Religion & Gambling (Nolan Dalla's 1/19 Card Player article)
Stuart Resnick
coincidence that it appeared in the same issue that Phil Hellmuth & Steve
Badger made rather philosophical offerings. I agree with Nolan that the
friction between religion & gambling arises not because of their
differences, but their similarities. An ex-Mormon friend of mine read the
article & noted that the two states that build the most garish "temples"
(Nevada & Utah) happen to be right next to each other.
Religion & gambling are dependent on the fact that life is filled with
unknowns ("When you die, where do you go?", "Will the board pair on the
river?", etc, etc); since most of us aren't satisfied with not knowing,
there's an attraction to such things. Just as movies etc put a frame around
life in order to bring it down to a size we can grasp, churches & casinos
put a "frame" around the unknown so we can approach it in our individual
ways.
Generally, people approach the unknown with awe & reverence in church, or
with playfulness in a casino, & often with desire in either location. At
higher limits in the casino (or in low-limit religion), this distinction may
blur. Also: for people who want to curse the unknown, it's not socially
acceptable to shout grievances on the street, but at a poker table you can
get away with it. This isn't always true in church, though I believe that
whining at God is an acceptable practice in some sects.
It's my chosen belief that the Golden Rule operates in life as clearly as
probability operates at the tables. But since there's no frame around our
existence, the variance is monstrous, & the long term is longer than we can
imagine.
Stuart (RandomStu)
sres...@mail.com
http://go.to/randomstu
T Val
Tom V
Asha34
I must respectfully disagree with your post. While it is true that religion
is an attempt to deal with the unknown; gambling is the exact opposite. It
seeks to mystify the known -- namely the science of probability. The gambler
is denying or at least temporarily suspending the truth of something real
(namely the house advantage); the religious person is accepting as real the
existence of something unidentifiable and, ultimately unknowable.
The Golden rule and probability operate in different dimensions, as it were.
Probability is a mathmatical certainty which, in a casino at least, runs
completely counter to a gambler's actions. (If a person were guided by the laws
of probability he would not gamble in a casino) The Golden rule is principle
which does not operate independent but guides human behavior.
Ashley
Mel Brown
Asha34 <ash...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010214220119...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> Stu,
> I must respectfully disagree with your post. While it is true that
religion
> is an attempt to deal with the unknown; gambling is the exact opposite.
It
> seeks to mystify the known -- namely the science of probability. The
gambler
> is denying or at least temporarily suspending the truth of something real
> (namely the house advantage); the religious person is accepting as real
the
> existence of something unidentifiable and, ultimately unknowable.
No, I believe that Stuart got it right in his original post.
Most gamblers are not denying or attempting to mystify the science of
probability. They simply have no understanding of probability. Lacking an
understanding, they believe all the intuitively appealing myths, such as the
notion that the "law of probability" implies that some outcome that has not
occurred in a long time is therefore "due" to occur soon.
The traditionally religious person, in the same way, tends to be ignorant of
what science has taught us, and also of the criteria that scientists when
they accept or reject proposed explanations of how the world is constructed
and operates (i.e., of proposed "laws of nature"). As a result, they, like
the gambler, also believe all the intuitively appealing myths that purport
to explain how the world came to be, what our place is in that world, what
will allegedly happen to us after we die, and how we ought to behave.
Of course, the "laws" of behavior sometimes make good sense (e.g., don't
kill, don't steal, etc.) for a stable society, but the belief that a god
needs to impose those laws (or indeed did so) is what constitutes the myth.
And the existence of a god, or of many gods, is of course an assertion
supported by one or another tradition and reinforced by churches or tribal
elders or such, and taught at an early, impressionable age, and yet remains
nothing more than an assertion (though a different assertion in different
societies, each postulating its own gods and its own myths).
Gambling and religion are both ways that most people seek to gain a (false)
sense of control over what they see as a frightening, uncertain world.
Stuart Resnick
> Most gamblers are not denying or attempting to mystify the science of
> probability. They simply have no understanding of probability. Lacking an
> understanding, they believe all the intuitively appealing myths, such as
the
> notion that the "law of probability" implies that some outcome that has
not
> occurred in a long time is therefore "due" to occur soon.
There are different ways that people approach gambling (or religion). Some
gamblers indeed are ignorant of probability & therefore expect to be
long-term winners at EV- games. Others -- more typical, I'd guess -- go to
spend the day at a casino, sit down at perhaps a video poker machine, &
wonder whether this will be the day that they hit a royal flush. Whether or
not it really will be the day is a mystery that probability can't answer, &
the mystery provides the thrill & attraction of the game.
> The traditionally religious person, in the same way, tends to be ignorant
of
> what science has taught us, and also of the criteria that scientists when
> they accept or reject proposed explanations of how the world is
constructed
> and operates (i.e., of proposed "laws of nature").
Again, some people use religion like this. Being ignorant of science, they
for instance look to the Bible as the authoritative word on how long the
earth has existed. More typically, though, people use religion to approach
questions not answered or addressed by science, like who am I & why am I
alive.
In originally comparing religion & gambling, I wasn't thinking of the
participant ignorant of what's known through science, but rather those
consciously or otherwise drawn to facing what's unknown.
T Val
> ...people use religion to approach
> questions not answered or addressed by science, like who am I & why am I
> alive.
> In originally comparing religion & gambling, I wasn't thinking of the
> participant ignorant of what's known through science, but rather those
> consciously or otherwise drawn to facing what's unknown.
>
> Stuart (RandomStu)
> sres...@mail.com
> http://go.to/randomstu
Stu.
As an aside, I feel that "science" does attempt to address fundamental
questions. As Steven Weinberg once wrote, "Why is there something instead of
nothing?"
Tom V
Stuart Resnick
> As an aside, I feel that "science" does attempt to address fundamental
> questions. As Steven Weinberg once wrote, "Why is there something
instead of
> nothing?"
I know I've heard that question before. It wasn't in a science class, it was
in Existential Philosophy. I couldn't remember the source; askjeeves.com was
useless, but google.com quickly revealed that it was Martin Heidegger. He
called it the fundamental question of *metaphysics*.
B68edison
see the words "Existential Philosophy" and "AskJeeves" in the same sentence.
With all due respect Stu, I believe you err in certain statements. I find it
hard to believe you studied any philosophy, let alone "Existential Philosophy".
Don't get me wrong, all the "two bit" words look quite impressive to some.
First I would like to say something in response to your statement concerning
"religious people tending to be ignorant of what science has taught us".
"Science" has not taught you anything. You are "taught" by yourself or by
someone else. For example: a teacher, parents, friends, etc... (have you
performed your own personal experiments to determine how old the earth is? Or
are you using someone elses information to document your own personal beliefs?)
Ironically, this is the same foundation on which Mel based his negation of some
religious beliefs: "assertion.....taught at an early, impressionable age and
yet remains nothing more than an assertion...." You mentioned that some
people "use" religion for one reason or the other. That is necessarily your
personal, experiential observation or opinion, which is entirely invalid for
the purpose of any meaningful dialogue concerning "philosophy". If you were to
inquire to any "religious" person, God is reality, someone, or in some
religions, "something" that can be known. For you to "assume" what that
religious person states as fact to be false, you yourself must assume infinite
knowledge. When you are able to say.."I, Stu, have infinite knowledge, I have
been to every "corner" of the globe, I have experienced every human and
dimensional experience, I have traveled space, far and near, every galaxy,
every inch of space and dimension in existence, I am omnipotent, I have
traveled time, past and future, and what you religious people are claiming to
"known" are, in fact, "unknown" ", then your statements will be valid.
Honestly, if you ask a religious person questions such as "When you die, where
do you go?", do you think their answer will be "it's unkown"? Of course not.
That same person may give you any number of answers, none of which will include
the word "unknown". It may be "unknown" to you, but you cannot say it is
"unknown" to them, or anyone else for that matter, without having infinite
knowledge, however; I suppose you could be one of those people that have
e.s.p., but that would be supposition on my part. Anyhow, not all religious
people have the same "gambling=satan" view you imply. (again, supposition on my
part) I am a religious person, but I am by no means the model Christian. I
like to play poker for small stakes as a means to gather friends together
socially. If I win every hand or lose every hand, it does not affect my
ability to pay my bills or provide for myself one iota. I view poker as a game
of skill, much like chess, however; there is no skill involved in putting a
token into a slot machine. (I can't say I've never done it though) For those
people that cannot control themselves, yes, I feel gambling is wrong (ex:
Daddy cannot buy milk for baby, but he's a real "nut-cracker" at the poker
table). Each individual has his/her own level of acceptance, or level of
"right and wrong". One could easily make the argument "you could donate the
money you play for small stakes poker to a charitable organization". Very
true. But also by that rationale, I don't need this computer to survive
either, I could sell it and donate the money to charity. Or for that matter,
the time I spent writing this email could have been spent doing something more
constructive. I think you get the idea, to each his own. On a lighter note,
the local "Catholic" church in my neighborhood has a bi-monthly "casino night".
Now this I think is disgusting. I can see the barker outside "come on in and
gamble in God's house folks....where the big boys come to win" Anyhow, I wax
eloquent (just kidding). I await your retort.
tagbarbarason
racetrack/
you pray harder at the track
TaG
WJR
Gambling and religion do indeed have a great deal ( pun intended) in
common.
The casino is the second greatest monument to gullibilty ever built.
The cathedral is the first.
WJR
WJR
>Snip<
>>It's my chosen belief that the Golden Rule operates in life as clearly as
>>probability operates at the tables. But since there's no frame around our
>>existence, the variance is monstrous, & the long term is longer than we can
>>imagine.
>>
>>Stuart (RandomStu)
>>sres...@mail.com
>>http://go.to/randomstu
>>
>
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" sounds like a good
idea until you meet someone who enjoys being raped.
WJR
Bill Alan
cathedral is the first.
>
==========================
Whoops.
You forgot about NASDAQ.
Bill Alan
PegSmithNow
>
>"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" sounds like a good
>idea until you meet someone who enjoys being raped.
Now if that isn't a contradiction in terms, I don't know what is.
Peg
Tad Perry
"Stuart Resnick" <sres...@home.com> wrote in message
news:hkDi6.96150$R5.41...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
I like this subject. It's a good subject. Christ said: "You are
the salt of the earth. But if you lose your salt what good are
you?" or words to that effect. I remember that he hung out
with the outcasts of his day. Prostitutes and so on. And I don't think he
would have a problem with gamblers at all.
Me?
I'm a very salty kind of person. I'm not interested in
being overly pure or anything like that, but I like keeping
a positive mental state as much as possible and not have sour emotions and
to realize that poker really is addictive and to
moderate it.
If it's one of the many flavors in life, it's a good thing.
If it's the only flavor, I'm not so sure that it is a good thing.
But each person must make up their own mind on that.
There are worse lives that could be lived, but there are better
ones, too. You have to find the good in it and take that, and
see the bad in it and leave that behind.
And be free.
tvp
Stuart Resnick
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" sounds like a good
> idea until you meet someone who enjoys being raped.
Yeah, the literal Golden Rule is a simplification, just as it's a
simplification to try to read other poker players based on what you'd do in
their situation. That's better than nothing, but it's more accurate to
consider information that makes their strategy different from your own.
Likewise, it's more meticulous to try to help others based on what they need
or want, rather than what I'd need or want.
Stuart Resnick
> I'm not interested in
> being overly pure or anything like that, but I like keeping
> a positive mental state as much as possible and not have sour emotions
I find gambling (or poker playing) a great occasion for seeing how quickly I
gain or lose a positive mental state based on my fluctuating outside
situation. It can be used as a way to practice keeping a steady mind, or at
least being aware of the unsteadiness & not controlled by it. On the other
hand, gambling can be an occasion for just wallowing in sour emotions that
give temporary relief but longer-term problems.
pacpa...@aol.com
Resnick <sres...@home.com> writes:
>I find gambling (or poker playing) a great occasion for seeing how quickly I
>gain or lose a positive mental state based on my fluctuating outside
>situation. It can be used as a way to practice keeping a steady mind, or at
>least being aware of the unsteadiness & not controlled by it.
Hi Stu - Deep. (Why would you want to practice keeping a steady mind?)
>On the other
>hand, gambling can be an occasion for just wallowing in sour emotions that
>give temporary relief but longer-term problems.
I remember once years ago when I lost all the cash I had brought with me to
Las Vegas. I felt free. It felt good.
Go figure. However, I'm not sure I was wallowing in sour emotions, or that I
had longer term problems. That sounds sick.
Congratulations on your recently becoming the (unofficial) Chowaha champion of
the world, at ESCARGOT. Nicely done.
Buzz
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Stuart Resnick
> >I find gambling (or poker playing) a great occasion for seeing how
quickly I
> >gain or lose a positive mental state based on my fluctuating outside
> >situation. It can be used as a way to practice keeping a steady mind, or
at
> >least being aware of the unsteadiness & not controlled by it.
<pacpa...@aol.com> wrote
> Hi Stu - Deep. (Why would you want to practice keeping a steady mind?)
The better the shock absorbers on the car, the clearer I can see the
scenery.