It didn't really occur to me that it was an attempt to convert. For one
thing, if a person has renounced the use of logic and utterly rejects it
then you may as well forget about using logic to convince that person of
anything. To me it was simply a well articulated explanation of why
Pascal's wager is completely invalid. I have used the same arguments
myself and have done so on this list even if I was not directly refuting
Pascal's wager in particular. I have not necessarily used the same words
though and I liked the way it was explained. Personally, though, I would
add that in addition to having a really difficult time choosing a
religion to bet on there are also an infinity of things that can be made
up out of nothing and to each one can be attached dire consequences for
not believing them, so how does one choose one irrationality out of an
infinity of irrationalities to bet on?
Not withstanding all of that, though, let us take a look at other ideas
or things that one can be emotionally attached to. There are a lot of
people who are emotionally attached to Donald Trump and hang onto his
every word. Many of them renounce the use of logic in defending him and
it will offend them deeply if anyone criticizes him. Because they have
renounced the validity of logic it is very unlikely that they can be
converted. So does that mean that we should never criticize him at all?
Should we never try to inform one of his supporters because it might
cause distress for that person? Whether an evil comes in the form of
Donald Trump or in the form of a religion must we give up on fighting
evil because there are some people who are emotionally attached to that
evil and hold their beliefs in that evil very dear?
On 7/23/2017 1:53 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
In part, I agree with Miriam. At first I thought I was listening to a
couple of Robots, and there would be some funny ending. But the links
that follow are more interesting to me.
Still, nothing I heard would be discussions I'd use in trying to
"convert" others to Agnosticism. Everything that was said could force
the other person to dig in deeper. Of course that never stops me from
getting a bit over the top from time to time, but at least I know at
the outset that I am simply venting, not converting.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/22/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the problem with this little dialogue is that it is represented as a
rational discussion in which the young woman uses logic to convince the
young man of how irrational and, well, basically stupid he is, to be a
believing Christian. Aside from some of that stuff regarding how much money
he donates and that it may very well be used for something other than he's
been told, which is an unproved allegation because it does depend on the
church he attends, this idea that people will respond to logical arguments
regarding religion is clearly incorrect. Religion fulfills emotional needs
for many people. Logical discussion doesn't make those needs disappear.
Sometimes, challenging religious beliefs causes people to cling to them even
more strongly because they feel so threatened by the arguments against their
beliefs. And again, why the need to convince people not to believe what they
clearly do believe and what is such an important part of their lives? I've
noticed that some of the people who feel most strongly negative about
religion, are the people who were once very religious themselves. It reminds
me of former members of the Communist Party who became strongly
anti-Communist during the 1950's. And there's a blind guy who's on several
lists and whose political opinions are extremely right wing. He told me that
he was once a left wing Democrat and he worked on the McGovern campaign.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
rogerbailey81 for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pascal's Wager Again
It worked this time. At least it worked for me. I think I may see the
problem. The first time I listened to the whole presentation before deciding
to share it and by the time I copied the URL it had moved on to something
else and apparently it was the URL to that something else that I copied.
This time I found the recording again in my browser's history feature and it
started out with what I wanted to share and I immediately copied that URL.
When I tested it it worked. Now, if any of you try this and it does not give
you two synthetic voices discussing Pascal's wager after they have dinner
let me know and I will know that I am still doing something wrong.
On 7/22/2017 9:29 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender rogerbailey81 for
DMARC) wrote:
Okay, I'm going to try that link to the discussion on Pascal's wager
again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMk2kHZUrAc