Dismembering Blaise, Part 3

30 Apr, 2010 | Brian |

We come now, lumbering, at last, to the final scene. The first part saw Pascal simultaneously demand and invalidate all evidence of divinity. The second part showed Pascal's forced choice requires an equal belief in zombifying witches and cruel resurrections for the sport of silver-clad brats in the year 3000. The third part highlights the absurdity of Pascal's dangled carrot: the great rewards or punishments that shall be dealt out beyond the grave. This kind of reasoning is not just wrong, it is immoral.

» Read more

Metaphors and Experience

25 Sep, 2009 | Brian |

I really do intend to finish up with Pascal's Wager, but right now I want to take a look at drawing unnecessary conclusions. I do not know quite what to call it. It's definitely a failure of logic - kind of like affirming the consequent but kind of not. The specific example I am thinking of is an atheist who says that religion is valueless. Given that (A) an atheist finds no fact in the existence of God, it follows that (B) religion is not based on fact. This is so far consistent. It breaks down when this hypothetical fellow goes on to assert that (C) religious practice - and spirituality generally - has no value.

» Read more

Dismembering Blaise, #2

31 Jul, 2009 | Brian |

I continue from where I left off last time. In this episode, I turn my withering gaze upon Part Deux of Pascal's Wager, which is that belief in God is a forced decision. According to Pascal, I must decide which side of his false compromise I will throw in with. Well, that doesn't feel very exciting: betting which 0% probability will come true. My math skills may be insufficient for the task, but I somehow expect to come out the loser every time when faced with those odds.

» Read more

Dismembering Blaise

29 Jul, 2009 | Brian |

I know there has been a lot said in the world about Blaise Pascal and his Great Hedge against a bad roll of the cosmic dice. It is highly likely that I cannot add anything new, and probable that I cannot add anything worthwhile. (Was that funny?) Anyway, I have not seen a criticism of Mr. P's wager formulated according to my style of cogitation, and although that owes principally to my ignorance, I will nevertheless pretend otherwise and burden society with my thoughts on the subject.

The wager has three basic parts. (1) There is no evidence for or against the existence of God. (2) Belief in God is a forced decision. When you die, it's too late to change your mind; the consequences will be upon you. (3) Because we cannot discern which is the right choice, and the choice must be made, it is rational to choose whichever has the best risk/reward profile.

Now, let the massacre begin.

» Read more

In Defense of Danbury

20 Jul, 2009 | Brian |

I would like to take to task the following concept:

What began in the early days of our country as the freedom of religion has today become freedom from religion, which clearly has nothing to do with the meaning of religious freedom that was laid down in the constitution.

The implication that there is a Constitutional forbiddance of atheism is not clear by any means. The Establishment Clause to the First Amendment says only that Congress is prohibited from making laws that establish a state religion, and the Free Exercise Clause says only that Congress cannot tell me how to practice my religion. Nowhere are the words "freedom of religion" found in this document.

But even if it did say those words, the idea that it is a legal obligation to believe is hard to digest. The First Amendment also provides for freedom of speech. Does this prohibit me from remaining silent?

Stop Scorching My Shrubbery

27 Jun, 2009 | Brian |

A great failing of mine is the incessant need to have an argument, a failing I will now indulge, though hopefully in moderation. I cannot reconcile with the idea that (a) morality is a substance provided from On High and that (b) absent this Provider there is no way to have morality. Another form of (b) is to claim, arms flailing in air, that without a Giver of Laws everything is subjective and so therefore "anything goes." I should separate these statements into (b1) and (b2). What is advanced in (b2) is, I suppose, intended to lever me into accepting (a). Alas, this is what we in "the biz" (i.e., the business of starting up arguments and then verbally beating the crap out of our opponents) call a fallacious appeal to consequences. Claim (b1) is also a fallacy, only this time it's called a false dichotomy. Not only are both of these formulations wrong, they are burdened by serious philosophical problems.

» Read more