Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wayne Delia · 01-23-2006, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Self-interest may appeal to emotion but that does not prevent it from evaluating its situation in a rational, logical manner.

Then why not make the same concession and allowance for skepticism? It's a rational, logical manner of evaluation in the opposite direction - a rational, logical rejection of religious claims without evidence supporting those claims. But you've claimed skepticism of the Christian claims in the Bible is a bad thing, precisely because it's allegedly based on emotion. If you were consistent, you would apply the same standard to the emotional appeal of self-interest, on which your argument rests.

Quote:

Self-interest can deal with the evidence that is available just as non-self-interested people can.

And skepticism deals with the evidence that is NOT available, but would need to be available in order to support the particular claim. So what's the problem there? You've got to pretend that "emotion-based" strategy is bad, while your "emotion-based" strategy is good. Ironic, isn't it, that the Catholic Church has listed greed as one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and greed is the emotion that self-interest is based on?

Quote:

If your alien appears, he would negate the Bible and leave no basis for being a Christian. Thus, even I would no longer find it necessary to be a Christian

News flash: You're not a Christian. You've been disqualified by the set of four Biblical criteria you posted. You have broken one of the Ten Commandments, you have refused to apologize and repent, and you have misrepresented Jesus's words in attempting to defend yourself. You have sinned big-time, you continue to live in sin by refusing to stop sinning and refusing to make good on your sins to the people you've offended, and you're not following the teachings of Jesus, but rather you're making up Jesus's teachings for him in order to be able to pretend you're not wrong.

Quote:

although I could still argue for establishing the moral standards listed in the Bible as being good for society.

One of the moral standards in the Bible is that a man who rapes an unengaged virgin can marry his victim if he pays 50 shekels of silver to the victim's father. Reference available on request. If you argued that that was good for society, they'd lock you up in the looney bin.

Quote:

I see that you are ready to give up your claims about 2 Peter 3:9.

And I see that you are ready to give up your claims about John 10:7-10, in which Jesus calls false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves", as being equivalent and applicable to modern-day contemporary atheists. But you're not, are you? See why it's a bad thing for you to presume to speak for anyone else?

Quote:

I am not aware that God cares about one’s motivation for seeking Him. He merely says, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.�?

He merely says that, and it merely doesn't work, merely because people who ask don't always get what they ask for; people who seek do not always find what they are looking for, and the door doesn't actually exist, much less open. In fact, that's exactly what created a whole breed of skeptics: the promises in the Bible have no evidence to support them, but they have plenty of excuses and alibis as to why there's no evidence or why people shouldn't look for evidence (even though one of the claims is "Go ahead and look for evidence, and it'll magically appear.")

Quote:

Pure self-interest may (and should) motivate all to seek God. That self-interest would eventually disappear as the person finds God.

That's very similar to the Amway motivational motto, "Fake It 'Till You Make It." Amway's a scam, just like Christianity.

WMD

Mageth · 01-23-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That is the position that the Wager assumes the person to take.

What, that "For me, the key place where the Wager fails is that I find no reason whatsoever to believe the "motivating" premise of the Wager - that there is an afterlife, and that there is a threat of eternal suffering in an afterlife. (That's what the Wager rests on; not on proving or disproving a god.)...."?

Quote:

Now you are ready to conduct the risk analysis of your position.

From the above, I find no reason whatsoever to believe that there is any risk in my position.

Quote:

The immediate question is whether you can prove with certainty that you have no reason to believe or whether it is possible that you could be wrong in taking this position.

Answer: I have no need whatsoever to prove with certainty that the superstitious beliefs are not true. They're superstitions; nothing more.

Quote:

If you are wrong, then you lose everything. If you reverse your position and then find out that you were right, then you lose nothing (i.e., nothing of significance). The rational action is for you to reverse your position.

It would be irrational for me to act based on fear that some superstition or other might be true.

If you disagree with that, then make sure you don't walk under any ladders, don't break any mirrors, always toss spilled salt over your left shoulder, etc. That would be "rational" behavior, according to your argument.

UNDERSTAND: I put "the possibility of eternal suffering in the afterlife" in the same class as all other superstitions.

It is irrational to act based on superstition. An action taken on the base of superstition is an irrational action, not a rational action.

For the action to avoid negative consequences to be rational, the alleged negative consequences would have to be demonstrated to the level that the superstition on which the action is based is not a superstition. There is no need whatsoever to "prove with certainty" that the superstition is not true.

Without some evidence that eternal suffering in an afterlife is a real threat (and there is none), it is, and will remain, nothing more than a superstition. Again, there is no need to "prove with certainty" that it is nothing more than a superstition. Thus, any action taken to avoid the superstition of "eternal suffering in an afterlife" is an irrational action.

There: did I say it in enough ways?

You have no argument here, rhutchin.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Now you are ready to conduct the risk analysis of your position.

But you are not in the least bit interested in risk analysis unless the results of your analysis appeal to your own self-interest. Instead of the supposed eyewitnesses who saw Jesus perform miracles, and who saw him after he rose from the dead, if those very same eyewitnesses, even ten times the numbers claimed, had seen a powerful alien demonstrate his supposedly supernatural powers, and if they had heard him say that he would eventually send everyone to hell, you would have rejected the exact same evidence that you used to accept Christianity. Your position is irrational, illogical, and emotional.

Sauron · 01-23-2006, 08:46 PM

Bumping for rhutchins.

No, I haven't forgotten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The need to prove is always on the affirmative claimant, regardless of the type of text or claim - scientific, historical, whatever. That is not the same as a presumption of error.

Not if someone believes in inerrancy or divine preservation of text. In such a case, every claim must be provable and shown to be correct.

1. The mistakes are real, not alleged;

2. The presence of mistakes refutes inerrancy, which in turn has ramifications for claims of trustworthiness, omnipotence and omniscience;

PW is not a risk analysis; if it were, then it would account for the mistakes and alternative scenarios. That is the essence of risk analysis; yet PW does not do this.

PW is instead a low-grade evangelization tool targeted at those who don't examine things closely.

Nitpick?

Merely because something exists does not imply that it is accurate. What an absurd position for you to take - well, not absurd, actually; it's a just another manifestation of your special pleading on behalf of christianity. But as we've seen, the early quranic material also exists. But last I checked, you were not willing to believe that since it exists, therefore the quran is also accurate.

Moreover, as I said before: Herodotus told us about winged snakes. That historical material also exists. Is it therefore accurate, merely because it exists?

Except that is not what I said.

1. I did not say that we were certain about what the material tells us - each claim (or chunk of text) needs to be addressed individually on that question;
2. We are certain that significant parts of it are NOT accurate.

As I said: each individual claim rises, or falls, upon its own merit. You continue to make a mistake rooted in christian presumption: treating the entire biblical record as if it were an undifferentiated, unified text. It is not.

Actually, that is not the issue. The issue is why you presume accuracy of the biblical texts, but refuse to extend that presumptive accuracy to the quranic texts - or the text of any other religion. That, and your reliance upon the presence of early copied material as some yardstick for textual accuracy - but only when the text in question are biblical ones.

I am not confused; you are simply engaged in backpedaling. Here are your own words - notice how they do not resemble at all your newly revised position, above:

Disbelief is an emotional reaction to the Bible, where a person irrationally says that he will not obey God just so he can get into heaven. It has nothing to do with people acting like people.

You also said:

For those who are familiar with the Bible, disbelief is an emotional reaction to the Bible, where a person irrationally says that he will not obey God just so he can get into heaven.

Your position is quite clear. So my question is still unanswered:

You have tried to claim that rejecting God and the christian version of hell is "irrational" and "emotion-based". Yet you have dodged five times answering whether that also applies to someone who rejects Islam and the Islamic version of hell;

Now, if you want to re-position your argument, fine - just say so. Revisions to someone's position are perfectly acceptable. But do not dishonestly pretend that I am confused and try to blame your opponent, as camouflage while you run off and reformulate your statement. You will find that backpedaling doesn't work well on an internet forum, where your previous words are available for all to see.

Which still does not answer my question. Are you persisting in the position that someone who rejects the christian god and the christian view of hell is "irrational" and "emotion-based"?

If so, then if someone rejects Islam and the Islamic version of hell, is that also an "irrational" choice and "emotion-based"?

I never said that either person was real - in point of fact, it doesn't matter to my argument. I merely pointed out that your own standards of evaluating the accuracy of the biblical text ought to apply equally to the quranic ones -- yet you behaved inconsistently in how you evaluated them.

Except that your claim of "abundance of dcoumentary evidence" is still a claim. You posted it earlier, and I responded. To wit:

a. the texts are not as abundant as you seem to think;
b. abundance of text is not the same as fidelity of transmitted text;
c. the timeframe for first composition is several decades after your claimed it was;
d. abundance of text and fidelity of text are both separate concepts from accuracy of text

Dlx2 · 01-23-2006, 09:58 PM

This is what I don't get...Pascal's Wager is inherently just an argumentum as consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy anyways. Why rhutchin, who claims he isn't even Christian, would defend such an obviously fallacious argument for so long just doesn't make sense.

There are more interesting and elegant proofs for the existence of God to debunk, and this one is getting pretty boring.

rhutchin · 01-24-2006, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

This is what I don't get...Pascal's Wager is inherently just an argumentum as consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy anyways. Why rhutchin, who claims he isn't even Christian, would defend such an obviously fallacious argument for so long just doesn't make sense.

There are more interesting and elegant proofs for the existence of God to debunk, and this one is getting pretty boring.

It's hard to argue against risk analysis. All the arguments presented skirt the real issues until finally, like you, people admit that they can't do it. It's not a big deal. People make emotional decisions all the time and why be logical when it comes to religion and the consequences of our behavior.

rhutchin · 01-24-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Now you are ready to conduct the risk analysis of your position.

Johnny Skeptic
But you are not in the least bit interested in risk analysis unless the results of your analysis appeal to your own self-interest. Instead of the supposed eyewitnesses who saw Jesus perform miracles, and who saw him after he rose from the dead, if those very same eyewitnesses, even ten times the numbers claimed, had seen a powerful alien demonstrate his supposedly supernatural powers, and if they had heard him say that he would eventually send everyone to hell, you would have rejected the exact same evidence that you used to accept Christianity. Your position is irrational, illogical, and emotional.

Whoa, this is about you and not me. It is your self-interest that should concern you. Where is the illogic of the position? Men who claimed to have seen Jesus teach and work miracles wrote about those events. If those same people (or others) had interacted with your powerful alien, they would have written about those experiences. The problem is that no one has ever interacted with your powerful alien and never will. Consequently, you are left with the accounts of Jesus. If you want to make a rational decision, then the risk analysis approach provided by the Wager works fine. If you want to make an emotional decision, then do so. It's your life that is at stake and what I think about it is immaterial. I just want you to make a decision that you can live (and die) with.

rhutchin · 01-24-2006, 06:13 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
That is the position that the Wager assumes the person to take.

Mageth
What, that "For me, the key place where the Wager fails is that I find no reason whatsoever to believe the "motivating" premise of the Wager - that there is an afterlife, and that there is a threat of eternal suffering in an afterlife. (That's what the Wager rests on; not on proving or disproving a god.)...."?

The issue here then is whether you can be certain that your position is correct. If it is, then the Wager means nothing to you. If you cannot be certain about your position, then the Wager provides a means for you to deal with that uncertainty.

Quote:

rhutchin
The immediate question is whether you can prove with certainty that you have no reason to believe or whether it is possible that you could be wrong in taking this position.

Mageth
Answer: I have no need whatsoever to prove with certainty that the superstitious beliefs are not true. They're superstitions; nothing more.

Fine, stick your head in the sand. It’s your life and you do as you please with it. Let your emotions rule over you.

Quote:

rhutchin
If you are wrong, then you lose everything. If you reverse your position and then find out that you were right, then you lose nothing (i.e., nothing of significance). The rational action is for you to reverse your position.

Mageth
It would be irrational for me to act based on fear that some superstition or other might be true.

If you disagree with that, then make sure you don't walk under any ladders, don't break any mirrors, always toss spilled salt over your left shoulder, etc. That would be "rational" behavior, according to your argument.

UNDERSTAND: I put "the possibility of eternal suffering in the afterlife" in the same class as all other superstitions.

It is irrational to act based on superstition. An action taken on the base of superstition is an irrational action, not a rational action.

For the action to avoid negative consequences to be rational, the alleged negative consequences would have to be demonstrated to the level that the superstition on which the action is based is not a superstition. There is no need whatsoever to "prove with certainty" that the superstition is not true.

Without some evidence that eternal suffering in an afterlife is a real threat (and there is none), it is, and will remain, nothing more than a superstition. Again, there is no need to "prove with certainty" that it is nothing more than a superstition. Thus, any action taken to avoid the superstition of "eternal suffering in an afterlife" is an irrational action.

There: did I say it in enough ways?

You have no argument here, rhutchin.

It sounds like you are trying to convince yourself that you are right. Just like everyone else, one day you will die and discover whether you were right. If you are wrong, I can see you blaming everyone and everything except yourself.

rhutchin · 01-24-2006, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

One of the moral standards in the Bible is that a man who rapes an unengaged virgin can marry his victim if he pays 50 shekels of silver to the victim's father. Reference available on request. If you argued that that was good for society, they'd lock you up in the looney bin.

What penalty would you impose?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

And I see that you are ready to give up your claims about John 10:7-10, in which Jesus calls false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves", as being equivalent and applicable to modern-day contemporary atheists. But you're not, are you?...

You continue to chaff about the Bible calling you a thief. What amazes me is why you should even care. Is would appear that you know it is talking about you?

Dlx2 · 01-24-2006, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It's hard to argue against risk analysis. All the arguments presented skirt the real issues until finally, like you, people admit that they can't do it. It's not a big deal. People make emotional decisions all the time and why be logical when it comes to religion and the consequences of our behavior.

I never claimed I couldn't perform the risk analysis. I did perform the risk analysis and it is contrary to the position you and Pascal hold, so you ignore it. I claimed that Pascal's risk analysis is incomplete. You have not refuted the possibility of viewing mortal life as an infinite set with finite bounds. You have not refuted the possibility that existence of eternal life is better than nonexistence of an eternal life, regardless of the state of that life.

This is like me performing a risk analysis in order to determine your insurance rate for a house in the middle of Los Angeles (right atop the San Andreas Fault) and not taking into account the cost of earthquake damage and the likelihood that your house will suffer from that damage.

Don't call Pascal's construction a risk analysis, because it doesn't take into account most of the actual risk involved.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2006, 09:58 PM	#595
Dlx2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 2,546	This is what I don't get...Pascal's Wager is inherently just an argumentum as consequentiam, which is a logical fallacy anyways. Why rhutchin, who claims he isn't even Christian, would defend such an obviously fallacious argument for so long just doesn't make sense. There are more interesting and elegant proofs for the existence of God to debunk, and this one is getting pretty boring.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.