During my "Rescuer" Period, I believed that Logic would prevail.
Probably the last time I tried this "technique" was with my elder
sister. She believed totally that her parents, especially her mother,
hated her. She "knew" in her heart of hearts that mother tried to
abort her, and took out her anger that this unwanted pregnancy had
forced her to marry a man she did not like. This world of my sisters
went reeling off into a Land of Never Never, totally different than
the one I and my younger sister grew up in. When I was first totally
blind, I had lots of time on my hands. I designed the perfect
rebuttal to each and every accusation my elder sister made. Over
several weeks I would call her and take up this project of mine.
I honestly believed, going in, that logic would prevail. Of course
what I failed to understand was that my elder sister truly believed
that she was the logical one, and I simply ignored the facts. We went
back and forth for several months, until I threw in the towel,
deciding it was better to keep an open line to my elder sister, than
to close all doors of communication. After over half a century do I
think that staying in touch has been productive in the slightest?
Yes. Of course she has not wavered from any of her fantasies, but by
my listening to her vent, she has come to believe that I understand
her, even if I do not agree. Perhaps it is as much her age, she is
now turning 84, that has had a calming effect. She is no longer a
destructive, out of control person. I have long ago stopped trying to
convince her that she is nuts. I accept that she lives in a much
different Reality than do I and my younger sister. And isn't that the
world we all live in? Even those of us who have many areas of
agreement, don't we each live in our own Reality? And don't we feel
the need to defend and justify our Reality?
In my Reality there is no longer an Almighty God. He left town many
years back. But my younger sister has a deep belief in a "Greater
Power", and yet we are true friends. My mother-in-law says her
prayers each morning and reads her Daily Lesson, and repeats each bead
on her Rosary. But even though I know that she quietly prays for my
Soul, we never attempt to "convert" one another. So, is it possible
for 7 or 8 billion individual realities to coexist peacefully, without
the need to feel that one of us is more Right than those around us?
Certainly as long as we close doors and refuse to accept that other
peoples reality is as valid to them as ours is to us,we will go forth
to do battle, instead of going forth to make peace.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/23/17, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
It didn't really occur to me that it was an attempt to convert. For one
thing, if a person has renounced the use of logic and utterly rejects it
then you may as well forget about using logic to convince that person of
anything. To me it was simply a well articulated explanation of why
Pascal's wager is completely invalid. I have used the same arguments
myself and have done so on this list even if I was not directly refuting
Pascal's wager in particular. I have not necessarily used the same words
though and I liked the way it was explained. Personally, though, I would
add that in addition to having a really difficult time choosing a
religion to bet on there are also an infinity of things that can be made
up out of nothing and to each one can be attached dire consequences for
not believing them, so how does one choose one irrationality out of an
infinity of irrationalities to bet on?
Not withstanding all of that, though, let us take a look at other ideas
or things that one can be emotionally attached to. There are a lot of
people who are emotionally attached to Donald Trump and hang onto his
every word. Many of them renounce the use of logic in defending him and
it will offend them deeply if anyone criticizes him. Because they have
renounced the validity of logic it is very unlikely that they can be
converted. So does that mean that we should never criticize him at all?
Should we never try to inform one of his supporters because it might
cause distress for that person? Whether an evil comes in the form of
Donald Trump or in the form of a religion must we give up on fighting
evil because there are some people who are emotionally attached to that
evil and hold their beliefs in that evil very dear?
On 7/23/2017 1:53 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
In part, I agree with Miriam. At first I thought I was listening to a
couple of Robots, and there would be some funny ending. But the links
that follow are more interesting to me.
Still, nothing I heard would be discussions I'd use in trying to
"convert" others to Agnosticism. Everything that was said could force
the other person to dig in deeper. Of course that never stops me from
getting a bit over the top from time to time, but at least I know at
the outset that I am simply venting, not converting.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/22/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the problem with this little dialogue is that it is represented as a
rational discussion in which the young woman uses logic to convince the
young man of how irrational and, well, basically stupid he is, to be a
believing Christian. Aside from some of that stuff regarding how much
money
he donates and that it may very well be used for something other than
he's
been told, which is an unproved allegation because it does depend on the
church he attends, this idea that people will respond to logical
arguments
regarding religion is clearly incorrect. Religion fulfills emotional
needs
for many people. Logical discussion doesn't make those needs disappear.
Sometimes, challenging religious beliefs causes people to cling to them
even
more strongly because they feel so threatened by the arguments against
their
beliefs. And again, why the need to convince people not to believe what
they
clearly do believe and what is such an important part of their lives?
I've
noticed that some of the people who feel most strongly negative about
religion, are the people who were once very religious themselves. It
reminds
me of former members of the Communist Party who became strongly
anti-Communist during the 1950's. And there's a blind guy who's on
several
lists and whose political opinions are extremely right wing. He told me
that
he was once a left wing Democrat and he worked on the McGovern campaign.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 9:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
rogerbailey81 for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Pascal's Wager Again
It worked this time. At least it worked for me. I think I may see the
problem. The first time I listened to the whole presentation before
deciding
to share it and by the time I copied the URL it had moved on to
something
else and apparently it was the URL to that something else that I copied.
This time I found the recording again in my browser's history feature and
it
started out with what I wanted to share and I immediately copied that
URL.
When I tested it it worked. Now, if any of you try this and it does not
give
you two synthetic voices discussing Pascal's wager after they have
dinner
let me know and I will know that I am still doing something wrong.
On 7/22/2017 9:29 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender rogerbailey81
for
DMARC) wrote:
Okay, I'm going to try that link to the discussion on Pascal's wager
again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMk2kHZUrAc
