debates that matter

Sandlot sports are unrefereed, and deemed of little importance. So with sandlot debates. To really matter, a debate ought to have agreed upon rules, and judges. Rule one is, if the judge decides that position A is more plausible than position B, at the "end" of the debate, both sides accept the judgment. With this rule, those of dogmatic opinions (for example, "The Bible is the Word of God" or "The Bible is a bunch of man-made myths.") won't join in and muddy the waters for the life-choosers who just want to bet their lives on the most plausible ideas they can find.

We do have rules, regarding the conduct of posters here.Noone, however, is set up as a judge (expect for sprecial debates). Those who "judge" are those who read the debates (adding to them or, in most cases, not) and make up their own minds.I don't see anything wrong with this. Why do you?

truthist writes:

quote:

---

the life-choosers who just want to bet their lives on the most plausible ideas they can find.

---

That's Pascal's Wager, you know. Surely god knows who believes because he truly believes and who is simply trying to win a silly bet. Why do you assume one would be preferable over the other?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Why would either participant care what the judge thinks? What does it mean to "accept the judgement" in this context?

Did I say that there was anything wrong with sandlot debates? If so, I would have been wrong. They just don't matter. It's the debates with judges that are outside the debate that matter, that are worth remembering, and recognizing. Just like refereed games.

About Pascal's Wager:Well, to start with, Pascal was a very intelligent, well-spoken gentleman. He thought that God might respect someone whose life-choice was so strong that they would bet their life on believing in Him, and I am cautious about disagreeing with him. Moreover, as I have struggled through a variety of relationships, I have thought well of those who tried to do the decent, sensible thing, as best they could, even when "their heart wasn't in it." And we found, quite often, that the effort or choice to believe, to love, was followed by "that lovin' feeling."But, Pascal's Wager, in game theory, is based totally on the consequences of belief or unbelief, not on the plausibility of the idea that is being believed in, which is what a debate is all about. By having that debate carried out under well-defined rules, as enforced by a judge, an idea that emerges as plausible becomes a better bet, whatever the consequences.

"Why would either participant care what the judge thinks?"First, let's be realistic about what is going on here. Some are debating as part of a self-destructive denial mechanism, making a self-justifying stand. Others want to live, want to discover the best, most plausibile ideas to bet their life on, and want to benefit from the thinking and counsel of others. Now, the first won't really care what the judge, or anyone else thinks. The second know that neither themselves, nor those arguing an opposing position, can be fully trusted. It's too easy to rationalize, to indulge in wishful thinking, to break the rules of sound intellectual enquiry without knowing it. These want a judge, as objective as possible. Even several judges."Peer review" incidently, obviously does not qualify, since peers imply a sandlot debate with the players calling the fouls of other players.

"What does it mean to accept the judgment, in this context?"To concede to others that the opposing view has been fairly tested and judged to be more plausible than the view that one has been defending.This is an important question, when it comes to ideas about God. Atheists are gambling in a game with very high, even infinite stakes. Well, it's their life, and if that's their choice, that's what free will is all about. But, when an atheist begins to publically defend their position, and persuade others to agree with them, the vulnerability of those they talk to becomes important. What if, using illegitimate debating proceedures, an atheist persuades someone on the fence spiritually, to become an atheist, and atheism is ultimately proven wrong? Their disciple becomes, as one person put it, "twice as fit for hell." I would think that any decent atheist would be very nervous about this, about being responsible for someone forming an opinion due to their influence, that would send them to an eternal hell, if they are wrong. Thus, as an atheist, I would (and have) insisted that any public debate I might be a part of be overseen by impartial judges, who declare a winner. Then, if I "won" the debate, and someone abandoned their religion, I felt that I had made every effort to be legitimately persuasive, not a propogandist. And if I "lost" the debate, I said so, and went back to the drawing board, became more agnostic, at least.

You bet (pun intended) they are. You have one life to live. Living it based on a falsehood in the hope that there is something beyond that would be damaging that one chance you have. At lease I know I have this life to live as I see fit based on what I can know about it. I am making a sure bet with a modest (if you choose to call it that) return.The believer gambles this life for some tiny chance (perhaps zero) of a huge (infinite? ) payoff.It is somewhat analogous to the investor who faces a choice of putting his life savings in some sort of government bond with a (nearly) sure chance of paying a modest but actual return and another choice touted by his uncle Fred's friends sister to invest in a speculative startup that "will triple next year" but if much more likely to go belly up in a few weeks.As they say "you pays you money and takes your chances".

Why would I accept such a situation on the say-so of some judge, who may be operating under questionable judgement? The judge's reaction is not indicative of the plausability of my own position - after all, I wouldn't hold it if it wasn't the most plausable position - but rather, the plausability of my efforts to defend it.I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that I may have failed to effectively communicate my position. But I'm not going to radically alter my beliefs because I wasn't able to convince another person.I mean, if you failed to convince me of Christianity, would you become an atheist? I doubt it. Why make bets that neither of us are going to keep? Oh, poor baby - get all embarrassed when people point out the glaring logical errors in our favorite fairy tale, do we?Seriously, I don't go around trying to convert believers into atheists. It's not easy being an atheist, and I wouldn't wish it on people who are made happy by believeing in fairy tales. But if somebody asks me what I believe, or offers their religion in an effort to convert me, it's open season. Since they made their mythology the subject of conversation, it ceases to be sacrosanct. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't be an atheist, now would I?Frankly I'm not impressed by your reasoning. It displays a total lack of respect for another human being's intellect and free will. Remember any prospective atheist has exactly the same opportunity to choose that we all have. Nobody becomes atheist because they were tricked into it. It's a choice they make. You would deny them their free will choice, I guess. Are you willing to go the other way, though? If Christianity can't pass the test are you willing to give it up?Probably not. I guess free will is only valid to you when their will agrees with yours.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-22-2003]

quote:

---

It's the debates with judges that are outside the debate that matter,...

---

Who would you propose, to be these judges?Moose

Stephen Fretwell writes:

quote:

---

I would think that any decent atheist would be very nervous about this, about being responsible for someone forming an opinion due to their influence, that would send them to an eternal hell, if they are wrong.

---

BZZZZT!Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, Stephen Fretwell. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!Well, Bob, Stephen Fretwell has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Stephen Fretwell gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?I would think that any decent theist would be very nervous about this, about being responsible for someone forming an opinion due to their influence, that would send the to an eternal hell if they are wrong. What are you going to do when you find out that you were wrong, too, and are sent to the hell that actually exists for worshipping the wrong god?You're gambling in a game with very high, even infinite stakes. Are you sure you got it right? Have you considered the possibility that god rather accepts those who use their god-given intelligence to examine the world around them, even if it means coming to the wrong conclusion, rather than those who live their lives having pre-packaged ideas force fed them from a book of questionable authenticity?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Stephen Fretwell responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, to start with, Pascal was a very intelligent, well-spoken gentleman.

---

Irrelevant. Even very intelligent, well-spoken gentlemen can be wrong.

quote:

---

He thought that God might respect someone whose life-choice was so strong that they would bet their life on believing in Him

---

No, he thought that god was Catholic and anybody who wasn't Catholic was going to go to hell, so one should be a Catholic.

quote:

---

But, Pascal's Wager, in game theory, is based totally on the consequences of belief or unbelief, not on the plausibility of the idea that is being believed in, which is what a debate is all about.

---

But have you considered the possibility that the consequences of the belief/unbelief have been misstated? Pascal claims that the penalty for belief is zero and that simply isn't true. Belief requires expenditure of time, effort, and in the case of the Catholicism that Pascal advocated, money. If there is no god, then all that has been wasted. Instead of spending ones efforts on improving the life we have right here and now, it was squandered on something that doesn't even exist.Too, Pascal claims that there is only one god to believe in. Instead, there are infinitely many. Pascal assumes that the god that exists is the Catholic one (not just the Christian one...the Catholic one). So even if you do believe in god, that doesn't mean you go to heaven if god exists. You may have spent all that time, effort, and money worshipping the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.Too, Pascal claims to understand the motives of god by saying that god merely wants belief, no matter what the source. Instead, god might not want blind belief. God might actually despise belief and has rather decided to make life a test: You can depend upon your intellect and senses that god gave you in order for you to come to your own conclusion about the world around you, even though it may be wrong, or you can refuse to take any responsibility for yourself and let someone else do your thinking for you.In short, Pascal got the entire setup completely wrong. Thus, his conclusion is not justified.There is no justification to believe in god under the claim of not going to hell. It is just as likely to result in going to hell as non-belief.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Stephen Fretwell writes:

quote:

---

First, let's be realistic about what is going on here. Some are debating as part of a self-destructive denial mechanism, making a self-justifying stand.

---

Oh, cut the crap. You're talking about atheists.

quote:

---

Others want to live, want to discover the best, most plausibile ideas to bet their life on, and want to benefit from the thinking and counsel of others. Now, the first won't really care what the judge, or anyone else thinks. The second know that neither themselves, nor those arguing an opposing position, can be fully trusted. It's too easy to rationalize, to indulge in wishful thinking, to break the rules of sound intellectual enquiry without knowing it. These want a judge, as objective as possible.

---

Like, say, god?Stop trolling, stop playing games, and simply state your position.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

In betting your life, Pascal noted that the gambler who bet on there being an eternity in heaven or hell to deal with customarily got, as a fringe benefit of his bet, the acquisition of decent behaviors. That is, the exposure to religious teachings, the fear of judgment, the society of more-or-less law respecting companions all generated a fruitful life. Granted, there was some time expended that might have otherwise been spent on the Sunday paper, or in some other enjoyable pastime.But, the risk of being fooled clearly goes both ways, and is probably higher betting against heaven and hell. On the one hand, we have many religious leaders being hypocrites, tricking the gullible into giving them money, power, and position. On the other hand, we have the devil tricking the gullible into breaking the heart of the Person who loves them the most. Well, I for one would rather lose money, power, and position than break the heart of someone worthy who loved me. My pastor is probably a scoundrel, but maybe means well. The devil is pure evil. My pastor certainly seems to exist, the devil only may exist.But, to stay on topic, all the probabilities associated with these sorts of gambles are modified by debate that matters, for those trying to make the best bet possible.