My Final Word On Religion For A While

[David Sklansky]

Too many tournaments and big cash games coming up. So here's my bottom line:

There is nothing close to a good scientific explanation for the two endpoints of this universe. The Big Bang or whatever started it, and the fact that the most advanced animal we know that exists, has a self awareness, and realization of impending death, that no other animal has. Thus an intelligent person can speculate that the explanation may involve some sort of powerful entity outside of our known universe or laws.

Most people, of course, are more concerned about the second question. Their own consciousness. Where does that come from? That's the question that draws them to religion and makes them think there is some sort of God out there. The other stuff is just corroberating evidence. Or it least it once was. Nowadays science has shown that most of the stuff between the two endpoints, would occur naturally, once the Big Bang started a universe with subatomic particles and laws of physics. Not everything is explained. But enough is so that it is is reasonable to assume that it all, in theory, could be. Except of course for the Big Bang.

As to consciousness, scientists could put a big dent into the idea that it is evidence for God by making a computer that could somehow convince us it was really conscious. But even that wouldn't be the nail in the coffin. Unless of course that computer could turn into YOU.

Thus it makes sense to think a godlike entity MIGHT exist. But this is way too vague to make a lot of people feel comfortable. Deep down they know that the more specific they get in their beliefs, the more likely they are to be wrong, but their yearning for clarity makes them ignore that fact. Which makes them susceptible to others who claim to know the exact answer and back their assertion up with books and "evidence" that has been carefully constructed. So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't. Usually their lack of doubt comes from an inability to do critical thinking or a strong psychological need to be sure of their beliefs. Their are other possible reasons as well.

The question now becomes whether persuading people that a less dogmatic approach to the question of God is a worthy endeavor. Would it be a good thing if people who want God in their life to realize that they are simply hoping or assuming he exists and that they really have no good reason to think they know what form he has if he exists at all?

My answer is that it would depend on whether it made them or us happier. (Except in the case of scientifically brilliant people who are being held back by their religion.) Unfortunately the average person, I think, would be less happy if he didn't have specific religious beliefs to cling to. I'm not sure about that but my observations over many years tell me it is so.

What about our happiness? Would we be happier if others had no religion or a more vague one. It all comes down to the precepts of that religion. There is little doubt in my mind that we would all be better off if most people subscribed to liberal Christianity or liberal Judaism (or the more vague religion if the Golden Rule was part of it). I'm sure other religions fit the bill as well. More conservative religions are a bit more iffy. The ones that want to tell you what to do. I do want to point out however that it is wrong to think that people would necessarily change their minds if they weren't religious. There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

There are however two types of religions that are bad for the world. Besides the fact that they believe in supernatural things for sure that they have no right to. One type is a religion who has monstrous rules. Worse yet if they are willing to back that up with violence. Forget the Golden Rule. The other type is one where in spite of lip service to the Golden Rule, the main criteria is belief rather than behavior. Better for us, and probably them as well, that people wou would otherwise believe that, be atheists instead.

[PairTheBoard]

Good luck with the games and hurry back David.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
There are however two types of religions that are bad for the world.
...
The other type is one where in spite of lip service to the Golden Rule, the main criteria is belief rather than behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was one of Jesus's main points, that the top religious leaders of his day did exactly this.

I

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The question now becomes whether persuading people that a less dogmatic approach to the question of God is a worthy endeavor. Would it be a good thing if people who want God in their life to realize that they are simply hoping or assuming he exists and that they really have no good reason to think they know what form he has if he exists at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

Does Heaven speak? [Confucius uttered this phrase more than a few times]

"Wereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" -Wittgenstein.




[ QUOTE ]
My answer is that it would depend on whether it made them or us happier. (Except in the case of scientifically brilliant people who are being held back by their religion.) Unfortunately the average person, I think, would be less happy if he didn't have specific religious beliefs to cling to. I'm not sure about that but my observations over many years tell me it is so.


[/ QUOTE ]


I would probably concur. Beyond that, the rest is silence.

-Zeno

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but your last sentence here should probably have been prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal", and all things are definitely not equal. There are major differences between religions that help us in determining their validity.

Moreover, though, let's assume for a minute that the Bible is true, and Satan is real. The influence of a deceiver could account for the existence of many separate religions as well. It's not so cut and dry that the mere fact that opposing religions are out there means that everyone of them is false.

Good luck in your upcoming tournaments!

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

There is nothing close to a good scientific explanation for the two endpoints of this universe...and the fact that the most advanced animal we know that exists, has a self awareness, and realization of impending death, that no other animal has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does human consciousness need explaining any more than animal consciousness? Human consciousness is merely an advanced form of the latter that can be directly traced to it via evolution. Unless you think there is evidence of some kind of discontinuity in human evolution, I see nothing particularly troubling about human consciousness.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are arguments relating to what the objective of the state is in allowing legal marriages (with benefits) at all..

for instance, if it is to promote an environment where two people are more likely to decide to have a child..the state may consider that to be worthwhile for the good of the state..

since homosexuals wouldn't be having children..granting them the right to legally marry would not serve the state's expressed purpose.

then we can get into details about the fact that a man and woman would then be allowed to marry even if one or both are sterile..while a two men can't..and that's not fair..or the fact that homosexual couples may be more inclined to adopt under legal marriage...and that may serve the state..

my point is only that there are indeed secular arguments to be made against gay marriage specifically...it just depends on what your thoughts on what the objectives of the state should be.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Human consciousness is merely an advanced form of (animal consciousness) that can be directly traced to it via evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is most certainly untrue. What science currently knows about how human consciousness could have developed is theoretical. Your use of the words "directly" and "traced" suggest that some type of detailed step by step process has been observed, and this is simply not the case.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of atheists who are against abortions or gay marriage

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Especially the latter? I've never heard anyone give a reason against gay marriage that wasn't somehow related to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are arguments relating to what the objective of the state is in allowing legal marriages (with benefits) at all..

for instance, if it is to promote an environment where two people are more likely to decide to have a child..the state may consider that to be worthwhile for the good of the state..

since homosexuals wouldn't be having children..granting them the right to legally marry would not serve the state's expressed purpose.

then we can get into details about the fact that a man and woman would then be allowed to marry even if one or both are sterile..while a two men can't..and that's not fair..or the fact that homosexual couples may be more inclined to adopt under legal marriage...and that may serve the state..

my point is only that there are indeed secular arguments to be made against gay marriage specifically...it just depends on what your thoughts on what the objectives of the state should be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't trying to claim that there isn't a possible secular stance against gay marriage. I'm just disputing that a lot of people feel that way, mostly because of how easily you just dismantled your own argument. When you take the "sanctity of marriage," a fundamentally religious idea, out of consideration, it doesn't seem like there's much to stand on.

[chillrob]

This is not religious per se, but I am an athiest, and believe there should be no such thing as legal marriage for anyone. This is something I am very big on; If there is enough interest in the topic, maybe there should be a thread on it?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not religious per se, but I am an athiest, and believe there should be no such thing as legal marriage for anyone. This is something I am very big on; If there is enough interest in the topic, maybe there should be a thread on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

there was a poll a while back in the politics forum (If I remember correctly) that asked whether or not we thought gay marriage should be legal...

pretty much all of the votes for 'no' were because people didn't approve of all legal marriages...

that's a pretty popular position around here because many 2p2ers are libertarians or anarcho-capitalists and what not.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post, Mr. Sklansky.

I agree with most of what you write, but take strong issue with the point quoted above. The fundamental reason that belief in religion induces negative social consequences is that belief requires at least some degree of irrationality. I would argue no good comes out of being irrational, or as you put it, "not thinking straight." A benevolent and robust code of ethics comes from reason, just like any other realm of knowledge. (Such as "following the Golden Rule" as you say.)

I suppose you could argue that "moderate" belief in a (mostly) benign religion is better than the alternative, in which irrational thinking may manifest itself in a more destructive way. However once reason is abandoned, it is only a matter of time until people do very bad things.

Ultimately, I don't blame religion per se for evil among men. Religion is merely the most common manifestation of irrationality. It would do absolutely no good if widespread belief in religion were abandoned if men didn't accept a philosophy of reason instead.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is that even moderately conservative religions help the world more than they hurt. In spite of the fact that they have some rules that we might not like and in spite of the fact that their members, with their lack of doubt, are not thinking straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post, Mr. Sklansky.

I agree with most of what you write, but take strong issue with the point quoted above. The fundamental reason that belief in religion induces negative social consequences is that belief requires at least some degree of irrationality. I would argue no good comes out of being irrational, or as you put it, "not thinking straight." A benevolent and robust code of ethics comes from reason, just like any other realm of knowledge. (Such as "following the Golden Rule" as you say.)

I suppose you could argue that "moderate" belief in a (mostly) benign religion is better than the alternative, in which irrational thinking may manifest itself in a more destructive way. However once reason is abandoned, it is only a matter of time until people do very bad things.

Ultimately, I don't blame religion per se for evil among men. Religion is merely the most common manifestation of irrationality. It would do absolutely no good if widespread belief in religion were abandoned if men didn't accept a philosophy of reason instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...

that is good for the people on the recieving end..and perhaps society as a whole

for the person with the false belief, however, they have been duped into giving more than they would have if they knew the truth..the percieved positive consequence of their action is neve recieved.

then again, maybe the good feeling of believing you will get a reward in an afterlife is, in itself, a reward worthy of their action.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...



[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming being charitable is a legitimate virtue, the group will be "most" charitable if they accept a rational code of ethics, or conversely, being irrational can only impede the "optimal" degree of virtuous behavior.

The dilemma here is that in so far as religious belief motivates virtuous behavior it is unnecessary; where it is necessary to justify behavior it is immoral. It poisons the ethical well, so to speak.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

good can certainly come out of being irrational.

if a false belief that there is a god who rewards charity in an afterlife is held by a group of people...they will be more charitable than they would otherwise...



[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming being charitable is a legitimate virtue, the group will be "most" charitable if they accept a rational code of ethics, or conversely, being irrational can only impede the "optimal" degree of virtuous behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

optimal from whose point of view?

as a reciever, my optimal degree (for the person giving to me) will be higher than that of the giver...

if the giver is behaving rationally...he will give his own optimum degree..that is, whatever is most beneficial to him (probably what makes him the most happy)...

the reciever would certainly gain less than his own optimum

if the giver is behaving irrationally (like in my example)...he will give more than his optimum...because he thinks there is a benefit that there really isn't..so he loses..

the reciever gains more in this case..probably closer to his optimum

..we can replace "the reciever" with "the rest of the community" if we like..

people other than the giver can gain from the giver's irrationality..(they could also lose..but we're talking about belief in god..and most beliefs of this sort offer rewards of some kind for being charitable)

[WiiiiiiMan]

If I feel in my heart that something is true, what does that say for me to go against that? I am talking if you really believe it, you either go with what you feel is true and right or you go against that.

You guys seem to think its impossible to feel this way. Just as sure as some of you know that answer to math problems, some people including myself are sure of things like our purpose for this time and place.

[David Sklansky]

The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[David Sklansky]

"Perhaps, but your last sentence here should probably have been prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal", and all things are definitely not equal. There are major differences between religions that help us in determining their validity."

Fair enough. But if that is true it would be reasonable for a person who doesn't have the inclination or ability to study and determine validity himself, to note those who have, and see which group as a whole has shown the most ability at determining the validity of stuff that there is no debate about. And anyone using that criteria would not choose your particular religion as the one most likely to be valid.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.

[born2ramble]

David and others,
I'm curious what you think about rising intelligence. In your eyes, does this 70% figure decline over time?

One of my favorite Sklansky threads to date.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto for this.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is totally my opinion based on reading, watching TV, and personal observation.

[NLSoldier]

awesome post David.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think David is getting soft in his age. He probably believes (and I wouldn’t argue with him if he does ) that the 70% number is conservative.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good. (Of course the opposite is true for the other 30%. Yet in this country anyway, only about 5% get close to their potential.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing this, but I would appreciate a source of some sort. Anyone? I am VERY interested in this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think David is getting soft in his age. He probably believes (and I wouldn’t argue with him if he does ) that the 70% number is conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, I think it's about right. Remember he doesn't state that the other 30% are rational enough, just that they could use a little more rationality.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps, but your last sentence here should probably have been prefaced with the phrase "all things being equal", and all things are definitely not equal. There are major differences between religions that help us in determining their validity."

Fair enough. But if that is true it would be reasonable for a person who doesn't have the inclination or ability to study and determine validity himself, to note those who have, and see which group as a whole has shown the most ability at determining the validity of stuff that there is no debate about. And anyone using that criteria would not choose your particular religion as the one most likely to be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people in the situation you described go with conventional wisdom, which is affected by a multitude of factors outside of the truth.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, though, let's assume for a minute that the Bible is true, and Satan is real. The influence of a deceiver could account for the existence of many separate religions as well. It's not so cut and dry that the mere fact that opposing religions are out there means that everyone of them is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probability that all these religions are man-made vs. satan created them?

You are proving David's point:


[ QUOTE ]
Usually their lack of doubt comes from an inability to do critical thinking or a strong psychological need to be sure of their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Probability that all these religions are man-made vs. satan created them?


[/ QUOTE ]
Did I say Satan created them? No, I didn't. One of Satan's greatest strengths is the power of suggestion. Nevertheless, my point remains. The existence of opposing religions should not influence a person's belief about the truth of the Bible because these religions would exist especially if the Bible is true.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
One of Satan's greatest strengths is the power of suggestion.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is off-topic, but why does Satan have any strength at all? (I ask those who believe Satan exists, obviously.) Why doesn't God just poof him out of existence? Is he unable or unwilling?

If the latter, then you must believe God thinks what Satan does is ultimately for the best, and is therefore good... correct? If the former, God is surely not omnipotent.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the "rational" choice in the prisoner's dilemma is to betray. Douglas Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality), for example, argues that the "superrational" will recognize the other prisoner is given the same choices, which implies a symmetric payoff matrix, and therefore the optimal choice must lie on the diagonal. So they should both stay silent, since both silent > both betray.

[ QUOTE ]

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this could possibly be true, by definition.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Did I say Satan created them? No, I didn't. One of Satan's greatest strengths is the power of suggestion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter if you say Satan created all the false religions, or that he only suggested them to humans. The existence of Satan in itself is so improbable that the argument is basically worthless.

It's like saying, "if Santa really has magic reindeer that would explain how he could visit every house in the world on one night." It's silly to use a fantasy creature to explain something when there are infinitely more probable explanations.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The prisoners in the prisoner dilemma problem both benefit if they irrationally believe that there is a god who will punish them if they act in their own best interests. That situation is mirrored in many real life scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the "rational" choice in the prisoner's dilemma is to betray. Douglas Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality), for example, argues that the "superrational" will recognize the other prisoner is given the same choices, which implies a symmetric payoff matrix, and therefore the optimal choice must lie on the diagonal. So they should both stay silent, since both silent > both betray.

[ QUOTE ]

I hate irrationality more than you do. But I have also probably been more exposed more than you, to the unfortunate fact that at least 70% of humans are equipped with brains with such low horsepower, that teaching them to be more rational might do them more harm than good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how this could possibly be true, by definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are not very good at being "superrational". If we look at Voting as a more general version of the prisoner's dilemma, even the great rationalist David Sklansky cannot bring himself to be superrational and Vote.

PairTheBoard

[LA_Price]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people, of course, are more concerned about the second question. Their own consciousness. Where does that come from? That's the question that draws them to religion and makes them think there is some sort of God out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this question subject to the narrative fallacy, in that we only ask it because it exists. If we didn't have a consciousness no one would ever know. If the universe is infinite(or at least very,very very large), is this capability beyond the realm of possibility of occurring? I guess this could be answered more convincingly if we found other intelligent life, but are we not the evidence that consciousness can occur? I guess in order for me to believe in any kind of God, someone would have to prove to me that consciousness could not happen randomly.

You also said that

[ QUOTE ]
There are however two types of religions that are bad for the world. Besides the fact that they believe in supernatural things for sure that they have no right to. One type is a religion who has monstrous rules. Worse yet if they are willing to back that up with violence. Forget the Golden Rule. The other type is one where in spite of lip service to the Golden Rule, the main criteria is belief rather than behavior. Better for us, and probably them as well, that people wou would otherwise believe that, be atheists instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that any religion is bad that doesn't possess the doctrine to change, or the willingness to say in certain areas "I don't know". Take for instance the bible. It includes many good things like the golden rule. Yet it also takes a stance on creation. Now despite the fact the fact that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people will still insist the earth is only 6000 years old because they embraced their religions stance of the documents infallibility. Yet 2000 years ago no one had any problem with this because they had no means of understanding how old the world was. So even though a religion can seem to contain no monstrous rules now, who knows how we will view some of those rules 2000 years from now.

Now take the constitution for example. It includes statements about freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. Yet it also included a passage about how blacks were 3/5 of a person. 200 years ago, the majority of people had no problem with this. The greatness of the document did not lie simply in what it said, but what it could say in the future. It could be amended and changed.

I vast majority of religions do not allow for change, or make that change exceedingly hard. It is for this reason that I think that believing in any particular religion is dangerous while believing in a God or Gods is not bad, as long is accompanied with the willingness to acknowledge the "I don't know" areas in life, and also able to change and reevaluate rules and beliefs.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think that any religion is bad that doesn't possess the doctrine to change, or the willingness to say in certain areas "I don't know". Take for instance the bible. It includes many good things like the golden rule. Yet it also takes a stance on creation. Now despite the fact the fact that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people will still insist the earth is only 6000 years old because they embraced their religions stance of the documents infallibility. Yet 2000 years ago no one had any problem with this because they had no means of understanding how old the world was. So even though a religion can seem to contain no monstrous rules now, who knows how we will view some of those rules 2000 years from now.

Now take the constitution for example. It includes statements about freedom of religion, press, speech, etc. Yet it also included a passage about how blacks were 3/5 of a person. 200 years ago, the majority of people had no problem with this. The greatness of the document did not lie simply in what it said, but what it could say in the future. It could be amended and changed.

I vast majority of religions do not allow for change, or make that change exceedingly hard. It is for this reason that I think that believing in any particular religion is dangerous while believing in a God or Gods is not bad, as long is accompanied with the willingness to acknowledge the "I don't know" areas in life, and also able to change and reevaluate rules and beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome post.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of Satan in itself is so improbable that the argument is basically worthless.


[/ QUOTE ]
My statement was simply a defense to those who claim Christianity is likely to be false because of the existence of opposing religions. In truth, those religions would exist especially if what the Bible says is true, thus negating the original argument.

Your statement that my "argument" is worthless infers that the Bible not true, but false, based on the premise that Satan's existence is improbable. However, I never said the Bible is true because Satan exists. I only said that opposing relgions are likely to exist even if the Bible is true because of what the Bible says about Satan.

Your statement, therefore, attacks a misrepresentation of my position.

[David Sklansky]

Nice try but no dice. Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.

I wonder if there is a name for that tactic which reminds me of the boy who murders his parents and asks for mercy as an orphan. If there isn't, there should be.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try but no dice. Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.

I wonder if there is a name for that tactic which reminds me of the boy who murders his parents and asks for mercy as an orphan. If there isn't, there should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a tricky bit of logic but I think txag has a point, if only a minor one. Consider the Attack against a Proposition based on the Fact that a lot of people disagree with it. Is that a legitimate attack? It really depends on other factors doesn't it? Certainly history is repleat with examples of true propositions which many people once disagreed with.

Now suppose that part of the Proposition included a claim that nobody Would disagree with it. In that case the Attack would be valid because the existence of disagreement would contradict the Proposition itself. Showing it to be at least False in that part. txag007's point nullifies the chance the Attack could be valid on that particular score. It's minor point, but valid as far as it goes.

However, the main topic of debate remains open. Is the Attack on the basis of the existence of disagreement a valid one, and if so why is it in this particular case? I think the burden of proof is on those making the Attack.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Now suppose that part of the Proposition included a claim that nobody Would disagree with it. In that case the Attack would be valid because the existence of disagreement would contradict the Proposition itself. Showing it to be at least False in that part. txag007's point nullifies the chance the Attack could be valid on that particular score. It's minor point, but valid as far as it goes."

Minor isn't the word. But it is is kind of ingenious. I'll give you that. But the burden of proof isn't on the attackers when they use the argument that the vast majoriry of brilliant people disagree with a theory (about whatever). You say:

"Certainly history is repleat with examples of true propositions which many people once disagreed with."

And I'll take it further and and admitit is repleat with examples of true examples which almost all very smart people disagreed with. But history is also repleat with far far MORE examples of FALSE examples that most smart people disagreed with. So it is fair to use that probalistic argument. Its a simple Ba-- oops, call it what you want. Even common sense.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
But the burden of proof isn't on the attackers when they use the argument that the vast majoriry of brilliant people disagree with a theory (about whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you say, and you've made this assertion repeatedly. But you define away as nonbrilliant exactly those people who end up specializing in the area of the proposition. And just how is your argument such a slam dunk on the face of it?

Most people disagree with Propositon P so therefore Proposition P must be false?

Does not follow.

Most "brilliant" people according to my definition of "brilliant" disagree with P so P must be false?

Does not follow.

I have a mathematical probability model for All Propostions of the Class P by which the probability of P being true is small?

You don't.

Most "brilliant" people by my definition of "brilliant" think proposition P is false, and they are usually right about Propositions of Type P, so my common sense tells me P is probably false.

We have no record of accuracy for the opinion of "brilliant people" according to your definition of "brilliant" for propositions of Type P. In fact, we've never had a way of determining what relationship propositions of type P even have to normal true/false propositions. So your common sense looks about as useful as the gut feeling people have about a Trillion lottery wins in a row being more than a googolplex to 1 shot.

The burden of proof is indeed on you. You don't meet it by claiming it's not.

PairTheBoard

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]
No. Basically, I'm not saying any of that. I am not speaking of a prediction or a prophecy. I am not speaking in general terms. I am saying that the existence of other religions is consistent with what the Bible says about the nature of God and the nature of Satan. I didn't say that this was evidence the Bible is true. I said that other religions being in existence is NOT evidence the Bible is false.

To put it in your terms, if you can gather from the nature of the theory that most people might disagree with it, then you CAN dismiss the disagreements of many in that the mere existence of the disagreements do not disprove the theory. This is different than dismissing the disagreements simply because the originator of the theory predicted that there would be dissenting opinions.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically you are saying that a theory that includes the prediction that most people will disagree with it can now dismiss the fact that most people do in fact disagree with it. Or go even further and somehow claim that the existence of detractors is evidence FOR the theory.


[/ QUOTE ]
No. Basically, I'm not saying any of that. I am not speaking of a prediction or a prophecy. I am not speaking in general terms. I am saying that the existence of other religions is consistent with what the Bible says about the nature of God and the nature of Satan. I didn't say that this was evidence the Bible is true. I said that other religions being in existence is NOT evidence the Bible is false.

[/ QUOTE ]


Firstly I never said that you implied that the theory's prediction of many detractors would ADD to its credence. What I said was that myriad detractors subtracts from its credence. And you can't make that subtraction go away by throwing in the fact that detractors are part of the theory. That is exactly the tactic of vitamin supplement charlatans when they throw in the idea that doctor's will be opposed because they will lose money.

On the other side of the coin the existence of competing theories is only evidence not proof. After all atheism, ironically is in the same boat as conservative Christianity. About the same 90% or so disagree with it. And atheists aside from disbelieving also usually predict that most people will disagree. And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them. And the fact that atheists predicted that disagreement doesn't ameliorate that.

PS To Pair The Board Only (Because Everyone Else Understands):

The reason I say that the fact that 90% of people disagreeing with a theory is evidence against it, is because of all theories ever proposed that were eventually settled, those that had 90% disagreeing, turned out to be right much less often than those which had few disagreeing.

[vhawk01]

How did the Mirage tourny go for you, David?

[David Sklansky]

Didn't play.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I say that the fact that 90% of people disagreeing with a theory is evidence against it, is because of all theories ever proposed that were eventually settled, those that had 90% disagreeing, turned out to be right much less often than those which had few disagreeing.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point I'm making David is that none of those Theories were in the same Class as Propositions like, "God exists", "There is an afterlife", "Some people go to Hell when they die", "God is Love", "Material existence is an illusion", etc. What defines this class of propositions is that they Cannot Be Settled.

And even for those theories that could be settled. You would never have determined which were the ones that actually would turn out true by applying your observation. They weren't determined true by votes. They were determined true by taking an unbiased look at the theory on its own merits.

PairTheBoard

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. The reasons why 90% of people believe in god have zero to do with the actual probability of him existing, no? There are many psychological payoffs to belief that do not require god's actual existence to be true. If anything, it is evidence that people overwhelmingly PREFER believing in god - but that's not the same as evidence against athiesm.

[JussiUt]

The fact that a lot of people believe something is true isn't scientifical evidence for its validity. Common sense says majority is probably right most of the time but that has nothing to with the actual truth value. It's just speculation and intuition.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What I said was that myriad detractors subtracts from its credence. And you can't make that subtraction go away by throwing in the fact that detractors are part of the theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that depends heavily on the theory. Your statement certainly does not cover all theories in all situations, but rather each theory must be evaluated on its merits. This is why the mere existence of other religions should not discount the truth of the Bible. Likewise, the tactic of the vitamin supplement charlatans should be evaluated with what the doctors' opinions actually are and not just the fact that the doctors oppose them.

[David Sklansky]

If a medical theory is opposed by doctors and that is the only thing you know about it, it is less likely to be true than one that isn't opposed by doctors. If you have extra information about the theory, that may be enough to convince somebody to ignore the doctors opposition. Granted. BUT that extra information CANNOT simply be that the theory predicts doctor opposition.

This is pure logic and probability, unrelated to religion and the more you argue, the sillier you look.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
And the fact that 90% of people disagree with atheists IS evidence against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and 300 years ago you would be saying the same thing about the earth being flat.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...I never said that you implied that the theory's prediction of many detractors would ADD to its credence...

[/ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed this sentence - despite being clear and straightforward it took me three goes to understand what it was saying. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
If a medical theory is opposed by doctors and that is the only thing you know about it, it is less likely to be true than one that isn't opposed by doctors. If you have extra information about the theory, that may be enough to convince somebody to ignore the doctors opposition. Granted. BUT that extra information CANNOT simply be that the theory predicts doctor opposition.


[/ QUOTE ]
Extra information about the theory? How about evaluating the theory itself? Regardless, the extra information, as you call it, about Christianity is not that the Bible predicts other religions. That's not it.

[ QUOTE ]
This is pure logic and probability, unrelated to religion and the more you argue, the sillier you look.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is about Christianity, but you are evaluating it from a mathematical standpoint because that is all you know how to do, primarily I would assume because you have not read the Bible. Calling me silly is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, one of which I quite frankly don't appreciate.

[David Sklansky]

"This is about Christianity, but you are evaluating it from a mathematical standpoint because that is all you know how to do, primarily I would assume because you have not read the Bible."

Its amazing how confused you are. Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get. I never argued on this thread about the idea that one might change their mind if they read the bible. I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors. ANY THEORY ABOUT ANYTHING. And you claimed that the above wasn't true if part of the theory included a prediction of detractors. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. And the fact that you don't get it is in fact evidence that your beliefs about ANYTHING can't be trusted.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on whether the detractors are experts in the area and have studied the issue. It also depends on whether the issue is competent for expert evalution. Otherwise, your Inference just prejudices consideration of the issue on its own merits.

PairTheBoard

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get.

[/ QUOTE ]
What? A quote from YOUR op: So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.

[ QUOTE ]
I never argued on this thread about the idea that one might change their mind if they read the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that you should not go through life basing your opinions on the opinions of others. There are so many reasons that others might reject what is in the Bible, deciding that it isn't important because other religions exist might lead you to miss an important truth. The Bible does not just predict detractors, it explains why they are there.

[ QUOTE ]
I am only arguing the fact that any theory with many detractors, has on average, a lesser chance of being correct than a theory with fewer detractors. ANY THEORY ABOUT ANYTHING...THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.

[/ QUOTE ]
The title of this thread and the OP indicate that you were specifically talking about religion.

[ QUOTE ]
And you claimed that the above wasn't true if part of the theory included a prediction of detractors.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, David. That's only what you told me I said. What I really said, again, was that the Bible explains why the detractors exist. When you have an explanation within the theory as to why the detractors are misguided, it discounts the argument, YOUR argument, that the mere existence of the detractors is enough to doubt the validity of the theory.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've completely misrepresented Tx's position throughout this argument. The orginal statement Tx responded to was this:

[ QUOTE ]

So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.


[/ QUOTE ]


His response:

[ QUOTE ]

I only said that opposing relgions are likely to exist even if the Bible is true because of what the Bible says about Satan.


[/ QUOTE ]

and
[ QUOTE ]

Basically, I'm not saying any of that. I am not speaking of a prediction or a prophecy. I am not speaking in general terms. I am saying that the existence of other religions is consistent with what the Bible says about the nature of God and the nature of Satan. I didn't say that this was evidence the Bible is true. I said that other religions being in existence is NOT evidence the Bible is false.



[/ QUOTE ]


Tx isn't saying anything about detractors in general. He's saying there are many false religions which is explained by the Bible, so the existence of the religions are not an argument against Christianity. I've said much the same in different terms. More than that, the Bible goes into much detail about man's nature and explains why so few follow God and instead indulge in idolatry. But you're trying to argue as if Tx had said "The Bible says people will disagree with God's word" and therefore we shouldn't take notice of detractors.

He also said this:

[ QUOTE ]

Extra information about the theory? How about evaluating the theory itself? Regardless, the extra information, as you call it, about Christianity is not that the Bible predicts other religions. That's not it.


[/ QUOTE ]

So he's denying your mischaracterizaton of his argument. His argument is that the Bible explains why there are false religions. And it isn't just a bare explanation, but includes facts about human nature that are obviously true. If the vitamin salesmen showed that doctors' income went down in areas where vitamins are sold they would have a case for what they claim about doctors' motivation. Or if the salemen said that the doctors' ulterior motives aren't evidence that vitamins are good for you, just that the doctors' statements aren't evidence that they aren't.

One other observation:

Suppose there are 100 worldviews only one of which can be correct and the other 99 are wrong. Your argument would apply to all the worldviews equally because each has 99 detractors. But the existence of the detractors can't itself be an argument against any one worldview. You might have a case if 90% of the world agreed on one worldview and that the only other worldview is wrong. From a strictly human viewpoint there would be an initial presumption that the 10% WV is suspect. But that's not the situation. So I don't see how opposition to any one religion is evidence the religion is false. Maybe we actually have to look at content instead of taking polls - even polls of "smart" people.

[Trier]

Since death, the state of ‘being dead’, is both an unknown and the unknowable, it’s generally not worth thinking about.

We can be sure, however, whatever it is, it’s going to be radically different from this other state, the state of being alive. Being alive, therefore, is a poor information base for making decisions about what could be, well, a pretty long time.

Yet people routinely make decisions about what being dead is going to be like while they’re still alive. So they subscribe to this god or that, this or that religion, brand of diet lemonade, whatever, as a sort of insurance.

It seems to me a much more logical and preferable course is to postpone all such decisions until I’m, well, dead. I mean, this could be a major decision.

You want to have a look around the place, maybe get a guest stay here and there, check a few things out. Maybe you could get a bidding war going among the local landlords, landladies, landthings. You might bargain on the number of virgins, number of orgasms, that sort of thing.

Or you might want to devote your death to barbequing meat (seemed to work out alright back when I was alive).

No – much safer to leave those decisions ’til then.

[Klompy]

DS,

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's more likely that the universe and earth were formed from a big bang, which was followed by life started from nothing, then I am by people who think there's something more behind it.

[Trier]

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's less likely that the universe started with the Big Bang, and the earth and life started from the same energy and a hundred and some elements in all their myriad complexity (no, not nothing), than that it all started from some god going 'Foop'. For all of the former there is enormous evidence. For the latter, none.

[David Sklansky]

"Suppose there are 100 worldviews only one of which can be correct and the other 99 are wrong. Your argument would apply to all the worldviews equally because each has 99 detractors. But the existence of the detractors can't itself be an argument against any one worldview. You might have a case if 90% of the world agreed on one worldview and that the only other worldview is wrong. From a strictly human viewpoint there would be an initial presumption that the 10% WV is suspect. But that's not the situation. So I don't see how opposition to any one religion is evidence the religion is false. Maybe we actually have to look at content instead of taking polls - even polls of "smart" people."

My argument in your example WOULD apply to all 100 worldviews. The fact that they disagree among themselves about who is right, doesn't change the fact that 99 agree that you are wrong.

Also remember that Txaq's argument ironically works almost exactly as well for Atheism as conservative Christianity. And my position is the same for both of them. Namely that with 90% of the world disagreeing with you or them I expect persuasive evidence of your or their correctness before I will agree. And don't bother to dismiss those 90% just because part of your or their position goes into detail about why you would expect those disagreements.

On the other hand this is all pretty irrelevant. Because even though you, Pair The Board, and Txaq are drawing dead in your quest to disprove that widespeadsd disagreement is always a factor in evaluating a theory, it is also true that it usually isn't a strong factor. It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors. I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
DS,

I'm still confused how a smart person can think it's more likely that the universe and earth were formed from a big bang, which was followed by life started from nothing, then I am by people who think there's something more behind it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't directed at me was it?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand this is all pretty irrelevant. Because even though you, Pair The Board, and Txaq are drawing dead in your quest to disprove that widespeadsd disagreement is always a factor in evaluating a theory, it is also true that it usually isn't a strong factor. It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors. I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your logic is wrong. This slam dunk logical factor of yours has problems. It is often negatively corollated with the truth. If the detrators are prejudiced toward the issue for some reason then bringing your Factor In to deliberations just Brings in that Prejudice. Why do that when you can just leave the Factor out and make an unbiased judgement of the issue based on its own merits? Because you think we should be forced to apply some general psuedo-probability that false propositions produce detractors? It's not allowed in a court of law. We are not bound by Sklansky-Logic to apply it when we can take a guaranteed fresh unbiased look at the issue on its own merits.

David, if you were called for Jury duty and asked if you could disregard public opinion about the case, would you be able to do it? Or would you insist the Court must accept your Sklansky-Logic?

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

My argument in your example WOULD apply to all 100 worldviews. The fact that they disagree among themselves about who is right, doesn't change the fact that 99 agree that you are wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, if an alien was told there are 100 WVs, and nothing more, simple probability would say each is only 1%. I don't disagree with that and I don't think Tx does either. Tx included content as explanation so it's more than just probability.

[ QUOTE ]

Also remember that Txaq's argument ironically works almost exactly as well for Atheism as conservative Christianity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you change his argument. You keep ignoring the whole argument, which isn't just a probability issue.

[ QUOTE ]

It is a factor that can often be overwhelmed by other factors.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you may be starting to get it.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm only arguing so vehemently because I don't like it when someone disputes my logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't your logic I'm disputing, it's your statement of the problem. Wasn't my illustration of the salesmen correct? If so, doesn't that mean the problem is different than what you're stating?

[David Sklansky]

"Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your logic is wrong. This slam dunk logical factor of yours has problems. It is often negatively corollated with the truth. If the detrators are prejudiced toward the issue for some reason then bringing your Factor In to deliberations just Brings in that Prejudice. Why do that when you can just leave the Factor out and make an unbiased judgement of the issue based on its own merits"

My goodness, what is wrong with you? And I mean this in a medically concerned way, not the other way. First of all it should be obvious to you that I consider that fact that 90% of people disagree with something to be only a tiny piece of evidence if there is any other noteworthy evidence. 100% disagreeing with you might be significant but not really 90%. And in some very rare cases 90% could even be inversely correlated. Meanwhile the fact that 90% disagreement may be misinterpreted by a layman is good reason to disregard it altogether, especially in a court of law.

But in spite of its small applicability the concept remains correct as long as it can be historically shown, as I assume it can, that ideas which had 90% disagreement have turned out wrong more often than those with lesser disagreement. For instance I am not perfect. When what I say is disagreed with by 80% of the population the chances I am right is 99.97%. When 90% disagree with me it drops to 99.86%. Even I can't escape this purely logical principle.