Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager, If ID is wrong it was an honest mistake

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A scandalous documentary about Christian gamblers was released in 2012 with me listed in the credits. 🙂

The documentary is about a group of Christians, the Holy Rollers, that took the casinos for 3.5 million dollars. Myself, by comparison, I’ve accumulated a relatively paltry sum of $30,000 or so over the years. I’ve been tossed out of casinos and abused because I tried to use my brain in the casino. Casinos, like Darwinists, will say: Expelled No Intelligence Allowed!.

I took Turtle Creek Casino in Michigan for $6,000 before they illegally backroomed me. Similarly, I was forcibly escorted out of Hollywood Tunica (thankfully Hollywood got sued for $729,000 for pulling such stunts on other honest players like myself in an illegal way). My photo was then circulated to various casinos via the S.I.N. network:

American casinos refer to these local agreements they have with each other to immediately fax information on suspicious or undesirable players as a S.I.N. (Surveillance Information Network), an appropriate acronym.

I then started wearing quasi disguises and countermeasures to foil the S.I.N network and Facial Recognition Systems. My favorite quasi disguise was the pimp look. Unfortunately, my pimp persona got busted, and the casinos started circulating photos on the S.I.N. Network of me in my pimp outfit…I was walking into casinos, and they were already waiting for me. I had to call it quits…

And as somewhat documented in Lauren Sandler’s book Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement in the course of my casino adventures, I was pulled over for suspected drug trafficking which I described at UD in 2006 New Face of Evangelical Christianity

She reported that I pay my bills by playing cards. Well, I did not say that, but I did tell her over dinner that I won about $1,400 over the previous few weekends when I visited the casinos. She kidded me that it was rent money, but that was her perception, and it was nothing I said seriously.

She reported that I traveled to upstate New York for a card game after an IDEA meeting. That was true. But she missed the really juicy part of the story. After visiting the casino, I was put under arrest for 45 minutes by state troopers and border patrols for suspected drug trafficking up near Akwesasne, New York. About 8 squad cars descended on me. That was really cool. They released me after they determined I was just a harmless tourist….

Apparently the police thought I completed a drug deal at the casino. Come to think of it, some guy with a Mowhawk and lots of jewelry was at my table betting $400 a hand….

But my casino adventures pale in comparison to the accomplishment of my dear friend and mentor Michael Canjar professor of mathematics. He took Turtle Creek for $60,000 before they showed him the door. Canjar’s total winnings were around $250,000, a large portion of which was donated to charity…

Canjar was professor at a Catholic school in Detroit, and he managed to even recruit one of the nuns and other professors in his holy crusade against the evil casinos. Canjar reminds me of Father Fahey:

BOSTON — When the Rev. Joseph Fahey sat at the blackjack tables, he once said, it was “all for the greater glory of God.”

The Rev. Fahey, assistant for finance of the New England province for the Jesuit order, donated tens of thousands of dollars to his order with the help of card counting — the same skills that landed him on blacklists at casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, N.J.

Card counting involves keeping track of the proportion of high and low cards as cards are dealt from a deck.

The Rev. Fahey died Wednesday of an apparent heart attack at the age of 65.

“Many Jesuit missions owe a great debt to him and his abilities at the card table,” said John Dunn, who worked for the Rev. Fahey at Boston College High School.

As president of the school from 1988 to 1998, he boosted its endowment by 500 percent, financing an athletic center, library and computer laboratory.

He had a doctorate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was ordained a priest in 1968, and was a teacher and administrator at Holy Cross College and Boston College.

He treated Boston College students to a lesson on card counting on the last day of each semester.

But Canjar and Fahey’s crusade against the evil casinos was out done by the crusade waged by the Holy Rollers:

[youtube i3s4o6gAQRk]

Beyond the Holy Rollers there were several generations of the MIT Blackjack Team, Tommy Hyland’s Teams, Ken Uston’s Teams and others. I heard of one non-blackjack team once referred to as “punters” who supposedly made 2.5 billion, but their methods are guarded secrets…

Curiously, one skilled gambler by the name of Kevin Blackwood really likes ID:

There are many things about God and the Bible I still don’t quite comprehend, but I do believe firmly in an intelligent design behind the universe. I recommend Michael Behe’s excellent book, DARWIN’S BLACK BOX, for more information on the irreducible complexity of the universe.

How is it possible to beat a game of pure chance? It can be done if the rules of the games allow you to gain an advantage through Expectation Values (or Expected Values). The principle is known as Statistical Arbitrage.

Mathematician Blaise Pascal is considered the father of the notion of Expectation Values (or Expected Values). Pascal was a skilled gambler, and the notion of expected values was originally applied to gambling but has now found application in economics, finance, physics (particularly quantum mechanics).

Pascal is one of the most brilliant, and most tormented, figures in the history of mathematics. Forbidden by his father to study mathematics… was troubled by constant illness, including recurrent migraines and what proved to be cancer of the stomach. His various contacts with illness and death from 1646 on, and his own near death in a carriage accident late in 1654, together with the influence of a morbidly religious sister, turned him toward the Jansenist version of Catholicism. On this, his mental energies were increasingly expended.

http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/tales/pascal.html

The notion of expectation values has played a role in a minor scuffle over ID. See: The Law of Large Numbers vs. Keiths, Eigenstate, and my other TSZ critics and SSDD: a 22-sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins?.

So how does this apply to ID?

If ID is wrong, it was at least an honest mistake because even Dawkins will admit, the world looks designed.

Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived ­ including Newton, who may have been the greatest of all ­ believed in God. But it was hard to be an atheist before Darwin: the illusion of living design is so overwhelming.

Richard Dawkins
You ask the questions

But in view of expectation values, what is the better wager? Darwin or Design? To answer that question, let me make a variation of Pascal’s Wager. At a personal level, suppose one accepts ID and it turns out to be false. Suppose further that a person presumed the Intelligent Designer was God, but in the end there was no God, no ID. What is the loss? But if ID is true, and further if the Intelligent Designer is God, so much might be gained. Will you throw your soul away because of the flawed ideas of Darwin, Dennett, and Dawkins?

Even though I’m a Doubting Thomas ID-ist and creationist, despite all the pain in the world, I find it too hard to believe the universe was some mindless accident. From all that I’ve learned in the world of skillful wagering on uncertain truths (of which there are many in skilled gambling), at a personal level, as far as which wager has the most favorable expectation value, I’d take Design over Darwin any day…


[me on the Las Vegas Strip near Mandalay Bay Casino, with Luxor and Excalibur Casinos in the background]

PS

What was one of the nicest experiences in my casino adventures. One that ranks highly are the intelligently deisgned Fountains of the Bellagio Casino set to Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody:

[youtube p1wN2W6IiL0]

Comments
Not having followed this thread, but just linked to it, I thought this was worth noting: "much of my understanding of life and ID is seen through the lens of skilled gambling" - Salvador T. CordovaGregory
July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Well CentralScrutinizer, I've found Dr. Timothy McGrew to be a very good resource for addressing and refuting the overall claim from atheists that the gospels are filled with contradictions:
Alleged Contradictions in the Gospels - Dr. Timothy McGrew - video https://vimeo.com/59940602
These following videos were also helpful:
Who Wrote the Gospels? - Dr. Timothy McGrew - Week 1 - video https://vimeo.com/57485839 The Gospels as History: External Evidence - Dr. Timothy McGrew - video https://vimeo.com/58486762 The Gospels as History: Internal Evidence - Dr. Timothy McGrew - video https://vimeo.com/59012954
As I am sure you are well aware CentralScrutinizer, there are many other apologetic resources in this area,,, but as to the main claim, the only claim that really matters to us personally, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, (and really what other claim can really matter to us since we all must die?), once again I find the Shroud of Turin to be a powerful piece of evidence that stubbornly refuses to be refuted by atheists.
Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg Condensed notes on The Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin https://docs.google.com/document/d/15IGs-5nupAmTdE5V-_uPjz25ViXbQKi9-TyhnLpaC9U/edit
But what I find completely unexpected CentralScrutinizer, is that the Shroud of Turin also provides actual physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the 'Zero/Infinity conflict' that we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics was successfully dealt with by Christ:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Particle Radiation from the Body - July 2012 - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
Now CentralScrutinizer, in all honesty, this very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics should not even be on the 'radar scope of reason'. But there it sits, this enigmatic cloth that refuses to be swept under the rug, and of all things this cloth offering a very credible solution to the number one problem in science today. i.e. the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity into the 'theory of everything'. It should certainly raise any honest persons eyebrows as to how a supposed superstitious old religious relic could find itself in such a bizarre position, right in the middle of the number one problem in science today. CentralScrutinizer, There is something that is just a little bit 'too neat' in all this! But as to the person who believes the central claim of the gospels, that Jesus Christ is actually who He says He is, then this fits perfectly:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Glorious Day - Casting Crowns - music http://myktis.com/songs/glorious-day/
bornagain77
July 2, 2013
July
07
Jul
2
02
2013
01:23 AM
1
01
23
AM
PDT
By the way, are killer whales (orcas) psychopaths because they toss sea lions around for sport before they gobble them up? Or lions psychopaths for killing gazelles? What about cats toying with mice before they eat them?
Or Darwin for shooting birds just for fun or beating puppies simply for enjoying the sense of power!scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
BA77, Lot of ground to cover there in your posts. And I will deal with the jist of your points soon. But let me just say that if Jesus really resurrected from the dead, and I met him, the first thing I would ask him is why the Bible contains so many contradictions and so much demonstrably false information. I concede it is possible a Messiah figure could have died and rose from the dead in the first century, and still maintain that the Bible is loaded with problems. Keep in mind that "the Bible" is not "one book" but rather a collection of many different texts, some of which may contain truth, and some which may be patently false, and some a mixture of true and false. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Just ask any Jew. The subject is a very interesting one, and has occupied a great deal of my time. More later. Time for ZZZZzzzz.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Tell you what keiths, if you can refute Leggett's and Bell's inequalities which have overthrown your materialistic/atheistic preference for how reality ought to be constructed, you will garner my respect as a man who respects science, until then, especially citing Harris, you are just another Darwinian troll who doesn't care what lie he has to tell to believe as he wants!bornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
And as an antidote to BA's uncritical embrace of anything in line with his theological preconceptions: This Must Be Heavenkeiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer, if I may plug Harvard neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander's book 'Proof of Heaven' a couple of more times, since I know your friend is a neurosurgeon. I really enjoyed his book and it is a popular book that I've shared with my friends.,, Plus I look forward to his forthcoming book (I don't know when he will release it) since he says he is going to try to analyze his experience from a quantum mechanical perspective. A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011 Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/ and Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012 Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.htmlbornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Since this thread talked about Casino's and the Holy Rollers, one might wonder how God was able to reach souls in an industry that has a reputation for harboring degenerates (maybe myself included in that list, ha!). Dawkins suggests Christianity spreads via indoctrination and bullying. Maybe that can explain some of it, but take a look at this story in Wikipedia of famous gambler Doyle Brunson. This was heart warming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doyle_Brunson
Brunson met his future wife, Louise, in 1960 and married her in August 1962. Louise became pregnant, but later that year, a tumor was discovered in Doyle's neck. When it was operated on, the surgeons found that the cancer had spread and declared it incurable. They felt that an operation would prolong his life long enough for him to see the birth of the baby, so they went ahead with it. After the operation, no trace of the cancer could be found.[8] The doctors said that his recovery must have been a miracle, and Brunson has attributed his cure to the prayers of friends of his wife and their correspondence with Kathryn Kuhlman, a self-proclaimed Christian faith healer.[9] Louise developed a tumor shortly afterwards and, when she went for surgery, her tumor was also found to have disappeared. In 1975, their daughter Doyla was diagnosed with scoliosis, yet her spine straightened completely within three months. Doyla died at 18 when she took too much potassium for a heart-valve condition. Over the following year, Brunson read Christian literature and converted to Christianity.
Maybe I shouldn't divulge the following because it was from a private forum, written by my friend and famous blackjack author Mike Bootlegger Turner. He passed away, and I'm posting this because I think even though it came from a private forum, he's surely told the story elsewhere publicly, and I think he wouldn't mind because Bootlegger was a Christian:
Here is a true example of faith healing of which I am personally aware. Like myself, my first cousin was raised in the Pentacostal church. Pentacostals take the gifts of the Holy Spirit very seriously, to the point where those gifts form the foundation of their theology. One of those gifts is healing and they believe in faith healing. This cousin, who is named Bill, was living in California at the time. I suppose one could call him a "lapsed" Pentacostal. They would use the term "back-slid." He was a heavy drinking, drug using womanizer. But that religious background was still in him somewhere. He was living in an apartment complex in Los Angeles and he became acquainted with a woman in the complex. She had a daughter who was around 12 years old at the time. The daughter was afflicted with some form of bone cancer and it had progressed to the point where she was confined to a wheelchair. There was no cure at the time and her disease was considered to be terminal. Bill took great pity on her and convinced her Catholic and Hispanic mother to bring her daughter with him to a service being conducted by a well-known faith healer at the time named Katherine Kuhlman. They went and Kuhlman prayed for the daughter and laid hands on her. The daughter literally rose up out of her wheelchair and walked. Later, upon examination by her physicians, the cancer was nowhere to be found. This happened more than 40 years ago. Bill has long since moved back to Ohio as a reformed man. The daughter still makes periodic contact with him, usually through Christmas cards and the like. She grew up and became a mother herself and as far as I know, has lived a cancer free and healthy life. I don't know how it happened and I can't say that every alleged faith healing performed by Katherine Kuhlman was as effective as this one. But it did happen and it is something I would call a miracle. We may find a scientific explanation for these kinds of things someday. But for now, a miracle it remains.
Even granting the Kuhlman had maybe some not so flattering facts about her, Jesus is the healer ultimately, not flawed individuals. If Darwinian evolution were true we might have reason to dismiss miracles as an illusion from our lack of scientific knowledge. If ID is true, miracles become more plausible. Indeed, in my book, life is a miracle, so is healing, however God chose to bring it about -- but some healings make a bigger statement than others. Stories like this abound if one is willing to look. People that had little or no Christian upbringing or who walked away from the faith, somehow God invades their lives. ID gave me a rational basis for accepting many of these accounts as true. And for what its worth, I've had my experiences as well, too personal to talk about. Rare, but hard to dismiss.scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer if I may,
Sal, I realize this is not the time or place, but if the Bible accurately describes God, then God’s got a LOT of explaining to do. Don’t you agree?
yet preciously you stated:
If God exists, it is incumbent on us to do what he says or else.
Ergo, 'if' the Bible accurately describes God then it is incumbent on us to best correct why we think God should behave in a way contrary to the way the Bible accurately describes Him acting. Myself, I find starting off from the fact that Jesus actually did rise from the dead to be an extremely humbling place to approach scripture for it is in that light that everything else within scripture falls into place: A British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.” and to that end: Shroud of Turin - Carbon 14 test proves false (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html Here is a fairly good 'unbiased' article on the 'laser' test which undermined the credibility of the carbon dating from a completely different angle; Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html Scientific hypotheses on the origin of the body image of the Shroud - 2010 Excerpt: for example, if we consider the density of radiation that we used to color a single square centimeter of linen, to reproduce the entire image of the Shroud with a single flash of light would require fourteen thousand lasers firing simultaneously each on a different area of linen. In other words, it would take a laser light source the size of an entire building. http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_22597_l3.htm If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? - article with video Excerpt: "Very often as they're moving through the tunnel, there's a very bright mystical light ... not like a light we're used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns..." - Jeffery Long M.D. - has studied NDE's extensively The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.htmlbornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
God is real. Sal, I realize this is not the time or place, but if the Bible accurately describes God, then God’s got a LOT of explaining to do. Don’t you agree?
I wouldn't necessarily put it in those words, but I understand the sentiments. :-) Bill Dembski did say, the deeper mystery is why an individual found grace. It seemed a tough pill to swallow, but well, why am I luckier (blessed) more than others? I surely didn't deserve it. Maybe it's just as well in some cases I don't know why... The reason I liked KeithS recent postings is he actually gave substantive reasons for his rejection of God -- things I could identify with. But Darwinian evolution? I wouldn't throw my faith away for that, it isn't even science, it isn't true. I don't see how it can be. Bad bet.scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
sal: there is a part of me that would find reason to lament if the Christian God is real.
Sal, I realize this is not the time or place, but if the Bible accurately describes God, then God's got a LOT of explaining to do. Don't you agree?CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
FWIW KeithS, I know we're in disagreement on many things, but I feel your last several comments have been the best stuff I've read from you ever! Why? Deep down, there is a part of me that would find reason to lament if the Christian God is real. That means there is a Judge who will have a judgement day, that the plagues of Egypt and Noahs flood were real, plus all the intelligently designed retribution toward the children of Israel and eventually even the intelligently designed retribution of hellfire. Darwin himself found it unacceptable:
I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
I empathize with your revulsion at the possibility such a Deity exists. Myself, I can't run away from what seem credible possibilities of the Christian God's existence even if I don't like what it would imply. If I felt ID had no chance of being true, I wouldn't be here at UD arguing with you. Maybe I'd be trying to figure out how to "create my own meaning".scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Sal and Keiths, If God exists, it is incumbent on us to do what he says or else. If God doesn't exist, then why shouldn't it be an "eat, drink and be merry" pragmatism? I can't see why it's a complicated matter.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
. Your attraction to YEC seems to be motivated by a hope that the Bible is true and trustworthy and that YEC could help establish that, but if the Bible is true, then all of those nasty stories about God are also true. Wouldn’t that be bad news for you?
Don't know for sure, but the Bible is kind to Doubting Thomases (see Jude 1:22). For that matter all the Apostles were Doubter's even John the Baptist. At least I'm trying to find faith. If it's bad news for me its badder news for.... I accept that you and others have honestly tried to believe, at least that's the way you guys see it. But I'm saying, imho, this whole "we create our own meaning" is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You "know" there is no meaning, but you'll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who "knows" there is no free will but he'll pretend there is anyway. You talk about the value (and value implies payoff) of truth, yet you criticize me for expressing ideas in terms of payoffs. Ok, would you prefer is said value as in expectation value. Truth has payoff, it has value in and of itself if there is a God, because God is truth. But how can you logically demonstrate inherent payoff of truth in a meaningless, Godless, expiring world. As Russell pointed out, the universe will burn out. Everything you lived for, even truth will be erased as if it never was -- at least that would be the case in Godless, meaningless, expiring world. I'm just arguing, you're supposed rationality doesn't seem to me as airtight as you suppose. It seems your presumed payoff table (truth has intrinsic value) isn't consistent with your world view. If Darwinism and atheism are true, then the value of truth is undetermined at best and may be negative in certain contexts. Painful truths like painful surgery in that case need anesthesia. The anesthesia for painful truth is this falsehood: "we create our own meaning". You think Dawkins and your current views are rational. This essay is actually an indirect criticism such supposed rationality as "we create our own meaning".scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
keiths: I knew about the Wada test, where an entire hemisphere is anesthetized, but I didn’t realize that they could confine it to the corpus callosum. How do they do that?
I got drilled. Some people go rock climbing. (The thought of that terrifies me.) I let myself be an experimental guinea pig. But as I said, one of my best pals is a neurologist brain researcher. By the way, I also did get the sodium amylate or whatever the hell that stuff is for putting 1/2 your brain to sleep on two separate occasions. Given my dual nature as an engineer and a musician I found that quite fascinating. I didn't realize how darn integrated BOTH activities are, and yet there are "compartments" as best as I can describe. Of course, half your physical body goes to sleep too during that, which was weird as hell, and I didn't like that too much. We sometimes hear people say that music and art and emotions tend to be one hemisphere, and logical thinking and language on the other, there's a lot to that, but it's not quite so cut and dried. That's a story for another day. But I can tell you one thing, the brain is one funky "device" from the standpoint of conscious experience. And no matter what bizarre mode I was in, (like dual streams of verbal thoughts at the same time during the corpus callosum "test", although one seemed "stupid" and other seemed "smart"), there was still always one conscious "me" observing the madness. Impossible to fully explain. And analogy would be kind of like looking at a solid object and seeing the solid as a solid AND looking right though it at the same time. How you convey THAT to someone who hasn't experienced it? Anyway, I'm rambling...CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Sal, You're not paying attention. Please reread this comment, in which I affirm the importance of "payoff". Our difference seems to hinge on whether seeking the truth leads in general to a better payoff. I think it does, and nothing about that depends on assuming that God exists. Why would it? Truth has lots of payoffs, both practical and esthetic. Why wouldn't an atheist seek it?keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.
Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God.scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
CC: We could generalize it and ask, how can you determine you’re not a brain in a vat? Or that Last Thursday-ism is not true. The answer is, I don’t know. Keiths: That’s right. We can never be sure.
I would say we can never know at all, full stop. "Surety" pertains to a feeling of confidence. I have learned not to put much stock in feelings with regards to the adjudication of reality. :)
CC: All I really know, in the truest sense of that word, is that I’m a conscious thing, and am having experiences. K: Cogito, ergo sum.
I would put it a bit differently, since "thinking" is a brain-triggered, secondary mode that informs consciousness. I would simply say: "I'm conscious." Full stop. It's the fundamental truth. The only truth I know without qualification. Therefore, there is no "therefore" about it. :)
CC: Beyond that, I accept certain assumptions about these experiences and do the best I can. K: Yes, though it is perhaps surprising how few assumptions you really need in order to get by. Or to put it differently, you can treat many of your assumptions as provisional. They don’t need to be treated as absolute, inarguable truths.
I agree. I call them my "working hypotheses."
K: The sheer power of an experience doesn’t underwrite the truth of one’s interpretation of it.
I agree. An interpretation is not the experience itself. For example, one can have a vision of a glorious cross in the sky and then conclude Jesus or Mary is trying to communication to them. The basic fact of the vision is primary and any interpretation that follows is secondary by definition. Some conscious experiences are simply what they are with absolutely no path to a rational interpretation. And yet there is meaning there. Primary meaning. Just like the conscious experience of "blue" simply is what it is. There is no interpretation.
K: My fever experience was enormously powerful — I heard “celestial” music of a staggering beauty that I have never experienced before or since. It brought me to tears. But it happened in the midst of a high fever. Which explanation is more likely — that I just happened to tap into the numinous in the midst of a high fever, or that the high fever itself caused my brain to malfunction in a particularly moving way? The latter seems far more plausible.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Both are true, in my view. Your brain was in a very unusual state when it was all "fevered up." Various psychoactive chemicals can trigger amazing things too not normally experienced. This is well known, obviously. There is no doubt that the brain determines the states of consciousness. But as I see it, it is "merely" a trigger or interface to consciousness. But not the "thing" of consciousness itself. Correlation but not causation. Your fevered brain was in such a mode that informed your consciousness to react in a particular mode. Now, you might say, why invent some thing called "consciousness" if the brain states are obviously driving the experience. Ah, that's the question, isn't it. All I can say is that I know that it is, and many others do to. How we know it is impossible to explain. So, of course, it's useless information to you. But some of the readers here know what I'm talking about.
CC: Rational explanations are, and can only ever be, secondary to the conscious experience itself. K: Only in the sense that rational inferences about the world depend on the information we gather through our conscious sensory experiences. That doesn’t automatically validate every conscious experience, obviously.
Depends on what you mean by conscious experience. I agree that interpretations (which are based on neural processes) are always subject to failure. But a conscious experience, per se, can never be wrong. It simply is what it is. I hope you're seeing the difference. If any of this seems to make no sense, try to keep in mind that where I'm coming from, consciousness is primary. The brain informs it and determines its states. Maybe that will help.
K: Your split-brain experience sounds fascinating. Could you post your description on the “soul thread”, or better yet in my TSZ thread on the topic?
I'll see what I can do. P.S. how did I get off the rails onto this topic? Oh well. That's what happens when I post stuff late at night like I did last night. :)CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
keiths, in case you don't know by now, since you don't really respect empirical evidence except when you can twist to suit your purposes, I really have a very low view of your opinion on anything.bornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
CS, I'm envious. I would love to have that experience, though I'd be a little nervous about the procedure. I'm more likely to volunteer for a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. I knew about the Wada test, where an entire hemisphere is anesthetized, but I didn't realize that they could confine it to the corpus callosum. How do they do that?keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
bornagain77:
CentralScrutinizer, thanks for your split brain testimony. Very fascinating to have a first person account of what happens!,,,
I knew BA would be ecstatic. Don't get too excited, BA. CS's experience doesn't mean what you (and he) think it means. I'll explain on the other thread.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
BA77: how in the world were they able to entice you into such a bizarre experiment?
Because I'm a bizarre person? :D Seriously, one of my best friends is a neurologist research scientist.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Sal,
I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God?
Because the value of truth doesn't depend on the existence of God. Why would it?
In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.
I think you may actually be living that way. Your attraction to Pascal's Wager seems to be based on a belief that the truth isn't very important to your "payoff".
Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.
Of course "payoffs" are primary. It's just that you don't seem to think that the truth leads to better payoffs. I do. If we were actually better off not pursuing the truth, and if we somehow knew that with near certainty, then I would advocate not pursuing the truth. Of course, to find out that we were better off not pursuing the truth, we would have to pursue the truth of that statement itself. And we would want to keep questioning it in case we made a mistake. That would mean considering the truth of related ideas, and before we knew it, we'd be back in full pursuit of the truth again.
Not to pick on your statement, but “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
Not at all. The fact that X does (or doesn't) love me is an objective truth. The meaning I attach to her love is subjective (in the emotional sense of the word 'meaning', which is the relevant one here).
I think your objections to the Bible are those I could sympathize with, and have shared myself, that’s not to say I think those are grounds to reject the Bible. There are a lot of truths I don’t like, but have to come to terms with. Obviously, with respect to evolution we’ll never find agreement, but at least for once, I could empathize deeply with your viewpoint, particularly the serial genocide in the Old Testament.
I'd be curious to hear how you reconcile that with your faith. Your attraction to YEC seems to be motivated by a hope that the Bible is true and trustworthy and that YEC could help establish that, but if the Bible is true, then all of those nasty stories about God are also true. Wouldn't that be bad news for you?keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer, thanks for your split brain testimony. Very fascinating to have a first person account of what happens!,,, If you don't mind me getting asking, how in the world were they able to entice you into such a bizarre experiment?bornagain77
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
keiths:
I’ve had a couple of powerful experiences, myself. One of them when I was running an extremely high fever. That’s the problem. How can you determine that an experience, no matter how powerful or even “numinous”, is true and not just an unusual brain event with a perfectly prosaic cause?
CentralScrutinizer:
We could generalize it and ask, how can you determine you’re not a brain in a vat? Or that Last Thursday-ism is not true. The answer is, I don’t know.
That's right. We can never be sure.
All I really know, in the truest sense of that word, is that I’m a conscious thing, and am having experiences.
Cogito, ergo sum.
Beyond that, I accept certain assumptions about these experiences and do the best I can.
Yes, though it is perhaps surprising how few assumptions you really need in order to get by. Or to put it differently, you can treat many of your assumptions as provisional. They don't need to be treated as absolute, inarguable truths.
But to answer your question specifically, I’ll give the same answer: I don’t know. But the sheer power of the experience is inescapable.
The sheer power of an experience doesn't underwrite the truth of one's interpretation of it. My fever experience was enormously powerful -- I heard "celestial" music of a staggering beauty that I have never experienced before or since. It brought me to tears. But it happened in the midst of a high fever. Which explanation is more likely -- that I just happened to tap into the numinous in the midst of a high fever, or that the high fever itself caused my brain to malfunction in a particularly moving way? The latter seems far more plausible.
Rational explanations are, and can only ever be, secondary to the conscious experience itself.
Only in the sense that rational inferences about the world depend on the information we gather through our conscious sensory experiences. That doesn't automatically validate every conscious experience, obviously. Your split-brain experience sounds fascinating. Could you post your description on the "soul thread", or better yet in my TSZ thread on the topic?keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Sal: Not to pick on your statement, but “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
I think that's worthy of framing. :)CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?” That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.
I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn't care about truth because it would be too sad to know...I'd rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case. Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you've just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started. Not to pick on your statement, but "we create our own meaning" is pretty much to me "we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better". Thanks for you comments. This some of the best stuff I've seen you post ever... I think your objections to the Bible are those I could sympathize with, and have shared myself, that's not to say I think those are grounds to reject the Bible. There are a lot of truths I don't like, but have to come to terms with. Obviously, with respect to evolution we'll never find agreement, but at least for once, I could empathize deeply with your viewpoint, particularly the serial genocide in the Old Testament.scordova
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
keiths: I’ve had a couple of powerful experiences, myself. One of them when I was running an extremely high fever. That’s the problem. How can you determine that an experience, no matter how powerful or even “numinous”, is true and not just an unusual brain event with a perfectly prosaic cause?
We could generalize it and ask, how can you determine you're not a brain in a vat? Or that Last Thursday-ism is not true. The answer is, I don't know. All I really know, in the truest sense of that word, is that I'm a conscious thing, and am having experiences. Beyond that, I accept certain assumptions about these experiences and do the best I can. But to answer your question specifically, I'll give the same answer: I don't know. But the sheer power of the experience is inescapable. Rational explanations are, and can only ever be, secondary to the conscious experience itself. Consciousness is primary. Rational ruminations are secondary. That's the way I see it. So in the most basic sense, I'm existing in a "spiritual" state all the time, passing thru various brain states that get fed into my consciousness, which is primary. BTW, with regards to your citation of the split-brain experiments (and people who suffer from that due to injury, etc). I was involved in one of those split-brain experiments myself. (Which is possible by temporarily numbing the corpus callosum.) And believe me, it was the damnedest thing. The thing is, even though different parts of my brain were acting as if they had no knowledge of "each other", behind it all was still "me", consciously experiencing the strange disconnection. It's akin to having different senses, like hearing and sight. You, a normal person (I assume), have hearing and you have sight, and you consciously experience them both concurrently. But sight and hearing are RADICALLY different experiences within consciousness. Hearing is not sight. Yet, they are somehow unified in that single consciousness which is "you." The split-brain experience does weird things, and causes different "circuits" to become unaware of other "circuits." Even to the point of having different "will" about various actions. But behind the weird disconnect the conscious "you" are still experiencing all the weird disconnects. All through-out there is never more than a single consciousness, even though much confusion about how the mechanics of brain processes are apparent. So, while I'm convinced that much of what we think of as "free will" is largely automatic and not free, the consciousness in back of it all, experiencing it all, is a single unified "entity." And for reasons previously stated in another post, I'm firmly convinced it's "outside" of space-time, and merely interfaced to space-time via brains. This won't convince anyone of anything, but that's that way I see it.CentralScrutinizer
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Sal,
Advantage Players recognize they will be wrong frequently, but Advantage Play is about wagering on the best bet in a sea of uncertainty, not necessarily betting on what is ultimately true (impossible if one isn’t God Himself).
Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal's Wager. It doesn't ask the question "What is most likely to be true?" It only asks, "How can I get the best payoff?" That's anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
CentralScrutinizer:
keiths, your story is nearly exactly the same as mine. And probably many thousands of others. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah, I think there are a lot of us out there.
One difference, however, that I have with you. I have had, many, what you might call, “numinous experiences.”
I've had a couple of powerful experiences, myself. One of them when I was running an extremely high fever. That's the problem. How can you determine that an experience, no matter how powerful or even "numinous", is true and not just an unusual brain event with a perfectly prosaic cause?
Why am I relating this? Because you seem like a sincere fellow, and your particular station at which you find yoruself is not the end of the line. There is much more beyond it.
I'm open to that possibility, which is why I think these questions are important and very, very interesting. I just don't think the evidence is there.keiths
July 1, 2013
July
07
Jul
1
01
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply