|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Pascal's Wager
#5346369 - 02/27/06 05:46 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." --Blaise Pascal, Thoughts
William James has described Pascal's Wager "a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart," and commented that "if we were to place ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward." Such crude reasoning on the part of Pascal can most likely be attributed to uncertainty regarding his religious beliefs, which he adopted after a comatose "vision." In the history of philosophy, Pascal's Wager can be viewed as the last dying breath of a blind mysticism which faced violent scrutiny and skepticism less than half a century later during the Age of Enlightenment.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
I never was a very "smart" gambler...
I once charted the wager out in text. 
I've been here too long... geez.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Boom
just a tester

Registered: 06/16/04
Posts: 11,252
Loc: Cypress Creek
|
|
I always liked that wager
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
|
> God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5348481 - 02/28/06 07:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
Bad pronoun?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
lol, what a silly wager.
I believe the Gods rule the Universe, so I win Zeus 4 lyfe!
"faced violent scrutiny and skepticism less than half a century later during the Age of Enlightenment." LOL
I like how you see scrutiny and scepticism as violent.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5348669 - 02/28/06 09:18 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> Bad pronoun?
Nope, viewing "God" in terms of duality... exist or not exist...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: psyka]
#5348939 - 02/28/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
psyka said: I like how you see scrutiny and scepticism as violent.
I mean violent as in "vigorous," not in the sense of physical harm.
|
it stars saddam
Satan

Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Boom]
#5348945 - 02/28/06 11:25 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Booooom said: I always liked that wager
Oh.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
I always thought it was bullshit how people believed in God "just in case." In fact, how is that even belief? It's nothing more than fear. My belief is God comes completely from direct experience, and I would expect nothing less of others. That is why I'm not bothered by those who don't believe in God, since they simply lack the experience to know otherwise.
--------------------
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Silversoul]
#5349518 - 02/28/06 01:52 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I always thought it was bullshit how people believed in God "just in case." In fact, how is that even belief? It's nothing more than fear.
And such a "God" by which most people have feared is nothing short of the typical old, white bearded man in the sky, with occasional mood swings and amnesia which causes him to forget he has miracles to perform.
My belief is God comes completely from direct experience, and I would expect nothing less of others. That is why I'm not bothered by those who don't believe in God, since they simply lack the experience to know otherwise.
How are you defining "God"? Surely, you are not referring to the kind of god mentioned above. If you are defining it as the archetypal template in which heightened perspective and suffering-transcendent modes of cognition is sustained, then it would behoove you to respect the fact that this is achievable objectively, and is not exclusive to your concepts of God nor experiences of vague mysticism.
Folks, do not let yourself be fooled by such blind evils of mysticism. The result of such mystic thinking is that it poisons certainty - which is directly contingent upon the lack of reference to reality, i.e., arbitrary vagueness.
As an example of such poisonings:
Quote:
When such a man considers a goal or desire he wants to achieve, the first question in his mind is: "Can I do it?" - not: "What is required to do it?" His question means: "Do I have the innate ability?" For example: "I want to be a composer more than anything else on earth, but I have no idea of how it's done. Do I have that mysterious gift which will do it for me, somehow?" He has never heard of a premise such as the primacy of consciousness, but that is the premise moving him as he embarks on a hopeless search through the dark labyrinth of his consciousness [hopeless, because without reference to existence, nothing can be learned about one's consciousness].
If he does not give up his desire right then, he stumbles uncertainly to attempt to achieve it. Any small success augments his anxiety: he does not know what caused it and whether he can repeat it. Any small failure is a crushing blow: he takes it as proof that he lacks the mystic endowment. When he makes a mistake, he does not ask himself: "What do I need to learn? - he asks "What's wrong with me?" He waits for an automatic and omnipotent inspiration, which never comes. He spends years on a cheerless struggle, with his eyes focused inward, on the growing, leering monster of self-doubt, while existence drifts by, unseen, on the periphery of his mental vision. Eventually, he gives up. Philosophy: Who needs it?
Substitute for "composer" the archetypal template mentioned above, the same pattern applies.
And with that, I leave you folks, once more, with the final paragraphs of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:
Quote:
. . . the satisfaction of every need of a living organism requires an act of processing by that organism, be it the need of air, of food or of knowledge.
No one would argue [at least, not yet] that since man's body has to process the food he eats, no objective rules of proper nutrition can ever be discovered - that "true nutrition" has to consist of absorbing some ineffable substance without the participation of a digestive system, but since man is incapable of "true feeding," nutrition is a subjective matter open to his whim, and it is merely a social convention that forbids him to eat poisonous mushrooms.
No one would argue that since nature does not tell man automatically what to eat - as it does not tell him automatically how to form concepts - he should abandon the illusion that there is a right or wrong way of eating [or he should revert to the safety of the time when he did not have to "trust" objective evidence, but could rely on dietary laws prescribed by a supernatural power]. . . .
No one would argue that man eats bread rather than stones purely as a matter of "convenience."
It is time to grant to man's consciousness the same cognitive respect one grants to his body - i.e., the same objectivity.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5349672 - 02/28/06 02:21 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > God is, or He is not.
I disagree with the very first statement of the wager.
Quote:
> Bad pronoun?
Nope, viewing "God" in terms of duality... exist or not exist...
I'm puzzled by your response Seuss. It seems to me that existence/non-existence is not a duality. Existence is a unity, and "non-existence" is simply a word to denote something that is not real. "Unicorns do not exist." In so far as non-extant 'things' have reality in the mind, they fall into the category of existence.
Those things which are exist; those things which are not do not exist, though these 'non-extant' things may exist as mental reality in the mind that imagines them.
As a hard actuality, apart from any mind's apprehension, it seems to me that Pascal's first premise, "God is, or He is not", is a self evident proposition.
To deny a proposition with the form *** A or ~A, but not both *** is ,as far as I know, beyond the capability of any language.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5349749 - 02/28/06 02:35 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
and "non-existence" is simply a word to denote something that is not real.
It denotes it, and by doing so, differentiates it from something that is real, thus, you've got a duality.
"All creatures have been drawn from nothingness, and this is why their origin is nothingness. ... All the creatures cannot express God. For they are not receptive of what God is. God the ineffable one has no name. The divine one is a negation of negations and a denial of denials.
God is nothing. No thing. God is nothingness; and yet God is something. God is neither this thing nor that thing that we can express. God is a being beyond all being; God is a beingless being. ... God is not found in the soul by adding anything, but by a process of subtraction." - Meister Eckhart
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
"Martians are, or Martians are not."
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5352172 - 03/01/06 03:46 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> I'm puzzled by your response Seuss.
It is difficult for me to express the concept. In general, people tend to think of "God" in terms of "man". Example, "Could God create a rock so heavy that He could not lift it?" This is an extension of people tending to create "God" in our own image. Of course, with an ego, what else would one expect? Our reality is nothing more than a pale shadow of what can be experienced. To constrain "God" to our reality, or to terms that our minds can understand logically, belittles the true nature of being.
> To deny a proposition with the form *** A or ~A, but not both *** is ,as far as I know, beyond the capability of any language.
Exactly!
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5352532 - 03/01/06 07:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Why don't you take your rejection of the anthropomorphic God any further? Why not reject the concept of a "singularity" for the egocentric projection that it is?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5353138 - 03/01/06 10:54 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What are you referring to as being the singularity in this context, out of curiosity?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5353292 - 03/01/06 11:51 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
What do you think "singularity" refers to, in the context of my post?
Not to be a dick, but it's plain English.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5353324 - 03/01/06 12:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I understand what the word means, but are you referring to the idea of a singularity creating the universe/God, or simply the idea of a singularity at any point temporally?
If you're referring to the latter, then are you suggesting that time is cyclical, or are you merely reaffirming the law of causality and dependent arising?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5356519 - 03/02/06 07:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The former, obviously.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5356540 - 03/02/06 07:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Either your denial of the of the validity of Pascal's first premise is correct, or it is not.
You still are forced to wager, and if you chose to believe the wrong hypothesis, you have much to loose.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5356837 - 03/02/06 09:41 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: You still are forced to wager, and if you chose to believe the wrong hypothesis, you have much to loose.
I am not a meatball betting* that there is a flying spaghetti monster.
*Is that faith? All gamblers are goin' to heaven!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357118 - 03/02/06 11:31 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No, you are a man betting that God does not exist.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357324 - 03/02/06 12:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: The former, obviously.
If it was so obvious, then I wouldn't have asked.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5357637 - 03/02/06 02:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But god doesn't exist. Zeus is supreme. Don't anger the gods or they'll punish you when you die! How do I know? Don't ask questions or you'll go to hell! But, trust me, I'm correct.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5357760 - 03/02/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: No, you are a man betting that God does not exist.
In that case, is it still gambling if the outcome doesn't affect you?
If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357790 - 03/02/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Interestingly enough, according to this wager, I'm not off the hook either, as the God I believe in is not such a vengeful asshole. According to the wager, it would apparently be in my best interest to worship such an anthropomorphic asshole God, rather than the transcendent God I have experienced.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357905 - 03/02/06 03:06 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Its obvious God never read anything by B.F. Skinner.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357920 - 03/02/06 03:10 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Quote:
And similarly, in vicarious suffering, it is not the actual pains experienced by the saint which are redemptive - for to believe that God is angry at sin and that His anger cannot be propitiated except by the offer of a certain sum of pain is to blaspheme against the divine Nature.
When you refer to a 'punishing asshole', you're merely referring to the dogmatic nature of religion. Organized religion is very dangerous to the health, and you are absolutely right in rejecting it. I would suggest that you don't dismiss the Ultimate Ground of Being/the Tao/the Logos/the Godhead along with organized religion however.
I pose the metaphysical questions: Why is there Something rather than Nothing? What is conscious-awareness and what is its origin?
If you insist that a reality and Nature in which systems supporting evolution have come into existence, and evolution has proceeded in the hierarchical manner that it has, forming vast ecosystems ranging from the microscopic to the cosmic in size, which have allowed consciousness and life to develop and evolve until a creature with free-will developed, is pure accident governed by nothing more than quantum chance, then I ask you to describe a reality in which there was some sort of creative Natural Intelligence?
Nature is not a blind watch-maker. She has constructed the incredible sensory organs, and even more amazingly, the human cortex, which acts as a sort of biological mirror, capable of observing nature, and actually THINKING about it, potentially even divining it's true purpose.
I for one think that life and consciousness are the most profound and fascinating phenomena in the entire known universe, and are not mere flecks of dust upon a cold non-living surface.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5360927 - 03/03/06 08:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Must existence be intended?
Isn't it anthropomorphically convenient for us to see intent?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5361075 - 03/03/06 10:10 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting question. I would say that the ultimate nonduality that underlies both everything and nothing and is symbolized by the term "godhead" or "Tao" cannot possibly have intention.
Once man ate of the metaphorical apple from the tree of knowledge, then intention became necessary. Actions (including the lack therof) undertaken by man almost always have an intent behind them. If you are able to act in harmony with the Tao, then you won't have intentions (you would be freed from Karma) and you also would cease to identify with actions and would be in non-action.
But until you achieve that point, you act with intention, or you fail to act, but still with intention. Can you think of some action or activity you performed without intention?
Applying this idea of intention to life and existence, man naturally seeks some sort of purpose (intention) in life. Philosophers have provided us with elaborate explanations for purposes ranging from existentialism/nihilism (there is no purpose, so nothing matters) to zealot religions (you MUST love a vengeful, omnipotent God with a white beard in the clouds). But as you say, these are human ideations and creations.
Existance simply is, so one should live their life in the same manner, simply being. Unfortunately, our rational, logical minds have a great difficulty shutting up and simply being.
I think you drew your question from my mentioning Nature and how man may be able to divine her true purpose? In that situation I meant Nature as a reference to planet Earth, to Gaia. On an even broader, cosmic level, the only logical intention would be analogous to an intention of a game. And on the Ultimate level (nonduality), such a concept is completely meaningless.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5364360 - 03/04/06 11:43 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You see, that's a copout... I question the "Will of God" and you come back with "[God] cannot possibly have intention." Which one is it? Does God INTEND to do things or not? If it's all one big jumbly mess that just happened to come together according to some unintentional divine plan... what is the point of calling it divine at all?
For some reason I am reminded of St. Anselm...
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5364410 - 03/04/06 11:58 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Which one is it? Does God INTEND to do things or not?
The very idea of intention is a human projection. (As you say, an attempt to make God anthropomorphic).
If it's all one big jumbly mess that just happened to come together according to some unintentional divine plan
Likewise, it isn't unintentional either. To lack intention is just as much of a human projection as it is to say that there is some God who has intentions.
what is the point of calling it divine at all?
It's just a word - a symbol for the ineffable.
You cannot describe God by adding words and sentiments and intentions and ideas. Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5364992 - 03/04/06 03:49 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
Is suicide the ultimate expression of divinity?
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
I took that last part, which you quoted, from Meister Eckhart. He said "God is not found in the soul by adding anything, but by a process of subtraction."
Suicide is using your free will to end your free will and take away all chance of unitive knowledge of the ineffable. In order to achieve such unitive knowledge, you must subtract or unlearn concepts, ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc.; but not your life. You can't achieve unitive knowledge if you no longer exist. If you don't achieve such unitive knowledge, then you may indeed end up being rebirthed after you die.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5366153 - 03/04/06 11:48 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have a "feeling" that all your choices will be taken away quite soon. Only one side or the other with the neutrals burning to keep our feet warm.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Dmonikal]
#5367015 - 03/05/06 10:46 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not too sure what your post means, would you mind restating it?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5367108 - 03/05/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: You cannot describe God by adding words and sentiments and intentions and ideas. Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
Defining what God is NOT is still a definition of God. You're still copping out. Next thing you'll say is that God isn't conscious... then I'll ask again "What's the point of pointing to your ignorance and calling it God?"
Thus far: God exists, but not physically (whatever that means). God is responsible for all of existence, but didn't necessarily create it (whatever that means). God has a will, but is beyond intent (whatever that means).
The pattern: 1. Make anthropomorphic claim about the nature of God. [anthorpomorphism is pointed out] 2. Claim that God is beyond comprehension. [the pointlessness of allocating a special title to the ineffable is pointed out] 3. A grounded claim about the nature of God is required to refute - Go to step 1.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5367227 - 03/05/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Defining what God is NOT is still a definition of God.
Good!
You're still copping out.
Of what?
God exists, but not physically (whatever that means).
You're trying to describe God by adding on qualities, such as existence and physicality.
God is responsible for all of existence, but didn't necessarily create it (whatever that means).
I'm fairly certain I didn't make the argument that God is responsible for all of existence. In fact I think I argued against the idea of a first cause which was responsible for everything.
God has a will, but is beyond intent (whatever that means).
Quote:
William Law said: Take note of this fundamental truth. Everything that works in nature and creature, except sin, is the working of God in nature and creature. The creature has nothing else in its power but the free use of its will, and its free will hath no other power but that of concurring with, or resisting, the working of God in nature. The creature with its free will can bring nothing into being, nor make any alteration in the working of nature; it can only change its own state or place in the working of nature, and so feel or find something in its state that it did not feel or find before.
Quote:
St. Francois de Sales said: Our free will can hinder the course of inspiration, and when the favourable gale of God's grace swells the sails of our soul, it is in our power to refuse consent and thereby hinder the effect of the wind's favour; but when our spirit sails along and makes its voyage prosperously, it is not we who make the gale of inspiration blow for us, nor we who make our sails swell with it, nor we who give motion to the ship of our heart; but we simply receive the gale, consent to its motion and let our ship sail under it, not hindering it by our resistance.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
drloomis82
Walks with Kings


Registered: 08/15/03
Posts: 260
Loc: Limbo
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
|
I majored in philosophy in college. Pascal?s Wager is interesting, but ultimately falls short ? in my humble opinion.
Basically, it can be summed up as follows: Should we wager for or against God? There are a few possible outcomes?
-If we believe and we?re right, then we?ll go to Heaven; -If we believe and we?re wrong, then we?ll have a pleasant life on earth, assuming that we?re protected by God. -If we don?t believe and we?re wrong, then we?ll go to Hell and will not be ?saved.? -If we don?t believe and we?re right, then we will be miserable knowing that there does not exist a ?Supreme Being.?
-Thus we should believe; right or wrong, we?re better off. (This is tied in w/ James?s ?The Will to Believe.?)
This is flawed logic at its best, and there are a few criticisms that I can think of off of the top of my head:
-Believers aren?t necessarily happier; they do not lead happier lives than nonbelievers in many cases. -This is NOT an argument FOR God?s existence, but merely one for believing in God. -Also, this could justify belief in a countless number of religions ? which are often contradictory.
Personally, I do not think that one can force oneself to ?believe? in something that one does not sincerely believe to be true in the deepest core of one?s being.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5367357 - 03/05/06 01:14 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said:
Quote:
dblaney said: You cannot describe God by adding words and sentiments and intentions and ideas. Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
Defining what God is NOT is still a definition of God. You're still copping out. Next thing you'll say is that God isn't conscious... then I'll ask again "What's the point of pointing to your ignorance and calling it God?"
Thus far: God exists, but not physically (whatever that means). God is responsible for all of existence, but didn't necessarily create it (whatever that means). God has a will, but is beyond intent (whatever that means).
The pattern: 1. Make anthropomorphic claim about the nature of God. [anthorpomorphism is pointed out] 2. Claim that God is beyond comprehension. [the pointlessness of allocating a special title to the ineffable is pointed out] 3. A grounded claim about the nature of God is required to refute - Go to step 1.
As usual, the "concept" of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.
The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.
And due to the prevalent refusal or inability to explicitly distinguish between the existence and consciousness, between the metaphysical and the man-made, between epistemology and metaphysics: seldom do most people ever fully grok the fact that meaning is epistemological, not metaphysical or intrinsic. Different things have different meanings to different people based on the context of their experiences and goals.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
unknowable to us mere mortals
This is not so - God is knowable unitively.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5367403 - 03/05/06 01:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, y'see, there are people who -when cornered with reason, logic and rational questioning- pull out the "but these objections are so silly because God is unknowable" card.
To which I can only ask "But how do you know that God is unknowable?", for their card is contradictory.
And well, so it goes.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Indeed, but I'm playing the "God is unitively knowable" card.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
|
Hehe, for some part of our brain god is knowable and for some other part it is not. And I still see 'meaning' as an intrinsic factor correlated to existence itself. If meaning is observed or not, doesn't matter, as it is still there, as soon something exists, even without an observer.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: BlueCoyote]
#5367551 - 03/05/06 02:17 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
And I still see 'meaning' as an intrinsic factor correlated to existence itself.
Could you explain how meaning is a property of matter? What is the meaning of this particular atom? Of this electron?
Also, what is the meaning of existence?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5367663 - 03/05/06 02:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Could you explain how meaning is a property of matter? One example perhaps for the meaning of a stone, lying on a grassy plane. Perhaps there, in the winter blows a strong, freezing wind. Suddenly in spring, exactly behind the stone grows a flower. Why that ? Because (one of) the (many) meaning(s) of the stone was to keep the earth from freezing, so the flower could grow.
What is the meaning of this particular atom? Uh, I don't have my supermicroscope at hand, to look with which other atoms it is bonding right now  Of this electron? Seen it hitting the screen there ? It has made some other particle glowing.
Also, what is the meaning of existence? There, I think, are the very many meanings inherent to it. Dependent on the what and the context.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5368317 - 03/05/06 07:03 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: unknowable to us mere mortals
This is not so - God is knowable unitively.
Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
doesntmattermuch
Stranger
Registered: 05/02/05
Posts: 35
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5371378 - 03/06/06 04:00 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
yall all seem pretty smart and im sure someone already said this but i couyldnt find it so sorry if im just reposting something but classically Pascals Wager is disproved by something very simple and that is that he does not account for the existence of other gods, native american, african, eastern or just for arguments sake the idea of a reverse god or a god that hates when people worship him and would much rather you were a free thinker and questioned everything so because this reverse god feels this way he would damn you to hell for going to church and send you to heaven for questioning blind faith
just a little phil 1001 speek
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5371755 - 03/06/06 05:36 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said:
Quote:
dblaney said: unknowable to us mere mortals
This is not so - God is knowable unitively.
Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?
Neither, one cannot define the ineffable. As I mentioned, only by a process of subtraction of ideas and concepts can one come closer to unitive knowledge of the Tao.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5372229 - 03/06/06 08:26 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said:
Quote:
Sclorch said:
Quote:
dblaney said: unknowable to us mere mortals
This is not so - God is knowable unitively.
Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?
Neither, one cannot define the ineffable. As I mentioned, only by a process of subtraction of ideas and concepts can one come closer to unitive knowledge of the Tao.
If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is. This is more smoke and mirrors and I don't hear The Final Countdown playing... what a gyp!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5373353 - 03/07/06 05:31 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.
No offense, because I once thought exactly the same thing... but you could not be more incorrect if you tried. I do understand where you are coming from, to an extent. Don't let the words and semantics snag you the way I let them snag me in the metaphysical realm. Trust me, it is a huge handicap... I know from experience.
The notion of God is nothing ... given the proper English meaning, you are correct... the statement is "wrong". However, the proper English meaning is not what should be used. The use of contradictions is to identify something that cannot be enumerated. It is a way to discuss an experience without resorting to dualism, categories, or labels. It is more than a way of talking; it is also a way of thinking.
How do I know the above? I have experienced it, more than once, both under the influence and sober. However, these experiences mean nothing to anybody else. They could be the fancy of an over active imagination or they could be something else. Even if the experiences are nothing more than imagination, that does not make them any less real. I know, without any doubt, that I have experienced non-dualistic thought and that "no thing" is indeed possible. It was real for me, and in the end, that is all that really matters, to me.
Quote:
If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is
Having an idea what something is and knowing what something is are two very different concepts. Having eaten lots of different types of meat, I have a pretty good idea what human meat tastes like, but having never eaten human meat, my concept of the taste is still only a guess.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5373633 - 03/07/06 09:37 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Seuss is right. Also I think you're trying to interpret Godhead as being, something with form and qualities which can be described. But this isn't so: the Godhead is nondualistic. We live in the realm of duality. We experience life/death, male/female, light/dark, black/white, but like the north and south poles on a magnet, these are polarities, two poles of the same magnet.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5373716 - 03/07/06 10:17 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:Quote:
If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is
Having an idea what something is and knowing what something is are two very different concepts. Having eaten lots of different types of meat, I have a pretty good idea what human meat tastes like, but having never eaten human meat, my concept of the taste is still only a guess.
A good friend of mine is colorblind. Yet, nine times out of ten, he can correctly identify green or red-hued items. He doesn't know 100% what green or red looks like (it's physically impossible), but he has enough of an idea to be able to tell the difference most of the time. If he were merely guessing, it'd be a 50/50 shot.
Back to god... am I guessing that there is no god (however you define it)? Nope. If a divine experience is proof of god, then you really don't have much faith. So where did faith come from? It's as man-made as the concept of god. If religion never existed, the word "faith" would only mean "trust".
I've said this before... if I was given proof of God, it wouldn't change anything for me, practically speaking. My morals, daily life, etc. wouldn't change. Why? Because if God exists, then I don't think he'd be an asshole. Only an asshole god would punish me for not worshipping or somehow not doing things "his" way when my way doesn't hurt anybody. And I don't submit to assholes.
In summary,
1. If you can talk about the properties of God, then you can figure out enough of the "ineffable" to realize nothing is there. 2. "Divine experience" is an appeal to reason, which undermines faith. 3. If God exists, it wouldn't change anything for anyone, unless God is an asshole, in which case, fuck God.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5373742 - 03/07/06 10:26 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: Seuss is right. Also I think you're trying to interpret Godhead as being, something with form and qualities which can be described. But this isn't so: the Godhead is nondualistic.
Dualistic? Then show me something on the continuum of existence/non-existence. Having properties and attributes doesn't equate to dualism. If something has no properties, can it really be said to exist? If it doesn't exist, the only effect it can have on me is directed by my own mind thinking about it (ex. the Dodo bird).
Quote:
We live in the realm of duality. We experience life/death, male/female, light/dark, black/white, but like the north and south poles on a magnet, these are polarities, two poles of the same magnet.
What's this "we" shit? Are you going to call the electromagnetic spectrum a duality? Are radio waves "dark" because their wavelengths are too long to see? Are you now just redefining "dark" as absolute nothing? Also, I've never experienced death... I didn't think it could be experienced - kinda the point of it, right?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
#5373921 - 03/07/06 11:31 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
However, the proper English meaning is not what should be used. The use of contradictions is to identify something that cannot be enumerated. It is a way to discuss an experience without resorting to dualism, categories, or labels. It is more than a way of talking; it is also a way of thinking.
Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking". A visit to the local insane asylum will show you plenty of messiah complexes, loose-minded, faith-touting mystics spouting gibberish that is not far from the Priest's formal speech in a nearby church, about The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways. There in those white, generic hallways with a faint aroma of Pine-sol accompanied by the occasional cacophonies of mental derangement, you will see the full blossoming of irrationality and mysticism, like a hideous jungle-plant - the kind that traps and kills insects.
The bottom line for us rational folks, is that the arbitrary must be dismissed with absolute certainty, and never be consciously allowed into the realm of the epistemological and the metaphysical. And if by chance one does find that any arbitrariness has found its way in, out the window it goes. For what does it do to what we DO know, and CAN know, if we initiate a passive policy permitting such tripe to have equal footing as that which has been discovered by necessity, principle or reason? It undercuts the validity of such truths - of what we do and can know. It facilitates uncertainty, for if carried to its fullest repercussions, we no longer know reality, i.e., we revert to square one, and all for what? For the peace of mind - of the mystic-minded, that is; the mystics and irrationalists get 'justice', while us reasoners and realists do not. As metaphysical views lead to epistemological views which leads to ethical views which leads to political views, such attitudes whether people realize it, is what gives birth to the preposterous political theory of "equalitarianism", whereby the ultimate consequence is that the lazy drifter gets to work at Hot Dog On a Stick and make the same wage as a Doctor so that the Dr. will put as much innovation and compassion into his work as the other guy takes in putting the hot dogs on the stick.
It all starts at the very ancient roots of philosophical discussion between two philosophers, whereby one insists on the other to disprove their arbitrary statements - and the other actually complies. That is where it all goes wrong, and that is why one must never let himself be fooled into thinking that the arbitrary warrants epistemological respect. The burden to prove the claim rests solely on the one who makes the claim. One should not and need not attempt to prove arbitrary claims. As it is impossible to disprove a negative, attempting to do so leads to accepting any ideas, no matter how arbitrary they are. Since the ideas are groundless, there is no means by which they can be integrated with the rest of one's knowledge. Later, if knowledge is discovered that contradicts the arbitrary idea, the knowledge will be more likely dismissed. The proper response to an arbitrary statement is to ignore it.
Never give any arbitrary claim the benefit of doubt, folks. That is what the mystics want you to do. They know your subconscious will do the rest of the work, and sooner or later you start doubting yourself when you shouldn't - losing yourself in a sort of epistemological agnosticism.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
 Skorpivo, please stop creating exceptionally well written and coherent posts. You're making the rest of us look bad.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking". A visit to the local insane asylum will show you plenty of messiah complexes, loose-minded, faith-touting mystics spouting gibberish that is not far from the Priest's formal speech in a nearby church, about The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways.
You will see the same type of "irrational thinking" if you travel to a Zen monastery and meet the most enlightened gurus. It's not the thinking that's bad -- it's how you apply it. In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking. Of course, you're too hyper-rational to understand that, and irrational enough to take that as a compliment.
--------------------
Edited by Paradigm (03/07/06 01:07 PM)
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking".
And if by chance one does find that any arbitrariness has found its way in, out the window it goes.
Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone who believes anything other than what you do is irrational?
It seems to me like this assertion that the conclusions being drawn are irrational is fairly arbitrary. What is rationality? Here's a brief blurb from Wikipedia:
"A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them."
Centuries ago, it would have been "uncertain but sensible" to conclude that the world was flat, because if you looked out the window, it looked flat! Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!
If I was to one day proclaim that the fundamental unit of matter is a doughnut, and that we are all jelly-filled doughnuts walking about on a planet made of barbeque pork, then okay that would be arbitrary, as it would be based on no underlying principle or logic, nor on probability, expectation, or personal experience. Thus it could be said that such an assertion would be irrational and arbitrary. However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience and logic that follows from it. Thus you cannot dismiss them as simply being arbitrary and irrational, as they are neither.
The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways.
Yes I would agree that is a fairly irrational and arbitrary conclusion, as it is based merely on wishful thinking and no logic or personal experience. However, throughout history I can think of no mystics that said this. Plenty of dogmatic and political churches have, though.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Silversoul]
#5374431 - 03/07/06 02:23 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You will see the same type of "irrational thinking" if you travel to a Zen monastery and meet the most enlightened gurus. It's not the thinking that's bad -- it's how you apply it. In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking. Of course, you're too hyper-rational to understand that, and irrational enough to take that as a compliment.
Zen aphorisms and clich?s were not what I referred to. I am referring to what is actually being discussed in this thread: the arbitrary, e.g., claims of ?The G?. The use of such thinking for supporting the arbitrary is what is actually irrational. In short, you precisely nailed it: it is how how you use your brain that counts. Most [if not all] of crystallized Zen wisdoms I?ve read were analogous sayings pertinent to observations of human nature, and ?not dropping the context of an analogy- were quite far from making capricious, unjustified and baseless claims.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5374521 - 03/07/06 02:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking.
If by "hyper-rational" you are refering to continental rationalism, then I agree. Although it can be useful for filtering out things which are untruths, rationalism, used completely by itself, doesn't often lead to concrete truths. Many important theories appear to be contingent truths (logically, they can be either true or false), and rationalism alone cannot help us verify or refute them. For example, its logically possible for me to be bald, with rationalism, we can rule out the possibility that I am bald and not-bald, but whether I am actually bald or not, logic cannot decide. And thus, we move onto empiricism...
If by "hyper-rationalism" you're refering to a fanatical devotion to modern rationalism, which is a blend of modal logic and empiricism, then I don't agree so much. Unless some evidence is shown which falsifies it, I don't think you can have too much rationalism (unless it's being applied incorrectly.)
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5374605 - 03/07/06 02:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!
I can make a nearly infinite amount of silly, yet logical, hypothesis which may be true. What you seem to be implying is that, taking random shots at 'truth' while blindfolded is a valid way to obtain knowledge. Would it be sensible to believe the world was round without any evidence to support that claim? Its logically possible (but, not nomologically possible) that the world is a shaped like a pentagram. Does it make sense to believe this, simply because its possible?
However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience
But, mystics seem to take the leap of faith that they're not simply experiencing a part of their own psyche. These experiences also appear to be completely internal, paranormal (untestable), subjective, and only causally effecting that person. It seems completely out of the realm of any empiric investigation.
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5374822 - 03/07/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone who believes anything other than what you do is irrational?
Of course not ? not anything.
Centuries ago, it would have been "uncertain but sensible" to conclude that the world was flat, because if you looked out the window, it looked flat! Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!
An arbitrary statement is a statement without justification or reason. While most arbitrary claims are usually absurd ? not all of them are. Some of them might conform to possibilities we accept. For example, stating that ?There may be alien life on a specific planet.? isn?t necessarily absurd, for given our knowledge of life, it is a possibility that it exists elsewhere. Since such a possibility conforms to our knowledge, we have may have reason to believe that it exists in some planet ? but the statement is arbitrary because it states a specific planet without facts or evidence to support it. There is not ever a reason to accept arbitrary statements as truth ? and every reason in the world to treat arbitrary statements for what they are: statements made without factual support or reason.
If I was to one day proclaim that the fundamental unit of matter is a doughnut, and that we are all jelly-filled doughnuts walking about on a planet made of barbeque pork, then okay that would be arbitrary, as it would be based on no underlying principle or logic, nor on probability, expectation, or personal experience. Thus it could be said that such an assertion would be irrational and arbitrary. However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience and logic that follows from it. Thus you cannot dismiss them as simply being arbitrary and irrational, as they are neither.
Simply because an experience is personal does not mean that it is exempt from being arbitrary. Your mystic-Jelly-Barbecue theory ?playing along with it- would be based on your personal experiences which are based on irrational premises. Implicitly or explicitly, we all have philosophical premises that dictate how we think, feel and act. Therefore, our experiences are subject to evaluation of tools of cognition. Furthermore, logic is not some cheap throw-away tool that everyone can buy at the market and use it however they want ? although, people often act as if it is. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, and used properly, requires full acceptance of all the facts at hand. Mystics misuse logic, thinking that they can ignore some facts while accepting the ones they like the most, and then proceed to construct fantasies in the air and then either cry or attack whenever under [constant] assault under reality ? i.e., whenever shown contradictions in their thinking.
Yes I would agree that is a fairly irrational and arbitrary conclusion, as it is based merely on wishful thinking and no logic or personal experience. However, throughout history I can think of no mystics that said this. Plenty of dogmatic and political churches have, though.
No mystics that has ever said that? You must have an entirely different meaning of what a mystic is. Let?s define our terms and elucidate what we are talking about. I am referring to the ancient, fundamental dichotomy that, ultimately, divides the world into two camps: the realists and the mystics. Or: The scientists and the witchdoctors. The mystics seek to evade reality, and/or re-write nature by methods which are all off-shoots of the axiomatic principle: The Primacy of Consciousness, which stems from a lack or refusal to distinguish and differentiate between the outer world and the inner world, between consciousness and existence, between epistemology and metaphysics. History has shown this to occur in all walks of life, from the primitive savages who sacrifice lives to the ?angry? volcano, to the more erudite Christian mystic who attempts to beseech reality by offering prayers, to the young child who screams, cries and stamps his foot in anger at nature for not providing enough snow, to the medieval witchdoctor who tries curing diseases with arbitrary incantations and ritualistic ?spells?. Anyone or anything with the purpose of devising a method of evading facts, of attempting to change what they metaphysically cannot change, of any adulterated form of what is really the child?s ?foot-stamping and screaming? acting out, is a mystic. Anyone who professes a belief or system of beliefs that is apart or against man?s senses and man?s reason, is a mystic. Anyone who accepts arbitrary statements or any premises that have no factual evidence and rational basis, is a mystic. Anyone who tries to mine mystery for ores of intellectual onanism out of a personal dissatisfaction with reality, is a mystic.
A side-word of caution: I?ve recognized that there is a common tendency to group two certain tools in man?s repertoire with mysticism ? which is rather unfortunate ? creativity and imagination. This is only because these tools are used [rather, mis-used] by mystics to construct their premises of reality-evading fantasies. Without these two tools, mystics would have nowhere to hide. Creativity and imagination is nothing short of an immensely great tool for mankind ? but like tools, they can be used for construction or destruction, and hold no bias in and of themselves, no choice as to who shall use such intellectual powers. It is important to distinguish between the hammer and the mind behind the hammer.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (03/07/06 04:10 PM)
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
|
If by "hyper-rationalism" you're refering to a fanatical devotion to modern rationalism, which is a blend of modal logic and empiricism, then I don't agree so much. Unless some evidence is shown which falsifies it, I don't think you can have too much rationalism (unless it's being applied incorrectly.)
...And only in relation to one who gets thier feelings hurt or feel threatened by another's finer and sharper rationality can such be labeled as "too much" rationality. What they really mean, is that it is "too much" for them - i.e., won't digest their intellectual litter.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
Of course not ? not anything.
Ah okay, just making sure , I wasn't sure how exactly to interpret your saying: a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking".
Simply because an experience is personal does not mean that it is exempt from being arbitrary.
Agreed. But a personal experience can most definitely be considered as reasoning to support a hypothesis or as justification for drawing a certain rational conclusion. In fact, personal experience is all we have as a basis to draw rational conclusions, unless someone's come up with a way to reliably experience something outside of the corporeal body.
If one person experiences something, say, Nirvana, and then tells everyone about it, but no one else is able to experience it, then that would throw the experience into doubt, just as a scientific experiment must be reproducable to be considered valid. However Nirvana is achievable by anyone with the will to achieve it. And for the past few millenia, people HAVE been experiencing Nirvana. This lends a lot of credence to the idea of it, regardless of whether or not you consider it 'mystical' or 'absurd'.
Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification, and used properly, requires full acceptance of all the facts at hand.
Okay, but it's not always straightforward. For instance, what if the facts are contradictory, such as with quantum laws and the general law of relativity?
Mystics misuse logic, thinking that they can ignore some facts while accepting the ones they like the most, and then proceed to construct fantasies in the air and then either cry or attack whenever under [constant] assault under reality
You're not necessarily wrong, but could you please provide an example of such a misuse of logic?
I am referring to the ancient, fundamental dichotomy that, ultimately, divides the world into two camps: the realists and the mystics.
Before we go any further, I would strongly suggest checking this out: http://www.alanwatts.com/flash/prickles_n_goo.swf . It's a flash animation discussion just what you're talking about.
The Primacy of Consciousness, which stems from a lack or refusal to distinguish and differentiate between the outer world and the inner world, between consciousness and existence
Are you suggesting that I exist inside of a bag of skin? That I am somehow SOMETHING separate from my body and my surroundings? This doesn't seem rational to me. There is no little man inside of my head pushing buttons and pulling levers directing me about. I am just as much in my stomach as I am in my brain. Did the brain evolve a stomach to feed it and keep it going, or did the stomach evolve a brain to ensure a reliable supply of food? Consciousness is an aspect of existence. Or maybe consciousness=existence and existence=consciousness (let's not go that far just yet though, to keep it simple). Consciousness is not separate from existence. We were not clay vessels that were inanimate and then God came down and blew on us and then suddenly we had consciousness and became animate. I am also not separate from my surroundings. You cannot consider an organism without considering its environment. If I'm walking down the street, you must consider the street I'm walking on. I can't simply be dangling my legs in empty space, that wouldn't work.
to the more erudite Christian mystic who attempts to beseech reality by offering prayers
I have my doubts about petitionary prayer too, but there apparently have been some cases where it would either be an enormous synchronicity or the petitionary prayer was actually successful. I know Markosthegnostic has had such an experience.
Anyways, my definition of mysticism is close to that provided by Wikipedia: "Mysticism from the Greek μυω (muo, "concealed") is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge or understanding." Mysticism is going about achieving unitive knowledge of "ultimate reality" "the divine" "conscious-awareness" "the Tao" or "the Godhead".
But, mystics seem to take the leap of faith that they're not simply experiencing a part of their own psyche.
I disagree. From the mystical literature I've read, it has never been claimed that one experiences something other than oneself. In essence, they say that once you lose your self (you stop identifying with your ego, and let desires and attachments drop away), then you are able to become aware of the Self (also known as the Atman) that is present in you, and no distinction is made between the Self and the nonduality (Brahman).
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
SkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...


Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5376040 - 03/07/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If one person experiences something, say, Nirvana, and then tells everyone about it, but no one else is able to experience it, then that would throw the experience into doubt, just as a scientific experiment must be reproducable to be considered valid. However Nirvana is achievable by anyone with the will to achieve it. And for the past few millenia, people HAVE been experiencing Nirvana. This lends a lot of credence to the idea of it, regardless of whether or not you consider it 'mystical' or 'absurd'.
From what you've told me, I wouldn't consider it absurd OR mystical - depending on how you [or others] interpret and define such an experience - or if at all. If your interpretation do not rest upon factually based evidence rather than chasm-jumping assumptions and blind faith, then it becomes quite arbitrary - or to be more accurate, your interpretations of the facts become arbitrary.
Okay, but it's not always straightforward. For instance, what if the facts are contradictory, such as with quantum laws and the general law of relativity?
Then we must check our premises. Contradictions don't exist in nature - only in man's interpretations and premises. Nature is all there is, it cannot contradict itself.
You're not necessarily wrong, but could you please provide an example of such a misuse of logic?
How about when a mystic claims to believe in free-will, but then constructs or adopts fantasies of witchcraft that fosters his evasions of reality -to accept various facts- i.e., the fact that he must expend effort [and take risks] to find a romantic partner - or the fact that there are some individuals who [he thinks] do not like him or get along with him. This leads to him practicing "black magic" to control the actions of those individuals to obey his wishes and commands. Of course, this contradicts his view that free will exists - for how can one have free will if one's actions are subject to being manipulated by some candle-burning, spell-chanting moron from far away?
Before we go any further, I would strongly suggest checking this out: http://www.alanwatts.com/flash/prickles_n_goo.swf . It's a flash animation discussion just what you're talking about.
I've read much of Alan Watts, and have his books in my personal library. I've made a thread in this forum with that exact passage from The Book - or was it "The Wisdom of Insecurity"? But, yes - that is another example of what I am talking about.
Are you suggesting that I exist inside of a bag of skin? That I am somehow SOMETHING separate from my body and my surroundings? This doesn't seem rational to me. There is no little man inside of my head pushing buttons and pulling levers directing me about. I am just as much in my stomach as I am in my brain. Did the brain evolve a stomach to feed it and keep it going, or did the stomach evolve a brain to ensure a reliable supply of food? Consciousness is an aspect of existence. Or maybe consciousness=existence and existence=consciousness (let's not go that far just yet though, to keep it simple). Consciousness is not separate from existence. We were not clay vessels that were inanimate and then God came down and blew on us and then suddenly we had consciousness and became animate. I am also not separate from my surroundings. You cannot consider an organism without considering its environment. If I'm walking down the street, you must consider the street I'm walking on. I can't simply be dangling my legs in empty space, that wouldn't work.
Once more, I must point out again - differentiation is JUST as important as integration. I clarified that differentiation is crucial, and you followed up with a clarification that integration is crucial as well. One without the other only leads to imbalance. Hell, I've even argued for integration just as you are doing right now, in the past. Yes, consciousness is an aspect of existence, just as vision, as is hearing, as is digestion, and so forth. But to say that my vision, or my hearing, or my consciousness, is anything more than an aspect of existence, is to drop the context of what such actually does and what we actually observe it doing.
I have my doubts about petitionary prayer too, but there apparently have been some cases where it would either be an enormous synchronicity or the petitionary prayer was actually successful. I know Markosthegnostic has had such an experience.
I haven't seen or heard of a case of praying which would convince me that such conclusions typically drawn were cases of underestimating one's own brain [which has enormous power for self-deception as well] and its ability for self-direction. Much of what our brain picks up on in reality, i.e., visual cues, etc., are subconscious. Most people [99.99%] aren't consciously cognizant of the various signals sent by miniscule facial movements when communicating with others - it is done subconsciously. Of course, people don't know this, and in presence of such nescience, do what most people do: strike up some arbitrary premise claiming that they must be "psychic" because they just "couldn't" have known what the context of the other's mind must've been. Most people have not learned about concept-formation, and thus cannot answer the problem [least, not rationally and coherently] about universals, and so on and so forth.
Anyways, my definition of mysticism is close to that provided by Wikipedia: "Mysticism from the Greek μυω (muo, "concealed") is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge or understanding." Mysticism is going about achieving unitive knowledge of "ultimate reality" "the divine" "conscious-awareness" "the Tao" or "the Godhead".
All a very nice dressing for the window of mysticism. Note how it alludes to "other-worldly" realms, and "divine revelation" and plainly refers to the exact subject discussed in this thread: God. Unless they explicitly define each and every single vague term, without referring to anything arbitrary and remain grounded in reason without contradictions to reality - they are espousing mysticism in it's superficial, best-selling pitch - or at best, simply speaking in high-flying, colorful and analogous language [due to nescience on what is actually occuring in reality underneath their interpretations] about various aspects of human nature - that can actually be expressed articulately, intelligently and rationally. Alan Watts does a good job of doing that with Eastern Religions. Abraham Maslow does an excellent job of conveying what some would refer to as "mystic experiences" in his books as well. See my thread: Transcendence.
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (03/07/06 11:12 PM)
|
|