Round One. Response One: Introducing the Debaters
The Political Inquirer will be hosting a three round debate between “M” of the group blog ATHEISM IS DEAD and Leo Pardus of DE-CONVERSION. The “thesis questions” of this debate are these, “Is Atheism beneficial or dangerous to society?” and similarly, “Is Theism beneficial or dangerous to society?” The debate is moderated by Brian LePort, the editor of the forthcoming AZUSAREMIXED.COM and Political Inquirer contributor.
Today we will introduce the debaters, tomorrow the debate begins…
Brian: Can you please give us a brief biographical sketch of who you are so that our readers will be able to understand why you have been chosen as a participant in this debate and why you hold the position that you do?
M: I was raised Roman Catholic until my mother decided that she couldn’t put up with my rebellious attitude anymore, which was in full swing around early adolescence. During my teen years I considered myself as Agnostic and often wavered back and forth between that and Atheism. During this period, I was a devout martial artist who found “eastern” spirituality and philosophy utterly fascinating. I absorbed this sort of thinking for quite some time as I was pursuing a career as a professional fighter.
By age sixteen I was a full-fledged Atheist until my world became flooded with suffering and heartbreak. The first of my pains, my mother was diagnosed with a rare disease, which caused enough suffering for me because I had to watch as my own parent died slowly right before my eyes each day. She was later cured by way of a stem-cell transplant (thank God), but before then it was only a tragedy.
My dreams of becoming a professional fighter and going to the Olympic games were also shattered after a severe injury that I obtained right before try outs. This led to me being temporarily paralyzed for a few months and then I was later told by my doctor that I could not fight any longer if I wished to continue walking.
Afterwards, I developed a severe depression and started taking medications, which only made things worse to the point of having split personalities and attempting suicide. At this time I lost most of my friends, the love of my life, and the trust of my family all due to my horrid mood swings and violent behavior, which to this day I still take credit for no matter the condition that I was in.
I attempted to go to college to find something for myself, but I was doing poorly in classes and could never concentrate. All these events eventually led me into some run-ins with the law which landed me in jail, half-dead, screaming to the unknown as I suffered a complete emotional breakdown and physical injuries from my altercation with the authorities.
After being released, I was nursed back to health by my parents and my best friend. It was at this point that I started considering God again and questioning my pupose in life. I soon became an Evangelical Christian, and remained one for about two years, which I consider my “zealot phase”. I was also very fortunate to no longer be depressed and I was finally able to enjoy being in a mentally stable state.
Around the earlier part of my twentieth year I began to become more interested in Christian apologetics to the point that it became my greatest hobby and intellectual pursuit. During this period I went through many more hardships, which included the loss of my best friend, but I endured through faith and hope in God. For about three years now I have progressed from being an Evangelical, to more specifically a Baptist, to a Methodist, and I have finally ended up as Eastern Orthodox. My studies have led me to conclude that the early traditions of the Christian community were preserved in the Eastern church. I have been at this place ever since and I am currently doing a comparative study between my brand of Christianity and Islam. We will see what happens after that is complete.
I am also happy to announce that I am in my final year of undergraduate studies at the university I attend and I will soon be obtaining a Bachelors of Arts in Philosophy (with a respectable GPA, nonetheless). I hope to pursue my studies further in graduate school and develop some great ideas for the world.
Most people ask me, “Why are you not an Atheist after all these things that have happened to you?” There are many answers to that question. As regards emotions and the evils that were my life (and part of me), I can only say that God makes sense of the concept of good and evil. On the intellectual side, I have had my doubts about religious beliefs (as you can probably tell by my inter-faith conversions and even my more recent study of Islam). But I have never understood why people cease being Theist simply because they have doubts about one particular sect of religion. It never seemed rational to me (now reflecting on my younger years) to abandon all religion because one version is not intellectually satisfying. At the same time, I believe that there are many positive things that can be argued for the truth of Theism, not only in practicality, but also as an absolute.
Brian: Thank you, M. Can you quickly tell our readers why you use the alias “M”?
M:The reason for my online alias, “M”, is not for the sake of safety or mystery, but rather it is a practical way to get people to focus more on the messages I present and my thoughts than my identity. I justify this in some way by borrowing from Bertolt Brecht’s concept of theatre called Verfremdungseffekt or “the Distancing Effect”. I will allow the reader to look that up for themselves.
Brian: Let us now introduce Leo, who will be representing the atheistic worldview in this debate. Leo, same questions.
Leo: In my youth I was raised “churchian” (that is a term that refers to people who go the church because that is what ‘good folks do’). In my late teens though I got serious about my faith. I learned to study the Bible systematically, and studied apologetics quite a bit, and tried to live as a Christian ought.
Between the mid-90’s and early-2000’s a number of events in my life caused me to critically reexamine the evangelical/fundamentalist Protestant faith I had lived for years. This reflection and study led me and my life, like M, to discover the importance of ancient tradition, church hierarchy, and liturgical worship. In early 2004 I jointed the Eastern Orthodox church with my clan.
All seemed well then. We loved the EOC and its worship services. And we loved the neat people in our parish. So what happened to make it all fall apart? The story is a bit long, but in short, I simply couldn’t find anything to indicate any substantive reality behind the Faith. No differences in the lives of believers compared to those of non-believers. No miracles. No answered prayers. Zip, zilch, nada. Fortunately, once I accepted this new life, it was fairly easy to rebuild a life without an “invisible friend”.
Let me encapsulate the story: For a number of reasons, after twenty-five years of being a Christian, I found that certain questions and doubts had grown to the point of nigh overwhelming. As I set to seriously considering these doubts, I first began to carefully sift through twenty-five years of prayer–not just my prayers, but the prayers of others. And I realized that no prayer had ever been answered in a clear, unmistakable way as far as I was aware. No cripple ever walked. No blind person gained sight. No deaf person started hearing. Nothing. Oh sure, there were some folks who beat cancer and other things like that, but nothing outside the realm of medical probability. And there were other coincidences too, but nothing one could put a finger on and say, “There! That was outside the realm of the natural or possible.”
Being a scientist, I dug into the literature for any studies on the efficacy on prayer. Lo and behild, there were actual, controlled studies that had been done. The result? A few studies showed marginal benefits, a few showed marginal detriment, and most showed no efficacy at all. In other words, there was nothing measurable in any controlled way.
It became obvious to me that I was talking to the air. No answers. No response of any kind. Initially I read several books on prayer, the existence of God, on struggling with unbelief. None of them dared to go where I was; they all pulled up short and scurried off into comforting, if not unsatisfactory, answers.
Then I compared the lives of Christians to the rest of the world. I looked at things that could be distinctly measured: like comparisons amongst divorce rates, criminal activity, health, family feuds–you name it. No differance could be found between any group of Christians and any group of non-Christians. Wait. I tell a lie: Catholics did have a lower divorce rate. Not hugely lower, but significant. This is not surprising given their stance on divorce. I can’t think of any other differences that were notable.
So…there I was. I couldn’t find anything to indicate any substantive reality behind the Faith. No changes in the lives of believers compared with non-believers. No miracles. No answers to prayer. Nothing. So here I was, facing a mountain of evidence that I had accumulated. Then came the critical question for me: Would I accept what I now saw as the truth, or would I push it away? I couldn’t push it away, so I was stuck. In an ironic twist, I found myself in a version of Martin Luther’s position: “Here I stand, I can do not other”.
Over several weels I slowly let go of the Faith. I “prayed” a bit. Those “prayers” all said, one way or another, “God, if you are real, do something. Anything. You ought to have no trouble showing me something that will convince me beyond doubt. Heck, I’ll gladly toss my mountains of evidence, my doubts–all that stuff–if you’ll just do anything.”
I would still sort of like there to be a supreme being who will, in the end, take care of us and deal with all the things too big for us. There’s still a longing for something eternal, and of ultimate, universal significance. But since I am sure it’s not there to be had, I find joy where I am and I don’t think about what another day has in store.
I am now pretty firmly convinced that there is no God. Of course, I’d be happy is I am wrong. Should there be a God or god(s) somewhere out there, he/she/it is encouraged to call anytime, day or night. Any miracle, visitation, revelation, and so forth, will do. It shouldn’t be any trouble for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to come up with something that will convince an honest skeptic.
As regards more personal trivia, I have been married twenty years and I am still madly in love. I love my kids almost as much as my gorgeous wife. I am a biological scientist by training and profession. I have been a martial artist for over a quarter century. And somewhere along the line I picked up a liking for chess, even though I am not very good at it.
Brian:“M”, Leo, thank you both! We will resume tomorrow with the first round of questions for our debaters. Readers, feel free to interact with this more biographical section of the debate. We apologize for the length of it, but we also want you to know these debators as the debate continues on.
Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Religion, Science | Tagged: "M", Atheism, Atheism is Dead, AzusaRemixed.com, Brian LePort, de-conversion, Leo Pardus, The Political Inquirer, Theism
I’m a … “Deist” I guess they call it. I don’t really see how atheism can be “dangerous” for a society. But I’ll have to wait and see how someone would make that case.
I am currently attending a five week seminar on India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and one of the classes I and some of my friends are currently attending is Religion. We have covered Hinduism and Jainism until now, but I have a fairly certain idea of where the entire philosophy is headed and the means by which it is getting there. On a more personal note, I am orthodox Christian and quite faithful.
Now with this background in mind, I find it hard to believe that having a distinct belief, no matter how abstract or how conservative, is quite important and indeed very beneficial to society. Without that, there will be a complete loss of faith where people will start losing interest in living because there “will be no point.” That, of course, is my personal belief.
What I think needs to be addressed is the fundamentalist Islamic reign that has begun to terrorize a lot of occidental peoples. I am sure that the third world war will not be about religion, but right now I have sensed a fear of that and indeed a well-founded fear at that. Muslims, taught to hate the infidels, try to purify their world of them. Why would any society need that kind of social thought? It is the religions that advocate principles contrary to popular ethics that needs to be eradicated because it is adverse to a healthy, balanced social order.
excuse the grammar and in your mind add the word “not” (off to class!)
We go both ways on this issue, but don’t see it as an either/or situation.
Looking forward to reading your debates.
I have my own reasoning for it but I will just say I agree that an atheist society is dangerous. The main problem I see is that an atheist society simply cannot exist–the atheists of today are weakening Christianity in the West, but what is it being replaced by? Islam, via immigration and converting. And they won’t put up with atheists in the long run.
Simply put I think atheists are doing themselves a harm by trying to convert others to their worldview. We’ll find out in 50 years.
Look forward to the debates!
Yeah but it’s not atheism’s fault, that Islam (another religion) is coming in. If we’re talking about in a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with an atheist society.
The debate has already started but regardless of the views expressed, Leo I would seriously consider whether or not scientific research alone is an appropriate reason for you to abandon your beliefs as you can almost always find a study that proves whatever you want. I am happy that you have, and I strongly recommend you keep, your wonderful open mind.
Having said that, I believe that “Love” and “Forgiveness”, whether you believe in the life of Jesus or not, are the two most important aspects of making some sense out of life.
Religion opposed: sufferage, abolition, civil rights movement, and dozens others.. a secular society sounds like the way to go. if you enjoy freedom and whatnot.
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”
[...] 27, 2008 d-C News (dCN) – The Political Inquirer will be hosting a three round debate between “M” of the group blog ATHEISM IS DEAD and Leo [...]
Mike Norman,
I think you’ve got it backwards. The entire abolition movement was motivated by Christians of the Puritan strain and the Civil Rights movement was led by Martin Luther King with an emphasis on Christianity.
I think you need to read on your history a tad more.
Lance, There will be some strain of Christianity that supports every civilized idea on the planet. What needs to be considered is what fraction of Christians, as a whole, not just a fraction of it, was in support of a particular idea and then claim that Christianity was in support of it.
Leo, you might wanna check this out for talking points: http://meinwords.wordpress.com/arguments-against-the-existence-of-god/
Actually, the closest thing we have to creeping facism (and we’re still a long way from it, I’ve seen a lot worse than here) is called ‘Political Correctness’ and it’s decidedly secular/athiest in nature.
From what Leo described, it sounds like he is a scientist, and knows way more about the limitations of scientific research than you do.
We from de-conversion.com are excited about this debate, although slightly mistified as to why the questions are so “loaded”. At least they’re loaded both ways.
Personally, I’m glad to see something other than the “Christianity vs. Atheism” debates that are usually out there. Atheism is not an attack on Christianity. In fact, it’s not even an attack on anyone at all. Atheism is simply the lack of theism, much as sugar-free is simply the lack of sugar (and better tasting in sodas than sugar, in my opinion).
I hope to see some good things from both of you. Happy debating!
Leo – did you consider that you saw no answers to your prayers not because they weren’t heard, but because you were praying for the wrong stuff? Just imagine what sort of God would have to exist if, when we set up an experiment to measure his efficacy, he had to respond to prove his existence! No self-respecting god would play that sort of game. Indeed the transcendent God of the Bible could be shown not to exist as revealed if he did have to pander to every whim of the sceptic. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, it would seem.
Sadly, it appears to me, your deconversion was the result of a poor theological upbringing. You had been encouraged to look for evidence in the wrong places, and drew the wrong conclusions when you didn’t find it. God has revealed himself fully and finally in the person of Jesus Christ, so it’s to history you should have gone for your evidence. It’s excellent that you still have an open mind though so I trust you’ll have more success in your hunt for truth when you start to look in the right places.
Looking forward to the debate!
Let’s hope this debate stays professional and educational. There’s too many blogs out there that just spew hate and ignorance and continue spreading incorrect and misleading information.
Hopefully, the focus stays on the topic of effects on society rather than which one is right or wrong, since very few people are willing to be open to consider options outside of their personal beliefs or reasoning.
TheNerd, there are scientific studies that “prove” that prayer works and there are scientific studies that “prove” that prayer doesn’t work. If I go out to prove either case based solely on scientific studies I can come to either conclusion depending on what studies I select. Even with appropriate sample sizes and long enough duration these two scenarios still exist.
Science is not capable of proving that prayer works because as Sam stated, God has his plan for our lives and it is often bigger than our prayers. Prayer is answered but not always how we wish.
In Medical Science, the inconvenient event of self healing is addressed by comparing the effect of the medicine relative to sugar pills and also lack of treatment. Often enough those receiving sugar pills consistently fare better than those taking nothing at all. I would never accept proof that prayer works based solely on this because Prayer could just be the placebo.
The truth about religion is that it is more for the benefit of your soul than it is for the benefit of your body. When Science can do studies on your soul let me know.
[...] The ‘God in Society’ Debate Brian LePort hosts a debate on ‘God in Society’ exclusively at the Political Inquirer. The debate takes place between an Atheist and a Theist, moderated by LePort. Round One: God in Society, an Atheism-Theism Debate [...]
[...] IS DEAD?and Leo Pardus?of DE-CONVERSION. the ???thesis questions??? of this debate are these, ???Ihttp://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/26/god-in-society-an-atheism-theism-debate/Books : Satanic BibleBuy Satanic bible books [...]
As far as “proving” the existence of God, David Hume was a philosopher who tried to do just that. Basically, I believe, his argument was that it is impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God (obviously he was agnostic). He would say that jeven though you cannot prove his existence via praying, you also have no proof that God does not exist.
Of course, there is always the argument that everything in the world is a product of previously existing matter (chicken and egg scenario) but obviously, something had to have ALWAYS been there to start it all. (something cannot be started from nothing). Many people believe the “initiator” is God. Now seeing God as being actually involved in our lives is a separate argument, and one I believe is more then a scientific matter.
There is also Pascal’s wager which says that if you are atheist you may end up going to hell for it, and it is not worth the risk, but as a religious person you have a chance of either going to heaven or nothingness, but no consequences. So based on that, it does not make sense to risk atheism. Personally, I think this is a bit of a cop out…
http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gcl is a website that I particularly liked, especially number 5.
Finally, I believe that religion brings good to the world, but religious (and racial and cultural) ignorance brings evil.
Leah,
Got a moment and wanted to briefly address a little of what you said.
obviously, something had to have ALWAYS been there to start it all.
You may be aware that some have proposed that there was no beginning. That the universe is simply eternal. Of course there are many other theories. Stephen Hawking’s book “The Universe in a Nutshell” gives some summaries of them.
(something cannot be started from nothing). Many people believe the “initiator” is God.
But this just removes the problem one degree. Now you have something from nothing, namely God. I know he’s proposed as the “uncaused first cause” but you can’t argue strict cause/effect and then create a “magic step” to get it all started. ….. Well you can of course, but it obviates consistency.
Re Pascal’s Wager: Let me share another wager with you. I know it as the de-conversion wager, but you may find a version of it by another name:
“Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.
LeoPardus in response to Pascal’s Wager offered what was describe as a ‘de-conversion wager, saying: Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.
Exactly what part of this is suppose to be the underlying wager?
In regards to the rest of what I have to say here I’m fine with us just pretending that even those who would otherwise be considered good people nonetheless, very often consciously pass up opportunities to ‘make the world a better place’, usually whenever it entails what may subjectively be taken as an apparently unacceptable amount of inconvenience.
With no God to account to, why should I try to make the world a better place? Given the fact that death is one of the few certainty’s we truly have (not to mention it’s so sudden), when your your done, and regardless of the type of person I am while alive (good or bad) once I’m dead life will go regardless just as it has all those years before I got here, why should I ‘care’ one way or the other about the state of the world?
These are some of the central life questions that have driven men to all sorts of altars, and mere question begging offers no response whatsoever(not that I don’t get your underlying theme of that your ability to do ‘good’ things and not be religiously inclined, but such is insufficient to address these matters which so central to many, if not to yourself).
One more thing, when you say “If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.”, you assume that this God doesn’t have a will of His own and that your grade will be based on the good you saw fit to do (convenient or otherwise), and not that will. Again mere question begging doesn’t suffice to answer a truly concerned mind.
sorry I said ‘when your your done’, but I meant ‘when your dead your done’. I see a few other misprints as well, please forgive my incompetent typing and failure to proof-read before posting. I think you got my drift though.
[...] interesting debate is going on over at the Political Inquirer about god in society: Introduction; Round 1; Round [...]
netlosh:
Good queries.
Exactly what part of this is suppose to be the underlying wager?
The wager is either “God does exist” or “God does not exist”. Pascal’s wager provides sum reasons to bet on the former and the De-con wager provides some reasons for the latter.
With no God to account to, why should I try to make the world a better place?
Just a few thoughts. By no means an extensive list.
-There are humans to answer to and I like life better out of jail, and not getting beat up, and not being shot at, etc.
-If the world’s a better place, there are odds that my own life will be better.
-If you help others when you can, odds are they will help you when you need it.
-If it turns out there is a deity to answer to, I’d rather answer for trying to be good than for trying to be a total arse.
why should I ‘care’ one way or the other about the state of the world?
‘Cause you have to live in it.
you assume that this God doesn’t have a will of His own and that your grade will be based on the good you saw fit to do (convenient or otherwise), and not that will.
Actually I assume he’s gonna have a will. If he is benevolent, then one might expect judgment based on principles of benevolence that we understand. If judgment is based on caprice, or terms we don’t understand, then we could all be screwed… or not.
Leo,
I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to actually find myself in disagreement with someone that is as intellectually honest and candid as you seem to be (Christian, atheist, or otherwise). I won’t waste time highlighting specific responses of yours (here and in round 2) that have lead me to view your character, but it’s a breath of fresh air I couldn’t resist commenting on. Nonetheless:
You said: The wager is either “God does exist” or “God does not exist”. Pascal’s wager provides sum reasons to bet on the former and the De-con wager provides some reasons for the latter.
Contrary to your stated intent, your wager doesn’t seem to get beyond the plea that people ’should’ live their life ‘making the world a better place’ despite whether or not there is a god. In fact question of whether or not there is a god doesn’t give the slightest hint of even being central to your statement, let alone actually providing any ’sum reasons’ to bet on the non-existence of God.
Also, your statement, which according to your stated intent is suppose to be somewhat of a counter-wager to that of Pascal’s, seems to lack the needed internal comparison of the consequences of one choice versus the other found in Pascal’s wager possessed. Hence my question about what exactly were you wagering.
As most your ‘wager’ seemed not so much concerned with the question what may be the best ‘bet’ concerning the existence of God, but more a statement about people being ‘good’ regardless. If I’m unfairly reading what you’ve said, please correct me. I do understand that you may not have the time to spell this out, given that your engaged in a debate with M right now (sorry I didn’t actually make the connection before responding to you the first time)… Moving on for now…
In response to my question about why I should try to make the world a better place you responded as follows (though not exhaustively):
There are humans to answer to and I like life better out of jail, and not getting beat up, and not being shot at, etc.
I’ve assumes that just because one may not be out to save the world doesn’t necessarily mean they must be a criminal (though it maybe a symptom).
I was actually contrasting the person engaged in and active pursuit of ‘making the world a better place’, and the person who just wants to actively pursue his own happiness (as defined by his/herself within the confines of the law of course, which isn’t exactly a guarantor that he/she won’t get trouble anyhow). I qualified the later by reference to a self consciousness of having only one life they have to live, and living such in a world that was here before they got here and will be here when they leave .
Also history, as you know, is replete with examples of people who were “out to make the world a better place” being jailed, beaten, and shot at. A strong case could be made concerning the dangers of actively trying to make the world a better place. And lets not even get started on the atrocities committed by individuals proclaiming intents of ‘making the world a better place’. I thinks its fairly obvious why I’d thin your response comes up short here….
If the world’s a better place, there are odds that my own life will be better
Not if I die during the process of trying to make the world a better place.
If you help others when you can, odds are they will help you when you need it.
Perhaps, but the odds of being sorely disappointed in your hour of need are pretty good too. Many would say better than the odds you refer to.
-If it turns out there is a deity to answer to, I’d rather answer for trying to be good than for trying to be a total arse
Fair enough.
In response to the question about why should care about the state of the world you responded as follows:
‘Cause you have to live in it.
This question was connected with the first, and came with a few unacknowledged qualifiers (i.e. a context). Your response doesn’t actually address my question as posed, and I’m not of the habit of allowing myself to be cast in the role of other’s straw-men (intentional or not). I await a more direct response (should you have the time or even the inclination to attempt one)…
You said: Actually I assume he’s gonna have a will. If he is benevolent, then one might expect judgment based on principles of benevolence that we understand.
I suppose I should have taken more care to clarify this when I was calling into question of your underlying assumptions. When I said that this God may have a ‘will’ meant it in a broader since than what your statement is restricted to. I’ll try to concisely elaborate and attempt to avoid belaboring the issue.
God having created the world and everything in it may have a ‘will’ beyond just how we respond to our fellow man, but also how we respond to Him (Her/whatever, this is beside the current point). Perhaps this God in all his omniscience may deem the highest good and hope for the world is necessarily intertwined into how we respond to Him and thus ‘wills’ for such. I don’t bring this up to get into a big back and forth with you over the specifics of what I just said (not that I’d run from one), but merely to try to tie up the loose ends from my previous statement concerning your assumptions.
All things considered, I guess it’s not so much that you assume ‘no will’ on the part of God, than it is that you’ve presumptuously restricted it.
If judgment is based on caprice, or terms we don’t understand, then we could all be screwed… or not.
I agree…
netlosh
Thanks for the compliments. I always enjoy honest, open exchanges.
your wager doesn’t seem to get beyond the plea that people ’should’ live their life ‘making the world a better place’ despite whether or not there is a god.
Right. That’s all it’s supposed to get to. (FTR, it’s not my statement/wager. It’s from the de-conversion site.)
your statement, which according to your stated intent is suppose to be somewhat of a counter-wager to that of Pascal’s, seems to lack the needed internal comparison of the consequences of one choice versus the other found in Pascal’s wager
Yep, I think I see what you’re saying. Really the de-con wager only addresses one quarter of Pascal’s, and only partially at that. Of course, to address it more thoroughly would require a lot more than a brief statement. As you know Pacal concludes that if there is a god, one is best off believing in Him. The de-con wager just points out that such a conclusion may not be all that certain.
your ‘wager’ seemed not so much concerned with the question what may be the best ‘bet’ concerning the existence of God, but more a statement about people being ‘good’ regardless.
‘Twould be a fair enough summary.
I was actually contrasting the person engaged in and active pursuit of ‘making the world a better place’, and the person who just wants to actively pursue his own happiness
I’m basically a fan of “enlightened self interest”. Trying to make the world a better place seems likely to redound to my benefit. Some folks don’t see it that way. I think they are short-sighted.
history, as you know, is replete with examples of people who were “out to make the world a better place” being jailed, beaten, and shot at. A strong case could be made concerning the dangers of actively trying to make the world a better place.
(and further on:
Me- If the world’s a better place, there are odds that my own life will be better.
You – Not if I die during the process of trying to make the world a better place.
True ‘nuff. Probably gotta be a zillion motivations for people who deal with such bad treatment in the name of trying to improve the world. But it doesn’t give me any motivation to scrap trying to improve the world and just go become my own selfish pig. That way seems to me very likely to be “unfun”. In other words, from my point of view, trying to make the world a better place may not always make your life a bed of rose petals, but being a selfish jackass is quite a bit more likely to make your life very thorny. (Gee, have I got my own “Pascalian” wager going here?)
In response to the question about why should care about the state of the world you responded as follows:
‘Cause you have to live in it.
I await a more direct response (should you have the time or even the inclination to attempt one)
I went back a reread. I’m afraid I don’t know what more you want. If you wish to explain what you meant and why my brief response didn’t cover it, I’ll be glad to take another run at a better answer.
God having created the world and everything in it may have a ‘will’ beyond just how we respond to our fellow man, but also how we respond to Him. Perhaps this God in all his omniscience may deem the highest good and hope for the world is necessarily intertwined into how we respond to Him and thus ‘wills’ for such.
This is a pretty fair set of assumptions that fit quite well with Christian views of God. So……. I agree that God may want me to respond to Him in some way. As it is now though, I cannot even imagine how I should do that. (Of course I know what most Christians would say to that; and what Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, etc would say.) As I stand now, I’m pretty thoroughly convinced that there is no deity at all like the one commonly purported by Christians. (e.g., personal, involved, concerned, etc.) So I’m left with responding to what I can see and believe in, namely my fellow man. What I’ve seen so far in life tells me that living decently, being kind to others, helping where and as I can, and generally being a good and honest person, is the best way to live. (i.e., it’s the best way to be happy, have friends, enjoy good things, and so on) If there is a deity, who made that world to work that way, then he ought to be pleased at me trying my best. If there’s no deity, I will still end up having lived a reasonably happy life, and having made others happy in the bargain (which makes me happier too).
Of course no one has to agree with me on any of this. Christians can insist I’m not doing enough, or not being right with God. “Bad guys” can insist I’m a sap. In the end, I can’t really concern myself too much with such opinions. After all I’ve got a life to live.
OK. Enough blather for this round.
[...] IS DEAD?and Leo Pardus?of DE-CONVERSION. The ???thesis questions??? of this debate are these, ???Ihttp://politicalinquirer.com/2008/06/26/god-in-society-an-atheism-theism-debate/’City of Love’ author blends 16th century spice and spirituality IANS via Yahoo! India News New [...]
Leo,
Right. That’s all it’s supposed to get to. (FTR, it’s not my statement/wager. It’s from the de-conversion site.)
The origin of the ‘wager’ is of no interest or concern of mine. I’ve merely questioned the relation between the stated intent of the ‘wager’ (as presented by yourself), and the actual utility of the ‘wager’ to live up to such expectations. The odd thing here is that you seem intellectually honest enough to recognize the limitations of the utility of this ‘wager’, however, for some as yet unknown reason, you don’t seem to think this to be a problem for any pretenses in regards to the stated intent.
FTR, when I asked, “Exactly what part of this is suppose to be the underlying wager”, I was concerned (partially anyhow) with what seemed to me a pretty obvious discrepancy between the limitations, and the stated intent of usage of this ‘wager’.
Really the de-con wager only addresses one quarter of Pascal’s, and only partially at that.
I have no clue how or what your measuring here, neither have you indicated what ‘part’ you’d be referring to. I do know that you presented this as if you were addressing the entire ‘wager’, and now it seems your kind inconspicuously conceding the ineptness of your ‘wager’ to be so.
Of course, to address it more thoroughly would require a lot more than a brief statement.
Not if you have a counter-wager of course. :^)
As you know Pascal concludes that if there is a god, one is best off believing in Him. The de-con wager just points out that such a conclusion may not be all that certain.
Fine, how?…
———————————–
I said: your ‘wager’ seemed not so much concerned with the question what may be the best ‘bet’ concerning the existence of God, but more a statement about people being ‘good’ regardless.
Then you said: ‘Twould be a fair enough summary.
Always great to know I haven’t misconstrued whats been said here.
———————————-
I said: I was actually contrasting the person engaged in and active pursuit of ‘making the world a better place’, and the person who just wants to actively pursue his own happiness
You then said: I’m basically a fan of “enlightened self interest”. Trying to make the world a better place seems likely to redound to my benefit.
I gleaned your pro-’enlightened self interest’ stance from your previous statement. But I think its fairly clear that I’ve drawn a distinction (in both post) between the active pursuer of a better world, versus the guy/gal merely seeking his own happiness. The latter effectively encompasses what you refer to as one who has an ‘enlightened self interest’.
Furthermore, the notion of ‘acting in your own interest’, be it ‘enlightened (whatever that’s actually suppose to mean, if it means anything) or other wise, is rather vague, particularly when such is being recommended as something people ’should’ do for the betterment of the world. It seems to me to be a fact that if history were allowed to play any part in the context here, this ‘notion’ would be even more aptly described as quite the double-edged sword.
FTR, my original question asked why I should try to make the world a better place,i.e, be an active pursuer of the betterment of the world. IMHO, such is demonstrably not synonymous with merely ‘acting in your own self-interest’.
Some folks don’t see it that way. I think they are short-sighted.
Of course, cause after all what nut really wants to be shot, jailed, or beaten if their not ’short-sighted’…
Probably gotta be a zillion motivations for people who deal with such bad treatment in the name of trying to improve the world.
Well thats gotta suck for any psychologist/sociologist who might try studying the behavior of these persecuted do-gooders…
But it doesn’t give me any motivation to scrap trying to improve the world and just go become my own selfish pig. That way seems to me very likely to be “unfun”.
At this point I’m beginning to assume that if you actually had any further basis for stating such beyond merely how things ’seem’ to you (assuming you too are not one of those loathsome ’short-sighted’ ones), you would have probably just said so by now…
In other words, from my point of view, trying to make the world a better place may not always make your life a bed of rose petals, but being a selfish jackass is quite a bit more likely to make your life very thorny.
There are plenty selfish jackasses who do just fine. Better than most even!
(Gee, have I got my own “Pascalian” wager going here?)
Ok, now I’m starting to think you either don’t know what Pascal’s wager is, or you somehow tend to forget what your referring to the instant your hands hit the keyboard.
———————————-
I said: In response to the question about why should care about the state of the world you responded as follows:
‘Cause you have to live in it.
I await a more direct response (should you have the time or even the inclination to attempt one)
You then responded: I went back a reread. I’m afraid I don’t know what more you want. If you wish to explain what you meant and why my brief response didn’t cover it, I’ll be glad to take another run at a better answer.
Sure. I’d pointed out that death is certain, when your dead your done (at least from the perspective your advocating anyhow), regardless of what you do or don’t do (be it acting in your own ‘enlighten self interest’ or otherwise), the world, which was here before you and will be here when you die, will yet carry on as if you never existed. I then asked why I should care one way or the other about the state of the world. All these things considered, it doesn’t seem to matter to care, for it would seem that I don’t matter. I also pointed out that these are well known issues/questions that have driven people to all sorts of altars, and that mere question begging does nothing to address these. Neither does merely ignoring the context of a profound life question….
———————————-
I had said: God having created the world and everything in it may have a ‘will’ beyond just how we respond to our fellow man, but also how we respond to Him. Perhaps this God in all his omniscience may deem the highest good and hope for the world is necessarily intertwined into how we respond to Him and thus ‘wills’ for such.
This is a pretty fair set of assumptions that fit quite well with Christian views of God. So……. I agree that God may want me to respond to Him in some way. As it is now though, I cannot even imagine how I should do that. (Of course I know what most Christians would say to that; and what Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, etc would say.)
Please don’t drift away from the subject. I used this as an example to honed in on an unfounded assumption in your statement (or whomever statement it actually is) concerning what a God would or ought (as if) to do merely by virtue of His benevolence, despite His being denied, ignored, or whatever else.
As I stand now, I’m pretty thoroughly convinced that there is no deity at all like the one commonly purported by Christians. (e.g., personal, involved, concerned, etc.)
Ok, I assumed this one!
So I’m left with responding to what I can see and believe in, namely my fellow man.
What about him?
What I’ve seen so far in life tells me that living decently, being kind to others, helping where and as I can, and generally being a good and honest person, is the best way to live. (i.e., it’s the best way to be happy, have friends, enjoy good things, and so on)
The well-off selfish bastards, and the folks who envy them, would reasonably disagree.
If there is a deity, who made that world to work that way, then he ought to be pleased at me trying my best. If there’s no deity, I will still end up having lived a reasonably happy life, and having made others happy in the bargain (which makes me happier too). Of course no one has to agree with me on any of this. Christians can insist I’m not doing enough, or not being right with God. “Bad guys” can insist I’m a sap. In the end, I can’t really concern myself too much with such opinions. After all I’ve got a life to live.
As I said before, mere question begging does nothing to answer those essential life question I alluded to previously. In light of everything you seem to have to say, again, I can only assume that if you actually had anything more penetrating or ‘enlightened’ to share on this matter, then you graciously would have.
OK. Enough blather for this round.
Well we all know what that means…Take care!
netlosh:
My efforts are to engage in civil debate. I don’t believe that I’ve insulted you or taken on a condescending or snide attitude toward you. Your last post seems to be intended to generate as many backhand slaps as you can.
Should you choose to take on a civil attitude, you may repost your responses or queries.
Leo,
My efforts are to engage in civil debate. I don’t believe that I’ve insulted you or taken on a condescending or snide attitude toward you. Your last post seems to be intended to generate as many backhand slaps as you can.
There is naturally a discomfort we all feel when we’ve our positions challenged, particularly when done so in such a direct and public manner as I have concerning your ‘wager’. In my experience, people tend to really not be so much put off by how you said what you did, but that you’d dare say anything that challenges them so openly and directly. That natural tension is not in my power to rectify… But nevertheless let be really clear, I neither haven’t referred to you or any of your arguments by any unsavory or unflattering names (not even fallacious), only challenged/critiqued them.
Where it appeared that you’d misconstrued my points, I merely called you on it, NOT for the sake of insulting you, but for the sake of the forward progression of the discussion we’re having. To that end I even proceeded to clarify myself further.
Any instances where it could be reasonably argued that I have come off as ’snide’ or ‘condescending’, could only be in reference to something in your words which I’ve found rather, well, ’short-sighted’. To all of which, I’ve lived up to any reasonable standards of civil debate by confronting them head on via reasonable critique, and minus any ad hominems.. Thus far, you have yet to make the slightest claim that I’ve misread you. Incidentally, you haven’t rebuffed me either.
Should you choose to take on a civil attitude, you may repost your responses or queries.
I’ve been plenty civil with you sir and don’t need to ‘repost’ anything (you heard me the first time). The respect I’ve given you thus far, is all you got coming from me. If can’t/don’t want to rebuff me on this, then leave it for the next guy/gal to take it up. But casting aspersions that for me to handle your statements here I needed resort to incivility is asinine.
Unbiased third party here. I read netlosh’s comments here about the same as Leo did. Saying that you’re interested in being civil and honest and then writing in the (English-deficient) style that you chose is remarkably oblivious at best and more likely disingenuous. I wouldn’t bother debating you on the topic either. It’s a better use of my time (and Leo’s, I assume) to debate with someone who has a chance of making some contribution to the world (and/or an understanding my complex use of the contraction “you’re”).
Jelly,
Unbiased third party here. I read netlosh’s comments here about the same as Leo did. Saying that you’re interested in being civil and honest and then writing in the (English-deficient) style that you chose is remarkably oblivious at best and more likely disingenuous.
The only thing disingenuous here if your claim that this is and ‘unbiased’ third party. As for my own part in this, there was nothing to be ‘disingenuous’ abou. Your assessment is ridiculous.
There were no smoke and mirrors, and no strings. I didn’t approach Leo with any tricks up my sleeves. And though my style may be ‘deficient’, my arguments are potent.
I wouldn’t bother debating you on the topic either.
Well now there’s one way to preserve your respective bubbles. Two thing on this:
First, I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that if you actually had a response to my inquiries, you wouldn’t be interested in wasting your time on mere ad hominems. Let’s not make any more or less of it then shall we….
Lastly, FTR, there was no debate (though Leo and I certainly hold differing world-views). I thought the ‘de-con wager’ was a bit over heralded given its content, and asked the guy a few directly relevant questions concerning it. That he managed to allude my inquiries via having taking offense at my apparent brazenness is, as I’ve said before, not within my power to rectify.
It’s a better use of my time (and Leo’s, I assume) to debate with someone who has a chance of making some contribution to the world (and/or an understanding my complex use of the contraction “you’re”).
Lol! Dude, you’re another guy sitting at a keyboard, do try not to take yourself too seriously now. I’ll do the same…
Jelly,
The ‘deficient’ nature of my style (which you’ve already noted) is exacerbated by a proclivity to not proof-reading. I’ll work on if. In the meantime, the first paragraph of my response should read:
The only thing ‘disingenuous’ is your claim of being an ‘unbiased’ third party. As for my own part, as far as I’m concerned there was nothing to be ‘disingenuous’ about.
netlosh,
You seem to have the talons sharpened, ready for a good fight; by all means, give it your best! However, you seem to be overlooking the general sense of what Leo is saying, especially in regard to the wager.
From my reading, Leo isn’t so much positing the de-con wager as some anti-thesis to Pascals’ thesis. Rather, he seems to be simply showing there is another way to look at the debate if you don’t believe in God: that if you live your life in a good way, then you may be o.k. if there is an afterlife. I don’t think the wager is meant to disprove or undermine Pascal’s, so much as offer a wager for non-believers to live a good life. Therefore, I don’t think Leo feels the need to debate the de-con wager’s worth compared to Pascal’s; I don’t think he was attempting to side step your argument out of fear so much as relevance. Hence, he agreed with you.
You seem to be a pretty sharp person. You would do us all a favor to make sure you’re addressing the larger points and there necessary details than hack at everything you see. Granted, if a point is essential to the thesis/atheist debate, it’s worth addressing. However, arguing back and forth over the legitimacy of the de-con wager doesn’t seem to be really worth the time.
I understand that you’re a philosophy student and, thus, are used to analyzing every detail of an argument: assumptions, appeals, logical fallacies, etc. However, we’re going to be spinning a lot of wheels if we can’t determine the details worth debating from the details that simply are debatable.
And the pie is in my face, as this debate is over a month old.
From my reading, Leo isn’t so much positing the de-con wager as some anti-thesis to Pascals’ thesis.
Silentj, I think if you carefully examine Leo’s responses over the course of our discussion, you can see that there was no misinterpretation of his intent on my part.
Rather, he seems to be simply showing there is another way to look at the debate if you don’t believe in God: that if you live your life in a good way, then you may be o.k. if there is an afterlife.
Actually he said that himself, and I directly challenged him on it. In fact I made several challenges that don’t directly concern Pascal wager, but his ‘de-con’ wager.
You would do us all a favor to make sure you’re addressing the larger points and there necessary details than hack at everything you see
Silentj, respectfully, your own interpretation of the conversation employ’s a significant amount of tunnel vision. If you read my response again it can be clearly seen that I challenged all the angles of his argument in addition to the comparison with the Pascal’s wager.
I forgot to add this
I don’t think he was attempting to side step your argument out of fear so much as relevance.
Everything relevant to what Leo had to say was addressed directly and fairly (unless you care to actually point out an example where this isn’t the case). Leo ran because he couldn’t deal with the arguments that were being thrown at him, not because I missed any of his underlying points.
You seem to have the talons sharpened, ready for a good fight; by all means, give it your best!
I don’t know if you meant this as some sort of challenge, but everything I have to say on this is pretty much already posted and ready for you to take your own shot at whenever your ready. So far you don’t appear to have read through the comments before commenting…
[...] Introducing the Debaters: Leo Pardus and “M” Round One: Five Questions and Five Answers Round Two: More Questions and Answers Final Statements (Coming Soon) [...]
Ah, you guys never tire of arguing the irrelevant. The only demonstrably true answer to “Is there a god?” is “I don’t know.” Neither I nor anyone else will ever objectively prove the existence or the non-existence of a god. Both are equally inconceivable to an open mind. It really comes down to the limitation in our brains; a finite mind just plain can’t effectively grasp the infinite.
While there is not a “correct” answer available for that question, there is an optimum answer: “It doesn’t matter.” Chew on that for a minute. If your behavior is based on observing the Universe and chosing the path of enlightened self-interest, your behavior will be the same whether that Universe is the product of a Sky-Daddy, a Clockmaker, or pure Random Chance. We can figure out the rules by observing and testing, it doesn’t really matter who “wrote” them. In fact, if there is a god, are you not tempting his wrath by wasting all this energy on blather? Get to work and quit trying to figure out what you can never know!
Pascal’s Wager – please… That represents the height of cynicism. As a recovering Catholic, I have to think that based on my childhood pet dogma (motivation for the behavior is as important as the behavior itself), that’s a ticket straight to Hell, if such a place exists outside of the human mind.
First of all i will admit to not reading all of the above. I don’t have time right now but i do have time to make a quick point or two.
Regarding the opening by M above:
He says ‘my mother was diagnosed with a rare disease’. ‘She was later cured by way of a stem-cell transplant (thank God)’
My question is why do people who believe in any god thank him/it for curing a disease? Surely, if there is a god (and he is the creator) they would not have created diseases in the first place?
Also, isn’t stem cell research done by mankind? Why thank god for something we did ourselves?
I’m assuming M is a believer (like i said, i don’t have time to read it all right now) and that he didn’t use ‘thank God’ as a figure of speech. If he did then i appologise.
Though due to the fact that he capitalised the word god, i suspect he is and my point stands.
Ok, i just read a bit more.
Lance, what the hell are you talking about?
An atheist society is dangerous because it dilutes Christianity so that Islam can propagate?
Are you suggesting that the propagation of Islam is a bad thing and this makes atheism dangerous for indirectly allowing it? That somehow if there was only Islam and Christianity then the world would be a better place?
I haven’t researched this but i’m willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of wars and civil unrest comes down to religion.