Work today - Genesis, Revelations, and Pascal's Wager

[crocoduck_hunter]

As I like to point out every chance I get, I'm a die-hard atheist.

One of the guys at work and I are friends, but he's as fundamentalist Christian as you can get. I like him, but his narrow minded, completely illogical religious beliefs really grate on my nerves.

Anyway, we got to talking at work today, and I brought up the Conservapedia bible rewrite. Unfortunately, this set him off on a "truth of the bible" lecture.

Him: Hey, do you know how the Hebrews got so many biblical prophecies right?
Me: Yes, revisionist history.
Him: Huh?
Me: It's because it's really really easy to "predict" an event if you simply go back and write in your prediction after the fact. Or you change the record to match the predictions. Or you throw out a huge number of predictions and then conveniently forget all the ones that don't come true.

At this point, the conversation turned to his asking me whether I believed Jesus was real; my personal belief being that while it's likely that there was an actual religious man bearing that name in Jerusalem at that time, the stories told in the bible are complete fabrications.

This brought us to... Revelations (or, as I like to call it, the point where the authors discovered LSD). My friend is a very strong believer in Revelations- he thinks that the rapture is imminent, the Antichrist's temple is under construction in Jerusalem, and from that proceeded to question me about what I'd do if it came true.

Me: Speaking hypothetically?
Him: Yeah.
Me: Well, if millions of Christians suddenly disappeared into thin air all around the world, I might take the bible a bit more seriously.
Him: You wouldn't start to believe?
Me: Not without stronger proof that it was actually the Revelations prophecies rather than some other phenomenon, like mass abductions by space aliens or the fay or something.
Him: What would make you believe?
Me: Well, a power grab by some guy with a pentagram tattooed to his forehead who was accompanied by four guys on horses, the leader of which had a face like a Blue Oyster Cult album cover would be a good start.
Him: You think it will be that obvious when it happens?
Me: We were talking hypothetically.
Him: You were talking hypothetically, what are you going to do when it happens?
Me: Quite frankly, I regard it as having less chance of occurring than a George Romero style zombie invasion where we're all eaten by the walking dead.
Him: But what if you're wrong? The consequences for you if you're wrong are worse than the consequences for me if I'm wrong.
Me: That's Pascal's Wager
Him: What?
Me: That's what your argument is called, Pascal's Wager. But what if we're both wrong- what if the Hindu gods are real, and Shiva's mad at both of us and has us reincarnated as dogs... in China. That's an equally valid possibility. Or if there's a god that just wants to torture us forever because he thinks it's funny, regardless of what kind of people we were. It's pointless, because it's nothing more than playing "what if" and trying to come up with a worse what if that the other person.

He really didn't have an answer to that one.

And I had more I wanted to write here, but it's late, I'm tired, and I can't remember what I was going to add anyway, so I'm going to go to bed. If I remember what I was going to say, I'll post it here in the morning.

Oh, and I'm going to go see Richard Dawkins tomorrow, he's giving a lecture at Portland State University. Yay me!

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

One of the guys at work and I are friends, but he's as fundamentalist Christian as you can get. I like him, but his narrow minded, completely illogical religious beliefs really grate on my nerves.

So, out of curiosity, why do you care what other people believe? There isn't any scientific evidence for any deties but neither is there any that belief (or lack thereof) has any influence on how people behave.

[MapleLeaf]

I'm having trouble seeing the reason for the rant. It sounds like he was polite and you guys had a very abstract conversation about an event that is never going to occur.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

I wonder if there's a similar rant on some other message board:

As I like to point out every chance I get, I'm a die-hard Christian.

One of the guys at work and I are friends, but he's as fundamentalist atheist as you can get. I like him, but his narrow minded, completely illogical belief that God doesn't exist really grates on my nerves.

Anyway, we got to talking at work today, and he brought up the Conservapedia bible rewrite. Unfortunately, my reply set him off on a "lack of truth of the bible" lecture...

[Penny]

Why did you bring up a religious topic in a discussion at work with a colleague whom you know has opposing views to your own?

[ganzfeld]

I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've discussed religion at work in the last fifteen years and they were all very brief conversations. (That's not including the one time we did work that happened to be about religion, of course.) What ever happened to the three taboos? Save yourself a lot of trouble and don't talk about them in mixed company: Religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.

[Insensible Crier]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

As I like to point out every chance I get, I'm a die-hard atheist.

This is one of the chief problems I have with fundies (I'm in a county that's predominately Christian so the fundies are predominately Christian). They feel this need to constantly project the holier-than-thou attitude. They show everyone that they are superior to everyone else. There's no need to flaunt your beliefs in front of other people. It makes one seem arrogant and disrespectful. It's the same if your co-worker constantly shouted, "Praise Jesus!" or, "Hallelujah!" all the time. I'm sure it would drive you up a wall. And even if they did, it doesn't mean you should respond in the same manner.

People should be able to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don't hurt anyone, even if it's contrary to what you believe. Now if it comes up or they ask then you can discuss your beliefs is calm and polite manner, which is what you're describing happened between you and your co-worker. I don't see what there is to be upset about unless there's more to this story.

And this is just one of my munchkins. Even a lot of Christians make this mistake. The last book of the New Testament is Revelation, not Revelations.

[Insensible Crier]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've discussed religion at work in the last fifteen years and they were all very brief conversations. (That's not including the one time we did work that happened to be about religion, of course.) What ever happened to the three taboos? Save yourself a lot of trouble and don't talk about them in mixed company: Religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.

In my town there's one more taboo: Discussing a team other than the Steelers and the Penguins. The Pirates have been disavowed.

[Avril]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

And this is just one of my munchkins. Even a lot of Christians make this mistake. The last book of the New Testament is Revelation, not Revelations.

I'd say that I found crocoduck's use of "Revelations" for Revelation even more annoying since he's presenting himself as The One with the Truth, but doesn't get his facts right. It wouldn't annoy me even half so much otherwise.

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

As I like to point out every chance I get, I'm a die-hard atheist.

You must be loads of fun to be around.

One of the guys at work and I are friends, but he's as fundamentalist Christian as you can get. I like him, but his narrow minded, completely illogical religious beliefs really grate on my nerves.

Is he pushy, like you say you are? Or do you just have some compulsive desire that everyone think like you?

Anyway, we got to talking at work today, and I brought up the Conservapedia bible rewrite. Unfortunately, this set him off on a "truth of the bible" lecture.

You honestly wouldn't think that a random, unexpected attack on a person's deeply held convictions would not result in a response that showed he disagreed with you?

This brought us to... Revelations (or, as I like to call it, the point where the authors discovered LSD). My friend is a very strong believer in Revelations- he thinks that the rapture is imminent, the Antichrist's temple is under construction in Jerusalem, and from that proceeded to question me about what I'd do if it came true.

The way to describe this is not as you are. Your friend is a Premillennial Dispensationalist. Belief in Revelation could mean a whole lot of things. Some people believe very strongly in Revelation's truth, for example, but they're Preterists, and believe that all its prophecies were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and burning of the temple in the first century. Again, if you're going to present yourself as The One with the Truth, you've got to get your facts straight.

He really didn't have an answer to that one.

Or he was tired of talking to you, because you were being rude. I would not consider your response rude if he started it, but since he didn't, you don't exactly come across as having the high ground.

[bjohn13]

I'm an atheist. I don't think "devout" is a good way to describe me. I'm open to receiving new evidence that would change my opinion. However, I also believe that grown men and women believing in magic is a little silly. I tend to use the pink elephant analogy a lot. In fact, I thought I was the one who had created the pink elephant analogy back in the early '80's when I was a kid, but I hear so many people using it these days, I have to assume that it predates me. Perhaps a pink elephant is just so incredibly appropriate that tons of people all thought of it at the same time. Alas, I didn't get my analogy into print until the last ten years or so, so I cannot take credit for coining the phrase.

Now, I am admittedly a bit closer to my immediate co-workers than most. I have worked with the same two women every day for the last five years. We talk about a lot of different subjects. Politics and religion tend to not come up very often. Now, the Great Pumpkin, this time of year, tends to get a lot of fanfare. We discuss it endlessly dispite the fact that it usually results in shouting matches and hurt feelings.

Of course, I'm kidding.

However, I will add that, among my two immediate co-workers, the discussion of religion is one that is easily accomplished on an even keel with everyone's opinion respected. They laugh at my pink elephant analogy, and both comment that they'd never thought of it that way. One co-worker is somewhat of an agnostic and a self-proclaimed Pascalian. She got her newborn baby baptized and circumcized "just in case". The other has her beliefs because she has just never known any other way.

However, when it comes to the right-wing religious fundies, I will not engage them in religious discussion at work...period. If they are to do something that offends me with faith as a basis for their actions, I'll go directly to their supervisor. I learned my lesson about fifteen years ago when I was fired from a delivery job for simply stating that I was atheist when my employer asked which church I go to. Thankfully, I have never had a religious confrontation at work other than that in my life.

That said, one of my immediate co-workers used to have a sign on her desk that stated something along the lines of "the only truth is the truth of your savior, Jesus Christ. Repent now and be saved!" (paraphrased). I made the comment to her that I found the sign to be somewhat offensive. When she asked how, I asked her if she would find a sign offensive that said something along the lines of "The Zombie King is a crock of bull! Repent now and be saved!" She removed the sign, but at the same time, I know that she didn't truly believe what was on the sign. Later, she admitted that she just put the sign up because she liked the picture on it.

I have found that, in person, most people appear to be quite tolerant in their belief systems. Even my father, one of the most fundamentalist Catholics alive, has learned to tolerate my atheism. It's when these discussions are moved to the internet that they tend to take on heated tones. Of course, there are always going to be Fred Phelpses and Osama bin Ladens in the world, but it is my belief that those types of people are in the vast, vast minority.

[bjohn13]

I just made an incredibly long spiel with no apparent purpose. I hope no one is offended.

[ganzfeld]

What's always amazed me about Dawkins is that he talks very sensibly about needing evidence for supernatural things as well as natural phenomena. (I say "very sensibly" because, well, I agree. ) But when asked for evidence that what people believe about supernatural things has an (important or meaningful) influence their behavior he goes on about 9-11 or about how religion for children is a form of child abuse, thus evoking the same kinds of post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias that he discourages when reasoning about other natural phenomena. I'm not in the least bit convinced that it matters at all what my coworkers believe.

ETA - I should add that it doesn't bother me that some Atheists think they know the Truth. They're only people after all. People tend to think their own beliefs systems are best. That doesn't sound surprising to people who believe in Free Will but, for people like myself, it simply means that people tend to convince themselves that they selected their own beliefs on some sound, rational basis. (Any rational person can see, in my opinion, that such rational choices are probably either non-existent or extremely rare.)

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

So, out of curiosity, why do you care what other people believe? There isn't any scientific evidence for any deties but neither is there any that belief (or lack thereof) has any influence on how people behave.

I do tend to engage in theistic debate a lot. I'm not really sure how to word this properly, so I'll do my best.

Homosexual's rights is a pretty hot topic in my town, and there are those who feel it is a violation of their First Amendment rights to be forced to, say, lease a hotel room or an apartment to a homosexual couple. These people tend to say that the Bible is the basis for their beliefs in this regard.

So the question is.... is this type of discrimination influenced by religious dogma? Or is this simply a case of people who have a preconcieved desire to discriminate using whatever means they can come up with to justify it? And, if we are talking about the latter, couldn't these justifications be used to persuade others that these justifications are, in fact, moral and just?

Perhaps you are right in saying that religion has never been proven to influence the bahavior of others, but it is my opinion that the evidence to the contrary is pretty convincing.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by bjohn13

Homosexual's rights is a pretty hot topic in my town, and there are those who feel it is a violation of their First Amendment rights to be forced to, say, lease a hotel room or an apartment to a homosexual couple. These people tend to say that the Bible is the basis for their beliefs in this regard.

People say that but, again, that's post-hoc reasoning. I live in a country that's primarily atheist and we've barely even begun talking about the issue of allowing such marriages. There are many other reasons people oppose it, most commonly simply because they repeat what they've been told and, at the same time, do as those around them do. There isn't any way to arbitrarily change someone's beliefs without a whole lot of other "stuff" going on as well, (namely, being surrounded by others with the same beliefs and certain habits) so there's no evidence that the beliefs are at fault. (On the contrary, we all know people who's beliefs "say" one thing but who do the other.)

So the question is.... is this type of discrimination influenced by religious dogma? Or is this simply a case of people who have a preconcieved desire to discriminate using whatever means they can come up with to justify it? And, if we are talking about the latter, couldn't these justifications be used to persuade others that these justifications are, in fact, moral and just?

Sorry, I can't parse that.

Perhaps you are right in saying that religion has never been proven to influence the bahavior of others, but it is my opinion that the evidence to the contrary is pretty convincing.

What evidence? Correlation is not causation and whatever correlation there is is pretty minuscule for the vast majority of human behavior. The correlation is much much better for factors such as education, behaviors of people around the individual, genetics, development, environment, etc. -- even for those issues that you might think would be most influenced by religious beliefs, teaching evolution, abortion rights, or church-state separation. So, no, the so-called evidence is not convincing at all.

[JoeBentley]

Ganz you've made this argument before and it just don't make sense.

First and foremost many people will readily admit that their religious beliefs strongly influence their overall view of life. Someone saying "I don't like abortion because of my Christian faith" for instance doesn't leave my room for debate on their religion effecting their opinions.

It also simply doesn't make sense why religious beliefs would be so important to people if they don't effect their view of self and the world.

You are correction in saying that motivation, especially when it comes to a concept as broad and esoteric as a person's view of the world, is tricky to pin down, but I honestly don't understand why you seem to adamant to dismiss religious beliefs specifically as a factor in people's world view.

No you probably can't determine any absolutes, but if someone tells you they are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green you can make a rough guess on the likelihood of them holding certain other opinions or stances. I fail to see why religion would be any different.

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

Sorry, I can't parse that.

I asked three questions here, and I'll try to clarify them as best as I can.

The first question asks whether or not the refusal of an individual to lease a hotel room or an apartment to a homosexual couple is based upon religious dogma. The second question, mostly a continuation of the first question, acknowledges the possibility that the person refusing to lease the room is discriminating based upon his personal convctions and simply using his religion as an excuse. The third question unleashes the possibility that, even though the second question might lead to the correct affirmitive answer, the mere existence of the argument might lead to the person refusing to lease the room to influence another person's decision on whether or not to lease a room.

I can provide another example. I have been a part of twelve-step programs in the past, and I've given them up because my belief is that they do not work. I have witnessed people who have completely changed their lives (not always for the better) by becoming "reborn" into a particular faith. While there are some people who go on to lead productive lives as a result, way too many of these people tend to go on to use that faith to try to control others. While you may be right in the ascertation that these people would probably try to control others anyway, it is my ascertation that they would not be nearly as successful at it without invoking an all powerful entity of some kind. Without success in trying to control others, the controller would soon either give up out of exasperation or die. With success in trying to control others, the controller will continue to use the means which have proven successful.

I'm sure this argument has been rehashed over and over by thousands of people more intelligent than I, but I'm not able to grasp this "lack of evidence" that religion has influenced the behaviors of others.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

First and foremost many people will readily admit that their religious beliefs strongly influence their overall view of life. Someone saying "I don't like abortion because of my Christian faith" for instance doesn't leave my room for debate on their religion effecting their opinions.

Sure they do. Why couldn't people be mistaken about why they hold certain beliefs. Here's a sentence from an article Steven Pinker wrote for the Times Magazine:

People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.

Maybe you disagree with that and think that even the slightest introspection reveals to us the exact reason we hold moral opinions. But the notion is, surely, debatable.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Couple of points I forgot to make (I love posting late at night after getting up early all week long)

My part about my being a blatant atheist was a reference to my behavior here- as in, nobody who's seen my posts should be surprised by this.

We both shared a laugh over the Conservapedia thing- he thought it was every bit as funny for someone to claim that they knew what God really meant to say in the bible as I do. After that, he turned the conversation to religious beliefs.

The part that irritated me was really Pascal's Wager- up to that point it was just me making snappy comments with regard to personal opinions (okay, and making fun of the bible). At that point, he was trying to tell me what I should believe, something that I've never done with him. I really don't care what a person believes as far as religion/non-religion goes (though I'm quite likely to be rather mockingly and contemptuous when I express my opinion, I'll admit).

But when someone comes out and tells me that I need to believe or I need to be saved, that's going to set me off. Especially here, when he's claiming that he's got a loving relationship with Jesus, but when I watch his facial expressions and listen to his tone of voice, it's very clear that he is at least as strongly motivated by fear of the threat of eternal damnation for all people, regardless of their morals or ethics, if they don't believe in one specific deity.

And that right there is the single most offensive thing in the world to me- even if I did believe in the existence of a deity, if he's going to condemn people to infinite, unending punishment based solely on that criteria, I still wouldn't worship him, because that is the most evil, malicious action I can think of, and I will not be badgered into believing otherwise.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

First and foremost many people will readily admit that their religious beliefs strongly influence their overall view of life. Someone saying "I don't like abortion because of my Christian faith" for instance doesn't leave my room for debate on their religion effecting their opinions.

People say all kinds of things that aren't true -- especially when it comes to explaining their own behavior.

It also simply doesn't make sense why religious beliefs would be so important to people if they don't effect their view of self and the world.

Supposing that they do affect the "view of the world", why do you suppose without good scientific evidence that the the "view of self and world" affects behavior, especially when that view is primarily about things that are supposedly not of this world?

You are correction in saying that motivation, especially when it comes to a concept as broad and esoteric as a person's view of the world, is tricky to pin down, but I honestly don't understand why you seem to adamant to dismiss religious beliefs specifically as a factor in people's world view.

Well, that's a bit of a tautological supposition. I don't say that people's religious beliefs don't affect their worldview, only that there is no evidence that supernatural beliefs themselves are to blame for any behavior, specific or general.

No you probably can't determine any absolutes, but if someone tells you they are a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green you can make a rough guess on the likelihood of them holding certain other opinions or stances.

Well, again, that's a bit of a tautology. I'm not sure how well those self-ids correlate with behavior. Supposing for one sentence that they do, correlation is not causation. In reality, we all know many many counter-examples of people who claim to be of one belief group or another but who don't behave any differently or even behave in ways that said ID supposedly opposes.

I fail to see why religion would be any different.

I didn't say it was but I find it silly to argue against that kind of belief as a driver of behavior because, as I said, the circular reasoning involved. For example, some would say that one who "believes there's a bear behind the door" is less likely to open said door. Maybe so. But that's a far cry from saying that people are influenced by beliefs in deities and the jinn or whatever. As I said, the correlation is better for other factors, yet correlation is no evidence for causation.

I think there is a lot more evidence that people behave certain ways because of outside and inside influences such as genetics, development, environment, society, and then claim to believe (as well as believe themselves to believe) certain things after the fact. It's just as plausible -- especially considering the fact that there is not the slightest bit of evidence for Free Will. (It always surprises me to meet Atheists who totally believe in Free Will. Some of them even go on about some bogus reason it might exist... but anyway, no evidence it does.)

(Sorry if my writing's a bit garbled. I need some sleep!)

[bjohn13]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I didn't say it was but I find it silly to argue against that kind of belief as a driver of behavior because, as I said, the circular reasoning involved. For example, some would say that one who "believes there's a bear behind the door" is less likely to open said door. Maybe so. But that's a far cry from saying that people are influenced by beliefs in deities and the jinn or whatever. As I said, the correlation is better for other factors, yet correlation is no evidence for causation.

I don't see how your example is a far cry from religious dogma. A person who bleieves that there is a bear behind the door is going to be less likely to open the door. If there was no fear of a bear behind the door, the behavior of the individual regarding the door would change dramatically. That would be an example of causation.

Therefore, someone who believes that eternity in hell awaits those who lease hotel rooms to homosexuals is going to be less likely to lease hotel rooms to homosexuals.. If there was no fear of eternity in hell, then these people would freely lease hotel rooms to homosexuals. How is that not an example of causation?

ETA: After parsing your last bit about the belief in free will, I guess I see your point. If there is no such thing as free will, which is entirely possible, then there is no such thing as causation in regards to human perception affecting human behavior. I guess when it comes to philosophical discussion, I automatically lose.