example of a lack of knowledge.” You even went so far as to agree with me.
“So you don’t see the connection between the card argument and an argument about supernatural claims?”
There is a substantive way to compare cards. There is no substantive criteria one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y. So, no.
“I believe that God exists and I think my belief is justified enough to call this knowledge.”
This is where theists confuse what they believe with what they know. What you have is faith, Keith. The Christian faith. It’s not knowledge. A Muslim has the Islamic faith. It’s not Islamic knowledge.
“I claim I HAVE provided substantive ways to compare religious claims (as did Daniel).”
Then later, “I didn’t claim to be able to test THAT claim.” ROFL! That’s because there is no substantial way to compare supernatural entities.
“The wagerer should (according to the argument) do what maximizes his expected payoff. if worshipping more than one religion maximized the expected value then the argument advises that action.”
Self contradiction: “The Pascalian argument would say they should pick ONE from among the religious claims…” Your bias toward monotheism is showing. :) Better cover that up before someone sees.
“But you seemed to be saying that the argument demanded that ALL deities be worshipped and yuo seemed to say that such is untenable.”
If someone is truly agnostic about all gods, 50/50, then that’s the proposition Pascal’s wager becomes for them.
“Jeez Cin you are rather pedantic today:-) Of course I made that up. I was using the word to stand for “worshipping Zeus” or whatever it is that the Greek religion demanded of its adherents.”
Okay, point taken. (I wish you could say something like that about my arguments someday) I thought you were poking fun at the ancient Greeks for their belief in Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc. Basically, throwing stones. To me, it’s no more far fetched than monotheism is.
“…if your judgment tells you that IF deity X exists it will display certain moral characteristics, one can easily compare what was claimed about Zeus to see if those claims are consistent with those moral characteristics.”
I honestly have no idea about what you are trying to say here. You won’t be able to observe moral characteristics, or anything for that matter, since deity X is intangible, invisible, etc. I can’t even tell the difference between a fairy and nothing. They look the same to me.
“You CLAIM that’s not substantive, but I challenge you to prove this assertion.”
Not an assertion, a fact. By definition (invisible, intangible, etc) supernatural beings look a whole lot like nothing. 2+2=4 by definition. Your own failure to differentiate between the supernatural entity X on one shoulder and supernatural entity Y on the other should serve as testament. I’m pointing out to you that “There is no substantive criteria one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y.” I swear, you are just being hard headed. For some reason, pride maybe, you can’t admit I’m right about this.
“You can certainly have a legitimate moral intuition that deity A (as described by a particular religion) is inconsistant with right and wrong.”
Riiiight. What does your moral intuition tell you about which shoulder god (X) is sitting on and which shoulder the fairy (Y) is sitting on?
“The estimate is based on my objective knowledge of what those comics books have “claimed” about each hero.”
The only claim the DC comic fan has made is that perhaps there is a planet Krypton. We haven’t discovered it yet. So, it’s remotely possible Superman exists. Since it’s possible, and it’s his understanding that Superman beats up criminals, he shouldn’t take the risk of becoming a criminal. That’s open to question.
“Let’s put that to the test. I’m making a religious claim that god is sitting on my shoulder. What is the probability he is sitting on my right shoulder? What is the probability he is sitting on my left shoulder. What substantive criteria do you use to answer that? Will you say that you have a strong intuition?”
“I didn’t claim to be able to test THAT claim.”
Hehe!
Hi Cin:
“I wasn’t talking about your RELIGIOUS faith Cin, I was talking about your philosophical faith.”
Which is what exactly? I don’t even know what it is but maybe you know me better than I know myself.
Consider it a throw away comment; there’s no need to get off point.
“I’d say the chances that the Superman stories are true is far LESS than the probability that Zeus exists, since IF the comics were accurate then Superman would have been on national news programs…”
Superman stays on his home planet so he is never seen or heard from by Earthlings. If that’s the argument, why is there less of a probability for Superman than Zeus?
But that’s not what the comics say about Superman. I would say that Zeus is much more likely to exists than your “for the purpose of argument Superman” because reality doesn’t change itself ad hoc to score people make debating points:-)
“When I pointed out that different people know different things you said I should have rephrased it to say that different people BELIEVE different things…”
Given the religious nature of this discussion, that’s right.
But I wasn’t claiming (in this argument) that people knew religions to be true.
“But you DID disagree.”
I disagreed with your use of the word “know” instead of “believe” in a discussion about supernatural beings and comics.
But I wasn’t claiming (in this argument) that people knew religions to be true.
“I do NOT know your mother’s maiden name incorrectly. I correctly know that I have no IDEA what her maiden name is.”
Which is why I replied, “That’s an example of a lack of knowledge.” You even went so far as to agree with me.
Exactly. And yet you disagreed when I said that different people know different things. You assumed I was saying that I could know that Christianity was true while you could know that Zeus existed (even if those things contradict) I was saying nothing like that.
“So you don’t see the connection between the card argument and an argument about supernatural claims?”
There is a substantive way to compare cards. There is no substantive criteria one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y. So, no.
Assuming you cannot SEE my cards, all you can do is make an estimate based on the things you know. The set of things YOU know doesn’t include the cards in my hand, the set of things I know DOES, so i will have a different probability estimate about my cards than you will. The same is true about estimates of the relative probability of religious claims–those estimates like all probability estimates are conditionsed by ones background knowledge. Your comic book example shows we can estimate RELATIVE probabilties between comic book claims (see Hulk v Superman wrt fighting ability, obviously Superman were he to exist could beat up Hulk if he existed).
“I believe that God exists and I think my belief is justified enough to call this knowledge.”
This is where theists confuse what they believe with what they know….
First of all, no, and secondly that’s a different question than Pascal’s wager. I don’t want to change the subject.
“I claim I HAVE provided substantive ways to compare religious claims (as did Daniel).”
Then later, “I didn’t claim to be able to test THAT claim.” ROFL! That’s because there is no substantial way to compare supernatural entities.
Huh? I claim that some supernatural claims can be compared for relative probability and some cannot. The same is true for every kind of claim. My claim is utterly obviously true.
“The wagerer should (according to the argument) do what maximizes his expected payoff. if worshipping more than one religion maximized the expected value then the argument advises that action.”
Self contradiction: “The Pascalian argument would say they should pick ONE from among the religious claims…” Your bias toward monotheism is showing. :) Better cover that up before someone sees.
I am not embarrassed at all about being a monotheist. But in the hypothetical situation you are describing, where a person’s expectatioin calculation shows several different religions to have equal expectation values, all Pascal’s Wager says is that said person ought to make the choice of highest expectation value. if that means worship several deities then the argument would call for polyworship. But as I said last time…
“But you seemed to be saying that the argument demanded that ALL deities be worshipped and yuo seemed to say that such is untenable.”
If someone is truly agnostic about all gods, 50/50, then that’s the proposition Pascal’s wager becomes for them.
Of course it doesn’t. Suppose a person offers you this choice: pick a number between one and ten, if you get the right one I’ll give you a trillion dollars. YOUR argument would say I’d have to either pick them all (which the contest doesn’t permit) or refuse to play). the Pascalian chooice would be for me to pick as many as possible–which in this case is one.
“Jeez Cin you are rather pedantic today:-) Of course I made that up. I was using the word to stand for “worshipping Zeus” or whatever it is that the Greek religion demanded of its adherents.”
Okay, point taken. (I wish you could say something like that about my arguments someday)…
Make a good point and I will:-)
…I thought you were poking fun at the ancient Greeks for their belief in Zeus, Apollo, Athena, etc. Basically, throwing stones. To me, it’s no more far fetched than monotheism is.
I wasn’t making fun of anyone. I don’t mock people for their religion. I have freinds of all kinds of religions.
“…if your judgment tells you that IF deity X exists it will display certain moral characteristics, one can easily compare what was claimed about Zeus to see if those claims are consistent with those moral characteristics.”
honestly have no idea about what you are trying to say here. You won’t be able to observe moral characteristics, or anything for that matter, since deity X is intangible, invisible, etc. I can’t even tell the difference between a fairy and nothing. They look the same to me.
You CAN observe what the various religions CLAIM about their deity though and see how well that firs your moral intuition.
“You CLAIM that’s not substantive, but I challenge you to prove this assertion.”
Not an assertion, a fact. By definition (invisible, intangible, etc) supernatural beings look a whole lot like nothing. 2+2=4 by definition. Your own failure to differentiate between the supernatural entity X on one shoulder and supernatural entity Y on the other should serve as testament. I’m pointing out to you that “There is no substantive criteria one can use to compare supernatural entity X with supernatural entity Y.” I swear, you are just being hard headed. For some reason, pride maybe, you can’t admit I’m right about this.
Your definition of “substantive comparison” means being able to physically examine the deity. Obviously THAT’S not possible. I and daniel suggested a different kind of comparison, but your faith doesn’t allow you to think about it.
“You can certainly have a legitimate moral intuition that deity A (as described by a particular religion) is inconsistant with right and wrong.”
Riiiight. What does your moral intuition tell you about which shoulder god (X) is sitting on and which shoulder the fairy (Y) is sitting on?
What? Are you mocking the idea of intuition itself or just moral intuition? is that your point? You know, I have editted myself several times in this post to AVOID allowing sarcasm to interfere with communication. I have no idea why yuo think that a comment about fairies on your shoulder has anything to do with a question about moral intuition. Is your point that yuo can’t evaluate the morality of a deity if it hasn’t been established that the deity even exists? of course we can, the same way we can evaluate the morality of fictional characters–we see what’s written and judge the character by that. That kind of moral evaluation doesn’t presuppose actual existence.
“The estimate is based on my objective knowledge of what those comics books have “claimed” about each hero.”
The only claim the DC comic fan has made is that perhaps there is a planet Krypton. We haven’t discovered it yet. So, it’s remotely possible Superman exists. Since it’s possible, and it’s his understanding that Superman beats up criminals, he shouldn’t take the risk of becoming a criminal. That’s open to question.
Pascal’s wager doesn’t say what wagerer should BELIEVE. It says what the wagerer should DO. Whether or not you believe in superman it’s a good idea not to commit crimes, and the pascalian argument would tell him not to take the risk. Belief in superman is beside the point.
“Let’s put that to the test. I’m making a religious claim that god is sitting on my shoulder. What is the probability he is sitting on my right shoulder? What is the probability he is sitting on my left shoulder. What substantive criteria do you use to answer that? Will you say that you have a strong intuition?”
I have no strong intuition about what might be on your shoulder. I think I have established that the question is pretty irrelevant to the discussion though.
your friend
Keith
I'll respond later, for now…
Make a good point and I will:-)
Don't be an ass. I have made good points.
Hi Cin:
You saw the smiley face didn't you? I was just needling. I apologize for insulting you–that was the opposite of my intention. In this discussion I have made a zillion points as have you. You have acknowledged ONE good point I made, I assume you didn't acknowledge more because you didn't think my other points WERE good. That's fine; you shouldn't say a point of mine is good if you don't think it is, when my batting average is .0000001 (as you seem to think, as is your right to think) I don't need any fake praise. You often make very good points but in this discussion I really haven't seen your points THIS TIME warranting a "good point". That's not a huge deal IMO because you have thought NEARLY all of my points to be wrong.
but because I do not want to offend you I will try to be vigilant. I will try to make sure I don't leave it unsaid when your point is IMO a good one. In general I DO acknowledge such things–you can see examples of when i debated Louis about pacifism.
your friend (still I hope)
keith
Keith,
Sorry, I was in a bad mood. Things are not well. It's just depressing to think that all the time and effort I put into this discussion is for nothing. I think I should give up now. Take care friend Keith.
I am sorry things are not well. I am also sorry you feel like this discussion was a complete waste. I know we didn't resolve anything, but when I discuss things with a person that forces me to at least think hard about my own position and that inevitably clarifies my own thinking. I hope the same is true for you. IMO discussion isn't always about convincing other people you are right–in fact it probably is rarely about that.
Knowing you don't believe in prayer, I hope you at least derive some benefit from knowing that you are in my prayers (knowing that my hopes include good things happening to you). And FYI I am NOT praying the patronizing "oh Lord help Cin see how right I am and how wrong he is". I am just praying that your life goes better.
your friend
keith
IMO discussion isn't always about convincing other people you are right…
Me either. But, I feel it's a waste because you can't even understand where I am coming from. There is no communication. I feel it's argument for argument's sake sometimes. Can we try something? Can you give one word answer's to these?
1. Fairies are supernatural. True or False?
2. Gods are supernatural. True or False?
3. God (the one you worship) is supernatural. True or False?
I have more but we need to move beyond these three first.
To answer your questions in one efficient sentence:
All three would be supernatural if they existed (they are fictional otherwise).
Now I have something for you, not a question, but a statement of what I think which might help you compose your next thoughts: IMO the fact that one cannot evaluate the relative probability OF ONE PARTICULAR SUPERNATURAL QUESTION (such as: which of my shoulders has a fairy standing on it) doesn't mean we cannot reasonably address the relative probability of others supernatural claims.
Actually I have another thing to say too: since (I'd claim) intuition is an essential part of all knowledge–to know X you have to intuitively know X–intuition is a valid tool for exploring the truth. Now intuition isn't infallible which is why it's possible for different people to have conflicting intuitions, but it is necessarily and properly part of any evaluations of anything. So when you asked your fairy shoulder question, I have NO intuition about which shoulder would most likely have a fairy on it, thus intuition DOESN'T give me the resources to answer your question. As far as I can tell either shoulder is an equally likely resting place for fairies. But when intuition DOES point in one direction instead of another, the appropriate thing to do is (a) continue to recognize you might be wrong but (b) trust your intuition nonetheless.
your friend
Keith
I still need to get to my follow up questions. What I take from your post above…
Intuition = something akin to Opinion or Belief or Faith? 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. That's how the dictionary defines it.
hi Cin:
About intuition: I'd go with "immediate apprehension". Calling it "independent of any reasoning prosess" misleads I think. I'd say that all reasoning is dependent ON intuition. An example of intuition: say you see the proof that if the sum of the digits of a number is divisible by 9, the original number was divisible by nine; it is your intuition that gives you the "Eureka" moment, it is your intuition that deepens your understanding of that fact when you continue to think about the proof, or when you repeat the steps of the proof again and again.
The way I see it: IF you don't have an intuition about something THEN you don't know it. This doesn't imply that having an intuition about something guarantees you are right, but if you never trust your intuition you are incapable of knowing anything.
your friend
Keith
We're at an impasse. I agree with the definition of the word. I don't agree with you at all that reason depends on intuition. By definition, it's the opposite. I want to ask some follow up questions we can't even agree about a dictionary definition. :( This is so mucked up.
Hi Cin:
The definition you quoted doesn't make intuition the opposite of reason. Even using that definition, Being independent of any reasoning process means it's not derived FROM reasoning. That we don't agree on the appropriate definition COULD mean that we have a deep philosophical disagreement on the matter, or it COULD mean that we are talking anout two different things when we talk about intuition. I suspect it's the latter.
your friend
Keith
I think intuition is independent of any reasoning process. Basically, intuition is unreasonable.
Hi Cin:
Clearly we are not talking about the same thing. For if we were, you'd be saying that there ISN'T any "eureka" moment when you recognize that something is true.
your friend
Keith
I'm talking about the definition of intuition, 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
Intuition is independent of reason. It has nothing to do with reason. I agree with the dictionary definition. If you don't agree with the definition of intuition, then we are at an impasse… again.
Hi Cin:
I read "independent of reason" to mean not DEPENDENT on reason. I agree with that. I claim that intuition ISN'T dependent on reason, I claim that reason is dependent on intuition. So I think my view is consistent with the dictionary you quote.
your friend
Keith
Intuition is independent of any reasoning process.
Hi Cin:
You wrote: Intuition is independent of any reasoning process.
I said the same. But reasoning processes are not independent of intuition. It's like I was not dependent on my young children but they were dependent on me.
your friend
Keith
Since intuition is independent of any reasoning process, that means you don't think.
Hi Cin:
Since intuition is independent of any reasoning process, that means you don't think.
No it doesn't. "independent of" means "not dependent on". And my view says just that: intuition isn't dependent on reasoning; my view says it's the other way around. My view is perfectly consistent with the definition you cited, so now we can discuss the IDEA instead of the semantics.
your friend
Keith
Keith, by definition, intuition is independent OF ANY reasoning process. They are separate; autonomous. Ergo, intuition = no thinking involved. You don't agree with the definition.
The stage that our discussion is at now is "Define Wet…"
Hi Cin:
Thanks for the link:-) You know though that I think I am the common sense guy here. I EXPLAINED what I think the word "independent of" means and I used an example that I think proves my point. You don't have any comment on my explanation?
your friend
Keith
I don't agree Keith. I think you are equivocating. For example, the word independent is defined as…
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
In the context of, "independent of any reasoning process," I think the word independent is clearly #2. You'd like it to be #3. As I said, we are at the "Define wet…" stage of this discussion. There is no way to go further until we can agree about intuition, and we don't. Intuition = No thinking involved. Why don't you admit that we can't go any further since ideology prevents it, as shown in my most excellent comic.
#4 not #3.
Hi Cin:
The question is: whose ideology is preventing us from going forward. I'd say it's yours. Really.
your friend
Keith
Keith, you know though that I think I am the common sense guy here. I EXPLAINED what I think the word "independent of" means and I used an example that I think proves my point. You don't have any comment on my explanation? The question is: whose ideology is preventing us from going forward. I'd say it's yours. Really.
Hi Cin:
Cineaste said…
Keith, you know though that I think I am the common sense guy here. I EXPLAINED what I think the word "independent of" means and I used an example that I think proves my point. You don't have any comment on my explanation? The question is: whose ideology is preventing us from going forward. I'd say it's yours. Really.
No you didn't.
your friend
Keith
Keith, I'm just going by what the dictionary says. [shrug]
Hi Cin:
Your dictionary listed several definitions of the word "independent" (I'll copy from your post):
2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
The first one above is pretty clearly referring to heiarchical realtionships: A is independent of B; if A can act without the aproval of B then A is independent of B. There is a sense in which that kind of relationship describes my view of reason/intuition. Your intuition doesn't need the "approval" of your reasoning, but your reasoning DOES need the "approval" of your intuition because without that approval you never had the "eureka" moment and you have no understanding of what the formal reasoning process told you. So says my view and this is perfectly consistent with the first definition of "independent" you cited.
On the other hand, the second definition you listed refers to processes, process C is independent of D so long as C's operation doesn't require D. My view fits that definition as well. Intuition can be INDEPENDENT of REASON (by not depending on Reason) while Reason can be DEPENDENT on Intuition.
What YOU seem to be saying is that A being independent of B means by definition that A and B have nothing at all to do with each other. I suppose that is one possible definition of independent even though apparently your dictionary didn't list that one. All I am saying is that my view of intuition/reason is fits the definitions you listed like a glove. If yuo don't agree could you please tell me where you think my above argument is wrong?
your friend
Keith
Arguing over the definition of "intuition" is like the "define wet…" moment in the comic. This is really what I meant when I said you and I don't communicate. We just argue like 2 fools. I hate that. I'll address your comments but you will NOT agree and we'll just continue talking without listening. I'll never get to ask the questions I wanted to since we are stuck debating this stuff.
"What YOU seem to be saying is that A being independent of B means by definition that A and B have nothing at all to do with each other."
I'm not saying it, the dictionary is, 2. "autonomous; free"
"A" is independent OF ANY "B."
like…
"Intuition" (A) is "independent" (FREE) OF ANY "reasoning process" (B).
What that says to me is, intuition = no thinking involved.
… but your reasoning DOES need the "approval" of your intuition because without that approval you never had the "eureka" moment and you have no understanding of what the formal reasoning process told you.
I disagree. You use your intuition when you pick a random number for the lottery or when you want to support an unfounded belief in fairies. Intuition is nothing but a guess. You don't reason. You don't think. Intuition is the foundation of superstition.
It seems clear that "Eureka moments" are triumphs of reason, not intuition. I see no intuition involved in a "Eureka moment." I assume you know the story behind the expression, "Eureka." Archimedes was ecstatic because he was able to use deduction/induction to solve a problem. He was inspired by the bath water and INFERRED, NOT intuited, a process to solve the problem, or so the legend says. It wasn't some random guess like your intuition. A "Eureka Moment" involving intuition goes something like this, "My intuition tells me that it's going to rain 3 days hence."
Hi Cin:
I'll address your comments but you will NOT agree and we'll just continue talking without listening. I'll never get to ask the questions I wanted to since we are stuck debating this stuff.
Keith from before: "What YOU seem to be saying is that A being independent of B means by definition that A and B have nothing at all to do with each other."
I'm not saying it, the dictionary is, 2. "autonomous; free"
"A" is independent OF ANY "B."
like…
"Intuition" (A) is "independent" (FREE) OF ANY "reasoning process" (B).
What that says to me is, intuition = no thinking involved.
But that's not what definition 2 DOES say. It defines independence in terms of one thing not having authority over the INDEPENDENT thing. On that definition it is possible for A to be independent of B while B is DEPENDENT on A. This clearly DOESN'T mean A and B are totally unconnected.
… but your reasoning DOES need the "approval" of your intuition because without that approval you never had the "eureka" moment and you have no understanding of what the formal reasoning process told you.
I disagree. You use your intuition when you pick a random number for the lottery or when you want to support an unfounded belief in fairies. Intuition is nothing but a guess. You don't reason. You don't think. Intuition is the foundation of superstition.
Your definition of intuition DOESN'T say intuition means "guess". You have already AGREED that ONE of the definitions you listed is consistent with what I said about "independence" (I said "independent of" is the exact opposite of "dependent on"). I have tried to argue that BOTH definitions you listed are consistent with that view of independence. But even so, since my usage is consistent with least one of the definitions, it seems to me you have to present some kind of argument to the effect that my usage isn't appropriate for the independence mentioned in the definition of "intuition".
I don't like arguing about definitions either, but it seems to me your whole objection to what I have said is that you claim I am not using a standard definition for "intuition". You are the one who made this an argument about the meaning of "wet", it seems to me.
BTW I don't agree you use your intuition to pick a random number.
It seems clear that "Eureka moments" are triumphs of reason, not intuition. I see no intuition involved in a "Eureka moment." I assume you know the story behind the expression, "Eureka." Archimedes was ecstatic because he was able to use deduction/induction to solve a problem. He was inspired by the bath water and INFERRED, NOT intuited, a process to solve the problem, or so the legend says. It wasn't some random guess like your intuition. A "Eureka Moment" involving intuition goes something like this, "My intuition tells me that it's going to rain 3 days hence."
I think you are missing my point. Arch did indeed infer what he inferred. But I claim there was a moment when the argument occurred to him, when it popped into his head and he recognized that the argument was correct. That's the moment I am talking about, it;s the moment of "truth recognition". He didn't derive his RECOGNITION of the truth of the argument from reasoning. Reasoning delivered the conclusion, but some other faculty delivered to him the recognition that the conclusion was really true.
Sometimes that kind of moment hits a person NOT because of an inference but because of a direct observation. I see my wife holding a batch of fresh baked cookies and I recognize that my wife is right there holding some chocolate deliciousness. I didn't INFER that from anything, I recognized it.
If such moments never happened to you you'd never know ANYTHING even if you could accurately recite the logical steps of the argument, or you could accurately state a description of my wife's cookies. Without that "thing I am talking about" there'd be no knowledge. I believe the proper word for that "thing" is intuition, I believe that scientists and mathematicans use the word "intuition" to mean such things as well as the instinct that MAYBE this approach might be a fruitful way to study something. They do not consider "intuition" to mean "wild guess". But if you don't agree with my word, and yet you are really interested in understanding me (as opposed to winning a debate) then perhaps you can give me a word you prefer.
your friend
Keith
"They do not think the verb "intuit" is an acceptable construction."
Why don't they? That's where you will find me.
"I don't agree with you that the prisoners in Gitmo have fewer rights; I'd just say their rights are being violated."
Which means, in practice, they HAVE fewer rights. Ideally, they have equal rights.
"I do not think YOU use your intuition to answer such questions…"
Keith I use my intuition to pick my lottery numbers. I feel this might be my lucky number. That's intuition. I think it's strange that you think I'd be different from anyone else. Why do you think I am not like other people?
>> CIN: Which means, in practice, they HAVE fewer rights. Ideally, they have equal rights.
When people break the law, they by definition surrender some of their rights, like the right to freedom. Prisoners have less rights by definition. But they still have rights, just more limited.
The question is, are there different levels of rights among prisoners? Again, the answer is yes. Violent prisoners ('worse' prisoners) have less rights than compliant prisoners. While all prisoners may share some basic set of rights, the worse the offense, the less rights they are allowed to keep.
>> CIN: I use my intuition to pick my lottery numbers.
Actually, I think you are sampling from the 'low' end of how intuition works in real life. For a better view of how we all use and SHOULD use intuition in real life, read Gladwell's Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking
Hi Cin:
They do not think the verb "intuit" is an acceptable construction."
Why don't they? That's where you will find me.<.i>
Here's what it said:
"The source of the objections most likely lies in the fact that the verb is often used in reference to more trivial sorts of insight than would be permitted by a full appreciation of the traditional meaning of intuition. In this connection, a greater percentage of the Panel, 46 percent, accepts intuit in the sentence Mathematicians sometimes intuit the truth of a theorem long before they are able to prove it."
1. The quote says that the source of the objection is that the verb is often used to refer to excessively trivial insights. I don't see how that has anything at all to do with what we are discussing.
2. You claim to be in the 54% that doesn't accept the verb "intuit" at all, which means you refuse to accept it even for mathematicians "intuiting" the truth of a theorem before they prove it. All I can say is that every mathematician would agree they have had exactly such intuitions as you seem to be objecting to.
I don't agree with you that the prisoners in Gitmo have fewer rights; I'd just say their rights are being violated."
Which means, in practice, they HAVE fewer rights. Ideally, they have equal rights.
if they actually don't HAVE those rights then the rights cannot be violated. Yuor point seems to me to be pure semantics. When Jefferson spoke of people being created equal what he was talking about ideal rights–he totally understood that some despotic powers refused to recognize those rights.
"I do not think YOU use your intuition to answer such questions…"
Keith I use my intuition to pick my lottery numbers. I feel this might be my lucky number. That's intuition. I think it's strange that you think I'd be different from anyone else. Why do you think I am not like other people?
Really? You really feel that your lucky number is more likely to be a lottery winner than other numbers. I am surprised if that's the case. if it's NOT the case then I'd suggest you are just guessing, you are not basing your choice on feeling that says "you know, I get a feeling that this one is going tobe a winner". From my experience intuition isn't something you CAN decide to use. The inkling just comes to you.
your friend
Keith
1. "I don't see how that has anything at all to do with what we are discussing."
Intuition is used in trivial sorts of insight. For example, picking a lottery number is a trivial sort of insight.
2. You claim to be in the 54% that doesn't accept the verb "intuit" at all…
No, Keith. They didn't say they don't accept the verb "intuit" AT ALL. The dictionary gave two specific examples.
All I can say is that every mathematician would agree they have had exactly such intuitions as you seem to be objecting to.
Remember though, I have a different epistemology. Let me help you. I know what you refer to though, those little instants of inspiration when something clicks and you know the answer is right even before you finish the proof. Do I describe that accurately? I get the same feeling when I play chess. There will be a point in the game where I know that I'll win without knowing exactly how. That's what you'd call intuition. However, I call that reason. As with the English Usage Panel, I associate intuition with more trivial sorts of insight. From an empirical perspective, intuition plays a negligible role in my chess game. However, from your perspective, a lot of chess is intuition. Heck, even in my discussions with you, I am constantly reasoning and weighing your words. I don't use intuition. I do use intuition when I have no information on which to base rational thought on, like picking a lottery number. In that case, it amounts to nothing better than a guess which is how a lot of people think about intuition. Fortune tellers use intuition, don't they?
"Really? You really feel that your lucky number is more likely to be a lottery winner than other numbers. I am surprised if that's the case."
Yes, I guess It must be the case since I always use it. Surprised? My mathematical reasoning tells me that it's the same as any other lottery number but I consistently play it anyway. It's completely unreasonable and totally intuitive of me to keep doing so. And, before you ask, I will not tell you what the number is. It wouldn't be lucky any more if I did.
>> CIN: those little instants of inspiration when something clicks and you know the answer is right even before you finish the proof.
That's the problem – you use a narrow, trivial definition of intuition.
"That's the problem – you use a narrow, trivial definition of intuition."
…as it is by definition.
Hi Cineaste:
Then what word would you use to describe the kind of thing mathematicians call "intuition" when they speak of "intuiting" the truth of a theorem before they prove it?
your friend
Keith
"Then what word would you use to describe the kind of thing mathematicians call "intuition" when they speak of "intuiting" the truth of a theorem before they prove it?"
Reason. When I'm doing an algebra equation, playing chess or poker, I have a good idea what the outcome will be. That's mostly based on data that I have though. Maybe a little of it is intuition but most of it is reason. I use more intuition than reason though when I tell someone's fortune or pick a lottery number since less information is available to me.
"But it seems to me that on your view there'd be no such THING as violating one's rights–if the "man" doesn't let you do it then it WASN'T one of your rights."
Yes. That's what I see with the Bush administration's Gitmo fiasco. I agree with the ideals of Jefferson but when I look at the reality of things, civilization is what provides human rights. Remove a man from civilization and you remove his rights. In that case, he is just a man.
You know Keith, I thought about Louis as a good example of civilization determining human rights. We put it up for a vote as to whether gays and lesbians have the right to be married. I think that would fall under the pursuit of happiness clause. It's stuff like this that makes think that men grant other men rights and only after they are fought for.
Hi Cin:
Then what word would you use to describe the kind of thing mathematicians call "intuition" when they speak of "intuiting" the truth of a theorem before they prove it?"
Reason. When I'm doing an algebra equation, playing chess or poker, I have a good idea what the outcome will be. That's mostly based on data that I have though. Maybe a little of it is intuition but most of it is reason.
It seems to me that reason is a PROCESS, but what mathematicians are talking about is something IMMEDIATE, not a process whose steps can be described. They just know (or are pretty sure) that such and such is true. The step by step proof (i.e. Reason) comes later.
I use more intuition than reason though when I tell someone's fortune or pick a lottery number since less information is available to me.
Please describe this to me. Do you have a feeling that such and such will be the lottery number? How strong is this feeling?
"But it seems to me that on your view there'd be no such THING as violating one's rights–if the "man" doesn't let you do it then it WASN'T one of your rights."
Yes. That's what I see with the Bush administration's Gitmo fiasco. I agree with the ideals of Jefferson but when I look at the reality of things, civilization is what provides human rights. Remove a man from civilization and you remove his rights. In that case, he is just a man.
So in other words, Bush DIDN'T violate anyone's rights at Gitmo? Hitler DIDN'T violate the rights of the Jews? I am really trying to get what you are saying here.
your friend
Keith
Hi Cin:
You wrote: You know Keith, I thought about Louis as a good example of civilization determining human rights. We put it up for a vote as to whether gays and lesbians have the right to be married. I think that would fall under the pursuit of happiness clause. It's stuff like this that makes think that men grant other men rights and only after they are fought for.
I don't get it; why does that make you think that Louis' rights aren't right now being violated?
your friend
keith
"The step by step proof (i.e. Reason) comes later."
I disagree. 2 = 2. Bang! Intuition? No. Reason? Yes.
"Do you have a feeling that such and such will be the lottery number? How strong is this feeling?"
Yes. I recognize the long odds though so, my feeling is mitigated by that knowledge. I'd call that "feeling" my number is the lucky one, intuition.
So in other words, Bush DIDN'T violate anyone's rights at Gitmo? Hitler DIDN'T violate the rights of the Jews?
They did violate rights. IMO, they broke the law. What do you think?
I am really trying to get what you are saying here.
I'm saying we make the rules, the laws. But, I'm asking more than saying. I asked, "Do people actually have inherent rights or are human rights a construct of man?" It seems obvious to me that we really don't have any inherent rights. Why? Beause it seems if rights were truely inherent, we wouldn't have such a savage history. We would know better and human rights would be more transcendent than transient. But the sad fact is, we don't know any better.
"I don't get it; why does that make you think that Louis' rights aren't right now being violated?"
Legally, his rights are not being violated. I don't think you can disagree with that since prop 8 passed. What is being violated are the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, IMO. What I'm wondering is, are these truely rights? Until they are codified in our laws, I don't think so. Ask Daniel or Aaron if they think same sex marriage is an inherent human right. They'll tell you, "NO!" There must be a shift in the moral zeitgeist before gays and lesbians are granted the same rights as others. And, if rights are granted by institutions then they are not inherent, IMHO.
Hi Cin:
1. About 2 + 2 = 4 being Reason: I doubt that you could prove 2 + 2 = 4. I suspect you just know it to be true. There might be other things that (were you a mathematician) you still couldn't prove yet but that you had a strong hunch were true. Both the "2 + 2" sense and the less strong version of that sense is what I am talking about. It seems to me that intuition is the appropriate word because mathematicians use that very word. In fact, I would say that if the dictionary definitions you find don't allow for that usage, so much worse for the dictionary–dictionaries don't DETERMINE the definitions they report them. But we needn't quibble over such matters. Just give me a word.
2. About rights: you and Jefferson aren't talking about the same thing. Rights in the sense that Jefferson referred to rights are things that a person has a right to regardless of what the law says–they are the standard by which you evaluate the justness OF laws or behaviors. Supposing that gay marriage is a right in that sense, Prop 8 would be a violation of that right. You are calling these "American ideals". If these rights are objectively true then it is possible for people (Daniel Seeker etc.) to disagree with Louis and me about whether or not they are true–people disagree about matters of objective fact all the time. YOu question whether or not such "rights" exist, you wonder if they are merely human constructs. Maybe. Like I said, I am not sure that "rights' are the right way to look at justice in the first place.
your friend
Keith