Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] More on Pascal's wager [was: Famous atheistchanges his mind]

[Rick Buford <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Basically we have a different world view.  I now see all events as the 
> result of the hand of some greater power influencing our lives in a 
> matter that he sees fit.  This makes perfect sense to me, and the more 
> I look, the more obvious it becomes to me.  You see that this way of 
> looking at things is pointless, and that as the human race frees 
> itself from these shackles of religion and superstition, it will make 
> greater strides in its quest for greater civility and scientific 
> knowledge.

Think how incredibly boring the world would be if we were all the same =)

Actually, I don't recall ever saying that the theist world view is 
pointless (if it was perceived, then I sincerely apologize).  What I do 
say is actually quite similar to how you describe my (non-theist) 
perception of a religious world. That, in accepting "the Word", you cut 
yourself off from seeking the truth in many ways.

Additionally, while I do agree with the statement that the human race 
will make great strides in it's quest for "civility and scientific 
knowledge" once it throws loose it religious shackles, that agreement 
comes with the qualifier that humans must also find a way of dealing 
with themselves. As it is, even though most major religions preach peace 
and loving one another, humans still kill each other over religious 
differences. Mankind has always been, and remains, it's own worst enemy, 
with vast horrors enacted in the name of God.

> To you, my arguments seem circular - look, I say, God did this, but 
> then he did that, because it was his will, and ultimately all that 
> happens is according to his perfect will, so God really is in charge.

Yep.

> But to me, your arguments seem circular.  There is no need to see 
> God's hand in this situation, because that is not scientific - we 
> should `a priori' assume that there is no God, and then we would see 
> world events as they truly are.

No, we should remove the default assumption of "God == true;" and then 
observe the universe without that bias.  Not quite the same thing I 
interpret from your statement.

> I am frustrated, because to me the hand of God is so obvious in world 
> events

Because you are -assuming- "God == true;"

> - the story of Alexander the Great, God blessing the American 
> Revolution but not the French Revolution, Rome spreading the gospel to 
> the Germanic tribes, and beyond, before itself falling, but still 
> leaving behind the Roman Church to continue to spread the gospel, etc, 
> etc.  Or in my own life - even in my scholarly pursuits, how often I 
> attribute some piece of mathematics revealed to me as a gift from God 
> as a direct result of prayer - just like Mike's sister who prays for 
> her car to start.

Part of my issue with piety is the distortion that each church applies 
to it. The faithful are the engine pushing the church train down the 
tracks.

> Perhaps you too are frustrated with me, because how can such an 
> intelligent man not see that man no longer has need to believe in a 
> greater power.

Nope, I argue for several reason:
1. I like to learn other people's perspectives
2. I just enjoy arguing (makes my g/f all kinds of nuts sometimes =)
3. I feel that, while everyone should make up their own mind, they 
should be able to take a position on a topic and then be able to at 
least make an effort to defend that position. Religion and politics tend 
to be topics that a person has at least given a cursory thought to.

> It is difficult (but not impossible) for a person to change from one 
> world view to another.  Perhaps they have to see some deep 
> contradiction in their current way of thinking, as happened to me in 
> 1986.

The only part of these discussions that occasionally irritates me is 
when I become simply someone who needs to be saved. I appreciate the 
thought, but I'm not interested. As long as  the discussion remains 
thoughtful rather than hateful, I just enjoy the discourse.

> But is it not possible for someone to see it from the other person's 
> point of world-view - to somehow pretend to think like the other 
> person thinks, at least so that one can at least try to understand the 
> logic by which they think?

I think I'm pretty good at this, actually. It's not that I don't 
understand or empathize with your perspective, I just don't agree with 
your interpretation.

> So for example, if I told you that these kinds of questions have 
> occupied theologians for centuries - that I have found that pondering 
> these questions to be more intellectually stimulating than even the 
> mathematics that is my profession?  I could go on and on about this 
> issue, but to you it would seem pointless, like arguing about how many 
> angels fit on a pinhead.

Did I mention that I one of my favorite books in the world is Zen in the 
Martial Arts (Joe Hyam)? The brain benefits from regular use just like 
most of the other organs in the body. No discussion is pointless that 
results in deeper self-examination.

> Or for example, I was reading on the internet the report from the 
> priests who originally met to decide whether Joan of Arc was the real 
> deal (this wasn't the trial but when the French wanted to check her 
> out).  The report seemed to me so well written, so much in command of 
> scriptural principals, in short something of an intellectual masterpiece.
>
> Or when I read the writings of Augustine from the 4th century, he 
> seems so clear and profound in his thinking, and it is no wonder to me 
> that 1200 years later he played a dominant role in the Protestant 
> Reformation.  He displays a mastery of his subject that shows him to 
> be so opposite to a bumbling idiot.  Yet this great mind, in his book, 
> "The City of God" explains at length how God has intervened in the 
> fortunes of latter day Rome, supporting her when she was faithful, and 
> punishing her when she was not.  He displays precisely the kind of 
> "circular" reasoning that makes me think that God sent a hurricane to 
> drive out the British army from Washington DC in 1814.
>
> I am not asking you to say Augustine is right, but do you not see that 
> you cut youself off from appreciating some of the greatest minds in 
> history?  It is not that you might disagree with him, but if for a 
> moment you cannot imagine yourself into his theist worldview, you 
> cannot even appreciate his writings.

I could say the same thing about a religious person appreciating the 
simplicity that is evolutionary theory...

> I feel honored to have been allowed to appreciate some of the great 
> intellectual achievements of our race.  In Mathematics, I can 
> appreciate and feel the genius of Archemedes and Newton.  With my 
> hobby of computers, I can learn the principles and ideas behind Unix, 
> or TCP/IP, and see both their inner beauty, or their inner ugliness.  
> Or in music I can listen to Beethoven or the Beatles, and they sooth 
> or excite my soul.  Perhaps I don't appreciate Piccasso or painting in 
> general, and perhaps Shakespeare or the lyrics of modern songs go over 
> my head, but at least I know that these people were great even if it 
> is because I respect other people's say so.
>
> But so many people simply reject "religious thinking" as some spurious 
> unneeded appendage on human intellectual thinking.  They do not 
> realise how poor they have made themselves.  To not even open their 
> eyes and see that there is something mighty and interesting, to not 
> even open themselves up to the possibility that these religious 
> thoughts that occupied much of the great minds and universities in 
> times past, and played such a prominant role of people's thinking - 
> that these thoughts might contain a depth and a subtlety, and even a 
> discernment so that the thoughts of Augustine can easily and quickly 
> be seen to be so much higher and deeper than those of any "Bob Smith" 
> who might knock up some religious theology over a weekend, and then 
> try to hawk it on the free market of ideas.

"Bob Smith" sounds kinda like a shot at the Mormons...

The problem that I see here is that you feel that a theistic belief is 
necessary to enjoy beauty. I disagree and I'm not even sure how you get 
to the point that a God is required for beauty to be present. Many of 
the great minds you're speaking of would have been put to death for 
heresy had they pronounced the merest doubt that God might not exist.

> Honestly, it seems to me that you are being shown something beautiful 
> and wonderful, and you just want to avert your eyes away from it, or 
> allegorically scream "I'm not listening, I'm not listening."  I might 
> show you a beautiful passage from the scriptures, and rather than 
> choose to see the beauty, you prefer to knock holes in it, or try to 
> find superficial contradictions.  It is as if you might judge a 
> wonderful meal by the quality of the typesetting on the menu, and 
> refuse to taste it because they incorrectly spelled "mustard."

Whereas it seems to me that you are being shown something beautiful and 
wonderful and you just want to give it a big hug without asking it any 
questions. You've been going to the same restaurant simply because they 
have a great sign and some decent music. And the occasional hair in the 
soup is ok, because the you've known the owner for so long...

> Is everything obvious the first time you look at it, or are there some 
> concepts or ideas whose wonder and beauty is revealed only after much 
> thought and study?  And are not these more difficult things usually 
> the greater and more subtle ideas?  And do you not have to first 
> approach these subjects with humilty, to presume that apparent 
> inconsistencies are perhaps because of our feebleness of mind rather 
> than because this subject is just trash?

Is it not arrogance to assume that, because I do not follow your theism, 
that either I just "don't get it" or that I don't already try to 
approach topics with humility and open-mindedness?

I do, however, agree that mankind remains so utterly ignorant of the 
universe that we barely even know how ignorant we are. Ignorant isn't 
bad, as long as it's not accompanied by complacency.

> Believe me - I tell you that if you truly look with an inquisitive and 
> humble eye, you will see something beautiful.  But don't just believe 
> me?  Don't just believe your gullible relatives?  Or don't just 
> believe those "believers" whom you think probably belong in a mental 
> institution.  Also believe the great minds of the past.  Wonder why 
> Jewish scholars find such fascination in studying the Torah, so that 
> people with great brains are willing to devote their whole lives to 
> it.  Or believe US Presidents from the past, many of whom were very 
> willing to quote scripture or theistic ideas to push their agendas.  
> Or believe the hearts of the many tribes that used to make up Europe 
> who were civilised by the gospel.  I am not asking you to research 
> some book that "Bob Smith" wrote last weekend, but a belief system 
> that has steered whole civilizations.

Well, a billion Chinese believed in Communism, does that make you a 
Communist? This falls directly under the "if your friends jumped off a 
bridge, would you"?

Once, everyone thought the world was flat, or that the world was the 
center of the universe, or that the sun was Ra's chariot racing through 
the sky, but all those misconceptions changed too.

> "Seek and you will find."  The truth is there, and I tell you, it is 
> the greatest thing you can ever find, if only you will seek it.

But don't blind yourself with well-intentioned bias either.

> Best, Stephen

As always,
Rick

-- 
death (
	life++;
	);

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion