Let us argue about God: Pascal's Wager or Prisoner's Dilemma?
Gary Childress
"better" things to do but I seek to avoid them) so I am thinking I will
start an argument over the existence/non-existence of God.
I propose the following:
God does not exist.
This I do not have any proof of. However this places me in the same
"boat" as those who believe there is a God.
This is simply a guess. If I am wrong, *perhaps* I face eternal
damnation Or, perhaps God doesn't really care whether anyone believes
in his, her or its existence and therefore I may *not* be facing
eternal damnation, even though I disbelieve in his, her or its
existence.
So if there is no proof one way or the other, then why have one opinion
or the other? Here we come to the inevitable question of which is more
beneficial to believe, Pascal's Wager, as it were or, perhaps, the
"prisoner's dilemma".
What is the harm in believing in a god when there is not? What is the
harm in believing there is not a god when there is?
The modern equivalent to this may be the argument I've heard at times
that those who believe in a god live longer and healthier lives in the
agregate, therefore making it directly beneficial to stake one's place
among those who believe. Assuming this statement to be true, that
those who believe do live longer and healthier lives, would that mean
there truly is a god?
The argument seems to be, "if they make one healthy, then one's views
are the correct ones." There is little doubt to me that many slaves on
antebellum Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and
healthier lives than most who struggled against it. Would such a fact
prove the "correctness" of those who believed in the legitimacy of
their own captivity versus those who didn't believe in the legitimacy
of their own captivity and fought against it?
The point is, the argument is an invalid one even if it were proved one
lived longer believing in a god.
Sir Frederick
There may well be Gods.
1. I don't support the human hubris that the situation in
which we find ourselves is the most complex : there are
probably "higher dimensions" that support higher complexity
that promote higher intelligence. Our situation may
be no more than a hyper painting.
2. In that hyperpainting, or even in the situation as we know it
we may be no more than a parasitic infestation, of no concern
to the putative gods. (Are you concerned by the mites in your
eyebrow?)
3. Thus there may well be Gods and they care not what representations
are in your models (beliefs).
4. Consider what biases and insanities have been bequeathed to us by
evolution. We practice God stories because they promote
religious experiences. We don't know any better.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
-- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988)
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
ipcress
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
> There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
> plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
> most who struggled against it.
On what grounds do you base that on? Getting punished can be an indication
that one is on the right track. One may not be inclined to believe so, but
if one pays enough attention to the right detail, this is obvious.
Realizing that one is in an unjust situation gives one incentive to escape
it, regardless of all the pressure to conform. Going along with things
decreases punishment but OTOH you sink further into depression. In moments
of lucidity, you know there's no future in being chained up even if you
can talk yourself into passivity to perserve what little life you actually
have as oppose to some possibility that appears to be unobtainable. The
final blow is to realize that passivity is futile & that life as you know
it is futile. It makes as much sense to stay in a burning house than to
continue with these state of affairs. Now, granted, most people somehow
don't get to this realization because they can still talk themselves into
passivity, but when one no longer can be passive, not necessarily out of
some moral courage, but because of a rational assessment of one's actual
material circumstances, then the question "to be or not to be" is not a
silly question, but stark reality. Struggling against this kind of
adversity is not good enough. One has to defeat it or die.
Immortalist
"Gary Childress" <grchi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142649093.6...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I have nothing better to do tonight (well, actually I have many
> "better" things to do but I seek to avoid them) so I am thinking I will
> start an argument over the existence/non-existence of God.
>
> I propose the following:
>
> God does not exist.
>
> This I do not have any proof of. However this places me in the same
> "boat" as those who believe there is a God.
>
> This is simply a guess. If I am wrong, *perhaps* I face eternal
> damnation Or, perhaps God doesn't really care whether anyone believes
> in his, her or its existence and therefore I may *not* be facing
> eternal damnation, even though I disbelieve in his, her or its
> existence.
>
The costs of two types of errors can be vastly different. We have probably
developed some phobias that make us choose particular alternatives and
Pascals Wager probably reflects this "Error Management Instinct."
Error Management Theory
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily apparent,
given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves in the
path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of reality:
either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is not a dangerous
snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain information that you
have percieved, there are also two inferences you could make. There is
indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it. Or you could conclude
that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could believe
that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you could believe
that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different. In
the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial metabolic cost
of taking an unnecessary evasive action. By giving a wide birth to the area
that you believe harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your way a
little, incurring a minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however,
failing to detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you
your life. THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times over
human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of mistake tended
to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of ancestors whose
inferences about the uncertain world erred in the direction of believing
that snakes existed more than they do. These can be called adaptive errors.
Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an affair
or is likely to have an affair.... Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
Passion - Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex - David M Buss
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
----------------------------
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory (EMT),
proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be predictably biased
when the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors were asymmetrical
over evolutionary history. This theory explains known phenomena such as
men's overperception of women's sexual intent, and it predicts new biases in
social inference such as women's underestimation of men's commitment.
Buss comments on Error Management Theory. In an uncertain world, two
potential errors in thinking: a. partner having affair (but isn't) b.
partner isn't having affair (but is) The cost of making those two errors are
very different. Those making the first error have less cost (from a
reproductive success standpoint) than those who make the second.
Theoretically we evolved toward vigilance and are more likely to make
adaptive error. Explains why men and women sometimes have delusions that a
partner is unfaithful or might be. "It's not paranoia if they're really out
to get you!"
Shedding Light on Sexual Misunderstandings
Do men possess a "sixth sense" that calculates the risk of missing a sexual
encounter? Are women's guarded perceptions that men have no desire for
commitment true?
A fresh look at the misunderstandings between the sexes by David M. Buss,
University of Texas-Austin, uncovers new insights into why men and women
sometimes just don't get it when it comes to understanding each other's
views on sex and romance. Buss's report appears in the December 2001 issue
of Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the American
Psychological Society.
Buss uses two theories he developed to explain the different perceptions
between the sexes -- Error Management Theory and Strategic Interference
Theory. The theories explain how the biases and emotions of women and men
may actually be adaptive behaviors.
He says that two basic errors are often at work in relationships --
inferring that a misdeed was done or overlooking a misdeed. For example, a
spouse may falsely suspect a partner of sexual treachery, or fail to detect
actual infidelity.
Buss applies Error Management Theory to explain cognitive biases that have
evolved over time. These biases are, Buss wrote, not an irrationally focused
lens used to view a situation or circumstance, but a functional adaptation.
For example, men have developed a sexual overperception bias designed to
minimize their chances of missing opportunities for sex. Women on the other
hand are believed to have an opposite kind of bias toward men, a
commitment-skepticism bias whereby men's actual level of commitment is
underestimated to compensate for the possibility of being sexually deceived
by men who feign commitment.
This mismatch of biases can lead to problems. For example, setting a low
threshold for inferring infidelity means you increase your chances of
detecting infidelity if it happens, but at the same time, you increase your
rate of false accusations.
This or any similar scenario is bound to inspire a plethora of emotions that
traditional theorists have labeled "negative." But according to Buss, the
traditional notion that these "negative" emotions - anger, fear, and
jealousy - only get in the way isn't so. He uses his Strategic Interference
Theory to explain that these emotions are actually motivators that help a
victim deal with a situation.
"They [these emotions] focus attention on the source of strategic
interference, temporarily screening out other information less relevant to
the adaptive problem," Buss wrote. The Strategic Interference Theory says
that the traditionally "negative" emotions have a purpose. They:
Focus attention on the source of strategic interference
Prompt storage of relevant information in memory for subsequent retrieval.
Motivate action to eliminate or reduce the interference and future
recurrence of the interference.
"Because men and women have evolved somewhat different sexual strategies,"
Buss wrote, "the events that cause strategic interference are predicted to
differ for the sexes. The events that trigger emotions such as anger,
jealousy, and subjective distress should differ for the sexes."
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2002/pr020103.cfm
----------------------------
The principle of error management helps to explain why jealousy sometimes
seems so irrational. We live in a world with uncertainty, a booming, buzzing
chaos of cues requiring inferences about an unseen reality. Over
evolutionary time, some errors of inference were more costly than others.
Failing to detect an actual infedelity was more costly than mistakenly
accusing an innocent partner of betrayal. Evolution, as a consequence,
forged a hypersensitive defense system, designed to sound the alarm not just
when an infidelity has been discovered, but also when the circumstances make
it slightly more likely. These adaptive biases explain why these mistakes
may not really be "errore" over the long run.
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
> So if there is no proof one way or the other, then why have one opinion
> or the other? Here we come to the inevitable question of which is more
> beneficial to believe, Pascal's Wager, as it were or, perhaps, the
> "prisoner's dilemma".
>
We probably evolved a slight bias to prefer the god[s] conclusion and the
advantages whether there be goods or not.
> What is the harm in believing in a god when there is not? What is the
> harm in believing there is not a god when there is?
>
> The modern equivalent to this may be the argument I've heard at times
> that those who believe in a god live longer and healthier lives in the
> agregate, therefore making it directly beneficial to stake one's place
> among those who believe. Assuming this statement to be true, that
> those who believe do live longer and healthier lives, would that mean
> there truly is a god?
>
Sounds like another risk choice your proposing, like
What is the harm in believing in a standard, "what is the harm in believing
in a god when there is not or what is the harm in believing there is not a
god when there is,"
when there is not, or, What is the harm in believing there is not a
standard, "what is the harm in believing in a god when there is not, or,
what is the harm in believing there is not a god when there is," when there
is?
> The argument seems to be, "if they make one healthy, then one's views
> are the correct ones." There is little doubt to me that many slaves on
> antebellum Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and
> healthier lives than most who struggled against it. Would such a fact
> prove the "correctness" of those who believed in the legitimacy of
> their own captivity versus those who didn't believe in the legitimacy
> of their own captivity and fought against it?
>
True, the comparison between the religious gamble and the justification of
slavery, is valid but we have "reasons" for viewing them differently in
America and much of the West, namely the idea of individual rights trumping
the majority view.
> The point is, the argument is an invalid one even if it were proved one
> lived longer believing in a god.
>
Prayer and meditation have been shown to promote better health whether they
reflect the truth of gods or not even if you think;
I'm going straight to hell
to burn in flames with the devil
fuck the Church and that Christian shit
my tombstone's carved with a seix six 6
i don't care about the lies that you preach
alive to live, not to believe
in a god that i cannot see
after death
enter life
in the grave
to never wake
after death
enter life
in the grave
into the dark
as flesh turns and rots
the blood in my veins doth clot
ill be smiling as i decompose
as the rats eat my skin and bone
no escape when death comes to call
inside my skull maggots still crawl
from the coffin your world looks so small
the reaper awaits us all
this is the deathklaat
after death
enter life
in the grave
into the dark
Play It Again If You Can
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AzxfN8o0G90&search=six%20feet%20under
7. Deathklaat
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/sixfeetunder/13.html
Gary Childress
ipcress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
>
> > There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
> > plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
> > most who struggled against it.
>
> On what grounds do you base that on? Getting punished can be an indication
> that one is on the right track.
I think you miss my point.
> One may not be inclined to believe so, but
> if one pays enough attention to the right detail, this is obvious.
> Realizing that one is in an unjust situation gives one incentive to escape
> it, regardless of all the pressure to conform. Going along with things
> decreases punishment but OTOH you sink further into depression. In moments
> of lucidity, you know there's no future in being chained up even if you
> can talk yourself into passivity to perserve what little life you actually
> have as oppose to some possibility that appears to be unobtainable. The
> final blow is to realize that passivity is futile & that life as you know
> it is futile. It makes as much sense to stay in a burning house than to
> continue with these state of affairs. Now, granted, most people somehow
> don't get to this realization because they can still talk themselves into
> passivity, but when one no longer can be passive, not necessarily out of
> some moral courage, but because of a rational assessment of one's actual
> material circumstances, then the question "to be or not to be" is not a
> silly question, but stark reality. Struggling against this kind of
> adversity is not good enough. One has to defeat it or die.
I don't follow how any of this ties in with my original post, although
it certainly sounds uncontroversial enough.
Gary Childress
> > or the other? Here we come to the inevitable question of which is more
> > beneficial to believe, Pascal's Wager, as it were or, perhaps, the
> > "prisoner's dilemma".
> >
>
> We probably evolved a slight bias to prefer the god[s] conclusion and the
> advantages whether there be goods or not.
>
This could very well be.
Prayer and meditation have NOT been linked conclusively to better
health, although they may indeed correlate at times. Perhaps what
promotes better health is being a member of a relatively tight knit
community such as found in a church. Perhaps straining the muscles in
the lotus position helps blood flow. Perhaps the mere belief that our
problems are being addressed by a higher entity stimulates the right
chemicals in the right places in the brain. Perhaps, after thousands
of years of evolution starting with beliefs in tree spirits and voodoo
magic, prayer is to the mind what broccoli is to the digestive system
and atheism is to the mind a block of lard--which could equally change
after a few thousand years of atheist domination. Who knows? The
point is it could be any number of factors closely associated with
prayer and meditation which could be replicated equally or closely in
other activities. No one knows for sure. Because the sun nurtures
plants does not prove the existence of Apollo's chariot although it may
reinforce one's belief in the existence of the sun.
Immortalist
When I said shown I did not mean conclusively, sorry about the ambiguity
there. I should have said that prayer, meditation, concentration,
non-strees, etc..., have some evidence from studies as being healthy. THis
along with love and friendship which you thought I meant.
The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful
force in the human mind and in all probability an ineradicable part of human
nature. Emile Durkheim, an agnostic, characterized religious practice as the
consecration of the group and the core of society. It is one of the
universals of social behavior, taking recognizable form in every society
from hunter-gatherer bands to socialist republics. Its rudiments go back at
least to the bone altars and funerary rites of Neanderthal man. At Shanidar,
Iraq, sixty thousand years ago, Neanderthal people decorated a grave with
seven species of flowers having medicinal and economic value, perhaps to
honor a shaman. Since that time, according to the anthropologist Anthony F.
C. Wallace, mankind has produced on the order of 100 thousand religions.
Skeptics continue to nourish the belief that science and learning will
banish religion, which they consider to be no more than a tissue of
illusions. The noblest among them are sure that humanity migrates toward
knowledge by logotaxis, an automatic orientation toward information, so that
organized religion must continue its retreat as darkness before
enlightenment's brightening dawn. But this conception of human nature, with
roots going back to Aristotle and Zeno, has never seemed so futile as today.
If anything, knowledge is being enthusiastically harnessed to the service of
religion.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/57aa7ed6702b4b6f
> Perhaps straining the muscles in
> the lotus position helps blood flow. Perhaps the mere belief that our
> problems are being addressed by a higher entity stimulates the right
> chemicals in the right places in the brain. Perhaps, after thousands
> of years of evolution starting with beliefs in tree spirits and voodoo
> magic, prayer is to the mind what broccoli is to the digestive system
> and atheism is to the mind a block of lard--which could equally change
> after a few thousand years of atheist domination. Who knows?
Well I said "whether they reflect the truth of gods or not" obviously not
choosing a side. Hell I believe that future techology will achieve
resurrection machines which will trap us and make us live for billions of
more years. Obviously this is possible or you wouldn't be able to be
resurrected constantly by your brain now.
> The
> point is it could be any number of factors closely associated with
> prayer and meditation which could be replicated equally or closely in
> other activities. No one knows for sure. Because the sun nurtures
> plants does not prove the existence of Apollo's chariot although it may
> reinforce one's belief in the existence of the sun.
>
This seperatism will die obviously. We will probably come to know what makes
us religious and you'll be able to pray better as an athiest, just like
eating food when you get hungry. Yea athiest have some hard knocks coming
down the line when these god instincts are better revealed.
Jabberinggg, time to crash
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wkJC2iupRMg&search=white%20zombie
ipcress
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
>>> There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
>>> plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
>>> most who struggled against it.
>> On what grounds do you base that on? Getting punished can be an indication
>> that one is on the right track.
> I think you miss my point.
Forced servitude can't be good for one's mental health. So, a long
unhealthy life may be preferable than immediate death for most people, but
don't try to claim that such a life is healthier than trying to make such
a life better even if it may be futile under the circumstances.
Gary Childress
Are you the claims police? Why can't I claim that a life of denial may
be healthier than a life of struggle against the grain? Does wishing
otherwise make it otherwise? Are you some kind of expert on this?
And BTW you're still missing the point of my entire post--or do you
even care! Perhaps hacking away at a straw man makes you happy?
RGrannus
> > or the other? Here we come to the inevitable question of which is more
> > beneficial to believe, Pascal's Wager, as it were or, perhaps, the
> > "prisoner's dilemma".
> We probably evolved a slight bias to prefer the god[s] conclusion and the
> advantages whether there be goods or not.
> > What is the harm in believing in a god when there is not? What is the
> > harm in believing there is not a god when there is?
> > The modern equivalent to this may be the argument I've heard at times
> > that those who believe in a god live longer and healthier lives in the
> > agregate, therefore making it directly beneficial to stake one's place
> > among those who believe. Assuming this statement to be true, that
> > those who believe do live longer and healthier lives, would that mean
> > there truly is a god?
> What is the harm in believing in a standard, "what is the harm in believing
> in a god when there is not or what is the harm in believing there is not a
> god when there is,"
> when there is not, or, What is the harm in believing there is not a
> standard, "what is the harm in believing in a god when there is not, or,
> what is the harm in believing there is not a god when there is," when there
> is?
> > The argument seems to be, "if they make one healthy, then one's views
> > are the correct ones." There is little doubt to me that many slaves on
> > antebellum Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and
> > healthier lives than most who struggled against it. Would such a fact
> > prove the "correctness" of those who believed in the legitimacy of
> > their own captivity versus those who didn't believe in the legitimacy
> > of their own captivity and fought against it?
> True, the comparison between the religious gamble and the justification of
> slavery, is valid but we have "reasons" for viewing them differently in
> America and much of the West, namely the idea of individual rights trumping
> the majority view.
> > The point is, the argument is an invalid one even if it were proved one
> > lived longer believing in a god.
> Prayer and meditation have been shown to promote better health whether they
> reflect the truth of gods or not even if you think;
Gary Childress wrote:
~Prayer and meditation have NOT been linked conclusively to better
health, although they may indeed correlate at times. Perhaps what
promotes better health is being a member of a relatively tight knit
community such as found in a church. Perhaps straining the muscles in
the lotus position helps blood flow. Perhaps the mere belief that our
problems are being addressed by a higher entity stimulates the right
chemicals in the right places in the brain. Perhaps, after thousands
of years of evolution starting with beliefs in tree spirits and voodoo
magic, prayer is to the mind what broccoli is to the digestive system
and atheism is to the mind a block of lard--which could equally change
after a few thousand years of atheist domination. Who knows? The
point is it could be any number of factors closely associated with
prayer and meditation which could be replicated equally or closely in
other activities. No one knows for sure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RGrannus wrote:
IIRC there have been some studies done that found that people who
believe in *something* --whether it's a religion or ideology or some
other definite values--are on average happier than those who do not.
But I'm not sure if it was shown to be a correlation or cause and
effect.
This does not seem to me to be the essential refutation of Pascal's
wager. The point is what it is postulating (a God with infinite mercy)
is arbitrary. One could just as well postulate a large number of gods
or a god that is infinitely evil or whatever. The point is that in
understanding and living in the world, it is necessary to consider what
the physical evidence tells us, not what can be logically postulated.
Gary Childress
No, it isn't a refutation of Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager doesn't
postulate the existence nor non-existence of a god or gods, only that
it is best to believe in the existence of one in the face of
uncertainty.
> The point is that in
> understanding and living in the world, it is necessary to consider what
> the physical evidence tells us, not what can be logically postulated.
Unless of course there exists a God whom we have no physical evidence
of who really dislikes non-believers but will accept those who
pragmatically believe in his, her, its existence. That would sort of
shoot some holes in your theory.
ipcress
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
>>>>> There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
>>>>> plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
>>>>> most who struggled against it.
>>>> On what grounds do you base that on? Getting punished can be an indication
>>>> that one is on the right track.
>>> I think you miss my point.
>> Forced servitude can't be good for one's mental health. So, a long
>> unhealthy life may be preferable than immediate death for most people, but
>> don't try to claim that such a life is healthier than trying to make such
>> a life better even if it may be futile under the circumstances.
> Are you the claims police? Why can't I claim that a life of denial may
> be healthier than a life of struggle against the grain?
You can claim any bullshit you want if you want to get huffy about it.
BUT, put your example of slavery, (that you're now trying to skirt away
from), into another context. What you're saying here is akin to claiming
with aplomb that people who didn't struggle against the guards in the
concentration camps lived longer healthier lives than people who did. It's
just that pointless & stupid.
Gary Childress
That's not even remotely the point of my post!
Fine, I won't use the example of slavery next time to illustrate how a
false conclusion can be derrived from matters of health. Happy now?
Oh heck, I'll cave. What if those who struggled against the guards in
the concentration camps were customarily placed in the front of the
line and those that didn't struggle were placed in the back,
effectively giving them ten more minutes of life span. Simple
questions. Would it not then be true that those who sucked up to the
guards lived longer? If it did, would that justify a belief that the
holocaust was a "valid" enterprise? My original point would imply "no
it doesn't". Agree or not?
For posterity, now that you've completely dragged it off the point,
I'll repost the original:
I propose the following:
God does not exist.
are the correct ones." There is little doubt to me that many slaves on
antebellum Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and
Wordsmith
It's the ol' "giving belief the benefit of the doubt" thing.
W : )
ipcress
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
>> You can claim any bullshit you want if you want to get huffy about it.
>> BUT, put your example of slavery, (that you're now trying to skirt away
>> from), into another context. What you're saying here is akin to claiming
>> with aplomb that people who didn't struggle against the guards in the
>> concentration camps lived longer healthier lives than people who did. It's
>> just that pointless & stupid.
> That's not even remotely the point of my post!
You said: "There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum
Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer & healthier lives
than most who struggled against it". What's the point here? Slavery isn't
a healthy situation to begin with. To choose a long life of servitude
rather a *possible* short one for fighting against it may be healthier if
your objective is to live in abject passivity. But when the circumstances
are such that even abject passivity is futile, & that there is an
immediate danger confronting one, the healthier choice is obviously to
fight.
> The modern equivalent to this may be the argument I've heard at times
> that those who believe in a god live longer and healthier lives in the
> agregate, therefore making it directly beneficial to stake one's place
> among those who believe. Assuming this statement to be true, that
> those who believe do live longer and healthier lives, would that mean
> there truly is a god?
The premise is that those who *believe* in a god live longer & healthier
lives. It doesn't follow from that therefore the belief is true or false.
> There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
> plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
> most who struggled against it. Would such a fact prove the "correctness"
> of those who believed in the legitimacy of their own captivity versus
> those who didn't believe in the legitimacy of their own captivity and
> fought against it?
Choosing not to fight against the power of the slave masters is not the
same thing as choosing to accept the alleged legitimacy of slavery. You're
indulging in some lazy thinking here.
Gary Childress
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Gary Childress wrote:
>
> >> You can claim any bullshit you want if you want to get huffy about it.
> >> BUT, put your example of slavery, (that you're now trying to skirt away
> >> from), into another context. What you're saying here is akin to claiming
> >> with aplomb that people who didn't struggle against the guards in the
> >> concentration camps lived longer healthier lives than people who did. It's
> >> just that pointless & stupid.
>
> > That's not even remotely the point of my post!
>
> You said: "There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum
> Southern plantations who accepted slavery lived longer & healthier lives
> than most who struggled against it". What's the point here? Slavery isn't
> a healthy situation to begin with.
1. Is Pascal's wager not similar to the argument that if a belief makes
one healthier than an alternative then one ought to hold that belief
which gives one the best health?
2. If a slave who bought into propaganda about the (key word here)
"legitimacy" of slavery, (Note I did not use the phrase "chooses not
to fight".) lived a healthier life than a slave who struggled against
the system does that mean one ought to accept slavery?
3. Is # 2 not an instance which contradicts the idea that one ought to
hold that belief which gives one the best health?
4. Therefore is it a valid argument that one ought to hold that belief
which gives one the best health?
If you recall, this is what you originally picked out of my first post.
=========================================================
> There is little doubt to me that many slaves on antebellum Southern
> plantations who accepted slavery lived longer and healthier lives than
> most who struggled against it.
On what grounds do you base that on? Getting punished can be an
indication
that one is on the right track....[something about "sinking into
depression" etc., etc.]
======================================================
The point is, I'm not arguing against you that slavery is immoral and
unjust. I'm not arguing that slavery doesn't crush the human spirit.
I'm not arguing against you that getting punished can be an indication
that one is on the right track. I'm not arguing that slavery is
healthier when compared to freedom. I'm not arguing that forced
servitude can be good for one's mental health. I'm not arguing that
choosing not to fight against the power of the slave masters is the
same thing as choosing to accept the alleged legitimacy of slavery.
I will, however, argue that IF (key word again) Jews at concentration
camps who cooperated with the guards were normally sent to the back of
the line to the gas chamber, then that means they lived a longer life
by 10 minutes or whatever it took to get through the line. BECAUSE,
that would further strengthen my point that those who live healthier
and longer lives do not necessarily possess the better belief, which
leads to my conclusion that such an argument as that health determines
which is the better belief is invalid to begin with.
I apologize if your reaction to my examples is "yuk". I have a cousin
who lives on a farm and drowns baby kittens because he thinks getting
the mother fixed ruins her ability to catch mice. I think the practice
is deplorable, however I'm not too squeamish to talk about it.