What Do You Think Of Emmanuel's Wager©?

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. Sources are forthcoming

From Pope JP2, in his magnificent Veritatis Splendor, on why we do not have the license to re-define what is true:

Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God’s commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat “of every tree of the garden”. But his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance of that law. God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good to man in the commandments.

God’s law does not reduce, much less do away with human freedom; rather, it protects and promotes that freedom. In contrast, however, some present-day cultural tendencies have given rise to several currents of thought in ethics which centre upon an alleged conflict between freedom and law. These doctrines would grant to individuals or social groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to “create values” and would enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim to a moral autonomy which would actually amount to an absolute sovereignty.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. Sources are forthcoming.

From the sure norm for the faith:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament

 

[PRmerger]

From the sure norm for the faith:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament

And this, too:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. Sources are forthcoming.

And finally, from the Word of God:

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.–Matt 19:4

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you could provide an example of when passion would be necessary for grasping the truth?

How about in choosing your mate for the rest of your life?



Incidentally, when I say, “I reject Dispassion Alone as a means for apprehending truth” that does not necessarily mean, “I accept Passion Alone as a means for apprehending truth.”

It merely means that dispassion alone is to be rejected.

That would make us like the Vulcans.

Vulcans don’t love. It isn’t rational. It isn’t dispassionate.

 

[Oreoracle]

How about in choosing your mate for the rest of your life?

Choosing a mate isn’t making a claim, proposition, or assertion. Choice doesn’t have a truth value.

While choices cannot be true or false, they can be motivated by true or false claims. For example, falsely believing one’s partner is faithful, or responsible, or financially stable, etc., may lead one into a marriage that will end badly. To ascertain whether or not one’s partner possesses these qualities, it would be best to be dispassionate in their evaluation. Going with the example of financial stability, your affection for someone may very well lead you to overlook evidence of their poor management of money. On the other hand, affection for your partner would rarely help you evaluate their money-management objectively.

That is all I’m saying. Any passionate feelings you have about others are entirely irrelevant to answering questions about their behavior.

 

[Oreoracle]

But let me just say: are you really going to profess here on a rather public forum, for all other members here to witness your saying this–that you don’t know that the Catholic Church is against re-defining marriage?

You need a source for this?

They’re against re-defining it, sure, but not for the reason you agreed with. If you recall, I said this:

Oreoracle:

Well you’re able to “extend” a definition to any extent you want, but it will be confusing for everyone you’re conversing with because the definition is unconventional.

You concurred with this and said it was the Catholic stance regarding alternate definitions of “marriage”. But this of course isn’t the reason Catholics are against changing the definition. To them it isn’t a matter of the linguistics or miscommunications caused by various definitions. No, to them it’s simply a matter of tradition: Their definition of “marriage” is right because it’s always been that way within the Church.

It’s not a matter of semantics to the Church, nor of convention, but a matter of policy.

 

[stewstew03]

Firstly, we should be cautious here. There is a broad definition of “triangle” within differential geometry of which the Euclidean and elliptic triangles are special cases. But within those respective geometries, the two definitions of “triangle” are incompatible. If we had developed an elliptic geometry first, the Euclidean notion would be contested instead. If there had been different varieties of geometry that developed independently from each other, then a connection may never have been noted between the different conceptions of “triangle”. So generalizations are very much post hoc in that it’s only after we accept deviations from the original definition that we realize similarities between the different usages.

And that’s the problem with insisting that a particular definition is the correct one. Someday we may conceive of an even more general notion of “triangle”, and the purists will insist that the new definition is wrong because we already have the correct one. There may, for all we know, be a geometry in which it is useful to regard what would normally be considered different polygons to be the same. We already have examples in which it’s useful to relax the requirement that the sides be straight, so what’s stopping us from potentially relaxing other requirements such as the number of sides?

Again, you are confusing properties of various triangles with the definition of a triangle. Let’s make this simple: if I said a triangle was a union of four segments (or sides) from a set of four non-collinear points, would that be a Wrong definition or a Right definition?

This goes back to my original post, where you obviously are confusing right/wrong with absolute truth/falsity.

 

[stewstew03]

…
It’s not a matter of semantics to the Church, nor of convention, but a matter of policy.

It’s a matter of Natural Law.

 

[Oreoracle]

Again, you are confusing properties of various triangles with the definition of a triangle. Let’s make this simple: if I said a triangle was a union of four segments (or sides) from a set of four non-collinear points, would that be a Wrong definition or a Right definition?

You’re acting as if that’s a single definition, but again, it’s the post hoc generalization that mathematicians devised after much dispute and gnashing of teeth. The definition varies depending on what you mean by “sides” (curvilinear or linear?), which in turn depends on the metric you’re using (Euclidean or Minkowski?), etc. It is really a family of definitions rather than a single definition. When these matters were being discussed, the connection between the variety of definitions was not obvious and, at the time, there really were “competing” definitions.

Now consider how geometers in the past probably argued as you did when they were confronted with those competing definitions: “Let’s make this simple: If I said a triangle has 3 curved sides, would that be right or wrong?”

Thanks to 20-20 hindsight vision, we can look back and say that that dismissive attitude is mistaken. What makes you think your objection is on any firmer ground than those of geometers of old?

Also, I should point out that generalization is not always possible and sometimes terms are just recycled to draw attention to similarities. So you can’t always argue that the “correct” definition is the most general one because sometimes they are genuinely at odds. This causes no difficulties in the academic world as long as the differences in definitions are understood.

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, we should be cautious here. There is a broad definition of “triangle” within differential geometry of which the Euclidean and elliptic triangles are special cases.

Sure.

But no matter how “unconventional” you want your definitions to be, no mathematician is EVER going to say, “Yes, this is a triangle”.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Circle_-black_simple.svg/220px-Circle-_black_simple.svg.png

 

[PRmerger]

No, to them it’s simply a matter of tradition: Their definition of “marriage” is right because it’s always been that way within the Church.

Absolutely not.

Our definition of marriage is no more “right because it’s always been that way” than a mathematician’s definition of a circle is “right because it’s always been that way.”

 

[Oreoracle]

Sure.

But no matter how “unconventional” you want your definitions to be, no mathematician is EVER going to say, “Yes, this is a triangle”.

You may find it rather alarming, then, that circles and triangles are regarded as equivalent in topology.

They are actually the same in many respects. It’s just a matter of which application you have in mind. They are both uniquely determined by by three points. They can be subdivided into curves that are geodesics of cylinders. They are homeomorphic. Mobius transformations preserve circular arcs and lines, but generally not other curves.

 

[PRmerger]

You may find it rather alarming, then, that circles and triangles are regarded as equivalent in topology.

Equivalent?

Ok.

I think a wheelbarrow is equivalent to a man as far as carrying a bag of dirt around.

But no one would ever say, “A wheelbarrow is a man!”

At least, no one who’s rational and has any desire to conform to reality.

 

[Oreoracle]

Equivalent?

Ok.

I think a wheelbarrow is equivalent to a man as far as carrying a bag of dirt around.

But no one would ever say, “A wheelbarrow is a man!”

At least, no one who’s rational and has any desire to conform to reality.

Ah, you posted before I edited in some of their traits (you can see some above). But regarding your objection, it is entirely necessary to specify in what sense you are comparing two things. For example, as rational numbers, 1/2 and 2/4 are equivalent. As ordered pairs of integers, they aren’t. As polynomials, (dx)^2 and x^2 are equivalent. As polynomial functions, they aren’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, you posted before I edited in some of their traits (you can see some above). But regarding your objection, it is entirely necessary to specify in what sense you are comparing two things. For example, as rational numbers, 1/2 and 2/4 are equivalent. As ordered pairs of integers, they aren’t. As polynomials, (dx)^2 and x^2 are equivalent. As polynomial functions, they aren’t.

Sure. I agree with everything you say here.

 

[stewstew03]

You’re acting as if that’s a single definition, but again, it’s the post hoc generalization that mathematicians devised after much dispute and gnashing of teeth. The definition varies depending on what you mean by “sides” (curvilinear or linear?), which in turn depends on the metric you’re using (Euclidean or Minkowski?), etc. It is really a family of definitions rather than a single definition. When these matters were being discussed, the connection between the variety of definitions was not obvious and, at the time, there really were “competing” definitions.

Now consider how geometers in the past probably argued as you did when they were confronted with those competing definitions: "Let’s make this simple: If I said a triangle has 3 curved sides, would that be right or wrong?

Thanks to 20-20 hindsight vision, we can look back and say that that dismissive attitude is mistaken. What makes you think your objection is on any firmer ground than those of geometers of old?

Also, I should point out that generalization is not always possible and sometimes terms are just recycled to draw attention to similarities. So you can’t always argue that the “correct” definition is the most general one because sometimes they are genuinely at odds. This causes no difficulties in the academic world as long as the differences in definitions are understood.

I noticed that you never actually respond to any points – you just skirt the argument and discuss something you’re more comfortable addressing (which is apparently non-Euclidean geometry).

Let me try this another way… can you please point me to an authority to support your claim that a triangle does not fit this definition:

A triangle is a union of three segments (sides or edges) from a set of three non-collinear points.

Do you have a reputable website, or journal article…or anything that will support your claim that the definition of a triangle is still a matter up for debate?

Thanks!

 

[PRmerger]

Wikipedia has a nice section within the article on “agnosticism” that addresses the various types of agnosticism. It is called, appropriately enough, “Types of Agnosticism”, and each type has sources for its usage. I’ll copy and paste the section below:

All of those defs are consonant with reality and get a from me.

 

[PRmerger]

Choosing a mate isn’t making a claim, proposition, or assertion. Choice doesn’t have a truth value.

Sure it is. You are making a proposition: it is a good thing for me to stay with this woman for the rest of my life.

You can either be right about this. Or wrong.

If you go by Dispassion Alone, then you are missing a huge chunk of truth which will assist you in making your choice.

Surely you see how being a Vulcan would be a great big mistake, yes? Surely you see that. There is no reason to use only 1 particular method of apprehending truth.

It’s like saying, “I am going to use only my sense of taste to determine whether I should feed this to my child.”

Why in the world would you limit yourself to 1 sense to make a decision? You have 4 other senses. Use them! What if it tastes good but is totally synthetic? Your visual sense would have told you that but you closed your eyes (heh!) to that source.

It seems utterly ree-dahnk-u-lous to use [fill in the blank] ALONE to make any sort of determination.

And if you persist in saying that Dispassion Alone is the only way to make a decision, I am going to label you with the fundamentalist label you so bristle at.

And I don’t discuss with fundamentalists. It is an inutile endeavor.

 

[Oreoracle]

I noticed that you never actually respond to any points – you just skirt the argument and discuss something you’re more comfortable addressing (which is apparently non-Euclidean geometry).

It’s not skirting the issue. I am pointing out how countless others have believed themselves right in restricting certain conventions in language. At the time, it always seems justified–“no one could possibly think about this any other useful way!” I have given you examples of where this thinking has been proven wrong time and again by history.

What’s fascinating is that you can concede each point and yet still fail to see the trend. Every generation believes they have the broadest possible perspective on an issue, be it language or otherwise. They have always been wrong.

So there’s no point in addressing your particular example, because you’ll just contrive another until you get your way. You don’t want to learn from history, and I certainly can’t force you to.

All of those defs are consonant with reality and get a from me.

Excellent. That should prevent some misunderstandings in the future.

Sure it is. You are making a proposition: it is a good thing for me to stay with this woman for the rest of my life.

I’m not sure it’s safe to assume that choosing something implies wanting it. Consider arranged marriages, for example. I would distinguish choosing something from making a claim about it, because the possible motivations for choosing that thing are debatable.