Re: Do You Believe in Water?
Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:10 am
Lausten wrote:Scott Mayers wrote:Lausten wrote:Scott Mayers wrote:Oka
I'm not sure how it fits with this OP title though. ?
IT DOESN"T!!! I sent you to the book to look for the part where he talks about the H2O analogy. You brought this other stuff he talks about to this conversation.
I was trying to listen from the first part and each is 2hrs long. So when I realized that book was about defending what I noted, I raised it.
So basically you are saying that you believe that 'belief' with respect to the analogy of believing that water exists is of the same kind as what one defaults to trust over many years in 'practice', not simply a heads-or-tails vote to favor religion based on potential risks of being wrong, correct?
That's probably as close as you're going to get to rewording what I said, yes.
I'm not going to pursue the Islamic stuff with you because there is just too much to unravel there.
I agree that what we belief has a basis in reality as water's existence. What I think that Pascal's Wager was referring to was in light of seeing or understanding options in light of one internalizing doubt. In other words, one can 'believe' in X by default of NOT questioning something. But once you invest or learn OF other alternative arguments that demonstrate dissonance with what one knows, the 'belief' that one grew up with CAN be transferred into a grey region where one DOES see a "logical" contradiction in what they believed prior to their lifelong defaulted positions.
As such, I think Pascal's Wager was a SECONDARY reflection on oneself when such contradiction threatens what one knew before to 'decide' whether to adapt one opinion or the other. The original 'trust' one had in a worldview is threatened in often an "emotional" way. As such, one has to weigh whether one should abandon the emotional connection they had to the old beliefs versus taking the new ones that, with respect to their emotions still preventing them from abandoning the old, places them at odds SHOULD they discover they were originally correct BUT their choice to take on the new reality penalizes them FOR that decision.
I'm guessing that for Pascal, it was to the uncertainty of the novel truths that compete with all they knew comfort in before, he was suggesting a practical means to 'conserve' what one has known because the contradiction of their own versus the new ideas leaves them in reasonable discomfort, ...itself still a REALITY. If one could resolve the factors that enable them to BE comfortable with the changes, their internal emotions, one might reason, should adapt with ease. This does not occur often. It is the lack of 'closure' with respect to the old beliefs that prevents one to adapt to some new view that has also been understood as something 'bad' all their lives.
Of course, no matter what, the truth is the truth. But I believe Pascal's Wager was more about opting to remain conservative when or where the threat of being in error of the old thoughts do not risk themselves or others for holding them anyways. It is similar to the saying, "why beat a dead horse?" If the horse is dead, it lacks being defeated more regardless. But the virtue of allowing the illusion, even if wrong, has in itself a non-threatening function that may also serve to be of benefit to themselves and/or others. We don't, for instance, think there is something wrong with allowing children to play imaginary games, right? You could possibly teach them that logically no Santa Claus exists. But the 'lie' is interpreted as still being valid for its utility. The LOSS of such belief may as equally foster problems in and of itself.
And my own Nihilism is precisely what many might fear, even in an atheist community. That is, we might definitively prove that nothing we do is any more nor less valid. But the abandonment to at least 'pretend' some virtues over vices, may lead to the anarchy that can occur.
I don't approve of accepting the religious position yet completely understand how and why truth itself can potentially be destructive. Even if only a minority of those out there might use such 'truth' to advocate behaviors that would potentially threaten us as a society to the extreme, we all know by experience that when such instability occurs in even few people, it has more power to create alarm and cause an acceleration of such reflected fears of one another destructively.
The recent political realities today are just such an example.
Trump, for instance, fears a rigged election. It DOES in reality represent something possible. Yet by proposing it, should it not make others fear considering that it appears that he is suggesting retaliation should he NOT be elected by dismissing the validity of the election if he loses but accept it when he wins? Even though in this example that to accept the POSSIBILITY OF A RIGGED ELECTION is 'true', as a type of "scientific" rational truth about politics, you can see that if we lack 'faith' in the system as imperfect as it is, the chaos of doubt about WHAT people assumed about the system itself is in question. And if this makes many, which it will likely do, to avoid bothering to go to the voting booth, Trump has a real possibility of winning merely by default of that confusion.
I also have 'faith' that truth MAY overthrow these dilemmas and why my signature below. But I am also 'cursed' now by taking a bite of that fruit and am now as equally confused at what "the gods' " wisdom [Nature itself] presents with regards to humanity. And my logical nihilism reflects that understanding of what the old Adam and Eve lesson is about. Death ironically IS the only absolution that solves the problem of the curse. And the curse is realizing that. I now actually fear the reverse: that it might be the case that we could NEVER die and be tortured from being able to reach that perfect state of 'balance' that death provides. I hope I'm wrong.