Reflectorites
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 02:46:12 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>One wonders why Richard even *bothers* debating with "irrational"
>>opponents who spout "absurd", and "nonsense" arguments?
RW>Well, that's the one rational thing that you've said in your last few
>replies to me.
>
>I suppose the answer is that I have great faith in the power of rational
>argument. I keep thinking that *this* point is so clear that even a
>creationist/IDer will be able to accept it. Or at least I used to. My faith
>in the power of rational argument has just about been knocked out of me by
>my experiences with creationists/IDers over the last year. In future, I
>doubt that I will engage in any more debates with them.
One day Richard may realise that the real problem is not "rational
argument" but the ultimate *starting point* which must be *assumed*.
Richard assumes there is no God and I assume there is. Neither of us can
prove by "rational argument" *alone* whose the ultimate starting point is
right.
But if my ultimate starting point is right, then all Richard's "rational
arguments" after that are *wrong* and vice-versa.
The only thing that we can both agree on is that if Richard is right and
I am wrong then the consequences for me are trivial-I would have had a full
and satisfying life.
But OTOH if I am right and Richard is wrong then the consequences are
decidedly *non*-trivial for both of us!
As Pascal pointed out, when two ultimate positions are equally
unresolvable by rational argument *alone* then the truly rational thing to do
is embrace the position that yields the greatest benefit and avoids the
greatest loss:
"Let us then examine this point, and let us say: 'Either God is or he
is not.' But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot
decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of
this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down
heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you
choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong. Do not then
condemn as wrong those who have made a choice, for you know
nothing about it. 'No, but I will condemn them not for having made
this particular choice, but any choice, for, although the one who
calls heads and the other one are equally at fault, the fact is that
they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all.' Yes, but
you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed.
Which will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must be
made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two
things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your
reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your
nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you
must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by
choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up.
But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved
in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you
win you win everything, if you lose you lose nothing." (Pascal B.,
"Pensees," [1670], Penguin, 1966, p.122)
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I tell you that you will gain even in this life, and that at every step you
take along this road you will see that your gain is so certain and your risk
so negligible that in the end you will realize that you have wagered on
something certain and infinite for which you have paid nothing." (Pascal B.,
"Pensees," [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl., Penguin: London, Revised
edition, 1966, p.125)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:06 EST