Carl Sagan's Son

[Beady]

A few days ago, I was telling a cow-orker about the DVD set of Cosmos. Another cow-orker, the one who's really into woo, overheard and decided to stick his oar in, claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book (orker couldn't remember either the son's name or the title of the book) claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos.

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

[ohms]

According to his website (http://www.nicksagan.com/works.html), Nick Sagan has had 3 novels published, all fiction.

The list also agrees with his list of works on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Sagan).

I expect you are correct about the deathbed conversion thing.

[CBVan]

Call the co-worker on it. See what he/she says. Post it here. Please?

[Jekyll]

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

That sounds like an awesome story:

*Cough* *Cough* "I was just kidding about the big bang. It started as a little joke, but it all got out of control. Tell Hawking I'm sorry." *Urrgh*

[Dave1001]

A deathbed conversion is a highly rational move. Think about it. No downside to it.

[ImaginalDisc]

A deathbed conversion is a highly rational move. Think about it. No downside to it.

There certainly is. For one thing, which delusional religion should a dying person chose? There are so many, and they're all so sure they're right. For another, Sagan was quite sure they're all hornswoggle, so there's nothing to be gained by doing so.

[Hawkeye]

Complete utter horsesh*t.

The following passage is from the epilogue to Sagan’s Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, written by his wife Ann Druyan. It’s beautiful, you can read it here: http://www.2think.org/bab.shtml
(scroll down to the section labeled epilogue)
Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each others eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever.


As others pointed out, your coworker’s claim is ridiculous. Why on earth would Sagan ever "disavow" Cosmos? Does this guy have any freaking idea what cosmos is even about?! Carl spent his life trying (successfully I might add) to popularize science and increase scientific understanding and critical thinking within the public. Cosmos, which is among the best selling science books ever written, was intended to educate people about astronomy and astrophysics. It’s essentially bout mankind’s place in the universe, and the story of how we came to understand this perspective. To say Sagan disavowed Cosmos is to suggest that he rejected his life’s work and abandoned his most fundamental philosophies.

These woo-woos are free to believe in any of the ridiculous fantasies they want to in their free time, but if they dare to defile the life and death of a man like Sagan to further their own agenda… that’s not going to fly with me.

[Foster Zygote]

It's funny how it's always the atheists and agnostics who are said to have made deathbed conversions. I never hear any apocryphal stories about famous religious leaders converting to atheism in the end.

Steven

[switchtech]

It's funny how it's always the atheists and agnostics who are said to have made deathbed conversions. I never hear any apocryphal stories about famous religious leaders converting to atheism in the end.

Steven

I once read a description of Hell described not as the Inferno Dante describes (actually, he described more than the fashionable blazing lake of fire) but as a separation from God, that is, to be not in God's presence. So the true fate of all believers is Hell, in the sense they are not in the presence of their god. A non-believer doesn't have that "problem." We just eventually go back to being star-dust (or what ever fate awaits the Earth at the end of our solar system) - and truly be a part of the heavens (in the sense that the Universe is the heavens) as we always were.

So in my ironic way, I've implied that all atheists exist all their lives and all their after-life in Heaven, and all believes exist eternally in Hell. Seems right to me.

jbs

[mumchup]

I'm always a little bit amused that prayers and conversions on deathbeds and such are considered proof of a god. If I am in a foxhole with bombs falling all around, frightened for my life and terrified; is that my most reasonable moment?

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.

[Hawkeye]

Or maybe evidence that people are afraid of death and take comfort in the thought of an afterlife.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.

Some people talk about it, yes.

Do you have a better explanation?

God exists, and we merely discover him?

[UnrepentantSinner]

A few days ago, I was telling a cow-orker about the DVD set of Cosmos. Another cow-orker, the one who's really into woo, overheard and decided to stick his oar in, claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book (orker couldn't remember either the son's name or the title of the book) claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos.

This strikes me as a variant on the "Sagan's Deathbead Conversion" story (somewhat similar to Darwin's). However, on the chance that I missed something, has anyone here heard of such a book?

Hawkeye's quote from Billions and Billions is great and I might add that unless said co-worker things Anne Druyen was just shilling for the DVD, you might mention that she appears on the first disk speaking about how proud Carl was of the series and how it had stood the test of time in the last 20ish years. There's also the little "science updates" added feature which says when you click on it that very little revision is needed since Cosmos first aired.

And how does one disavow that Schiaparelli was not referring to "canals" or the Tlingits greeted La Peruse on his voyages around Alaska?

[Dave1001]

There certainly is. For one thing, which delusional religion should a dying person chose? There are so many, and they're all so sure they're right. For another, Sagan was quite sure they're all hornswoggle, so there's nothing to be gained by doing so.

Once again, there's no downside to it. A subset of religions will damn you if you convert to the wrong religion. But as far as I know the same ones also damn you if you choose no religion. So converting to one of those on your deathbead costs nothing, but its like getting a free an afterlife lottery ticket to a lottery that probably won't pay off. But who turns down a free lottery ticket?

[Gilmar]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

[Beady]

In fairness, I have to tell you that woo-ish cow-orker seems to have similar views to myself on religion, so we're not discussing a religious conversion. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what kind of conversion or disavowal is intended. I think I may go back (on Monday, we're now into the weekend) and get him to be more explicit.

BTW, I did tell him about Druyan's epilog to B&B (although I misremembered it as being from a Skeptical Inquirer article). The conversation ended with him saying something on the order of, "So, Sagan's wife says he didn't and his son says he did." It's progress of a sort, I suppose.

(There are two problems with having these discussions at work: 1) you occasionally have to break off and earn your paycheck, and 2) you've got to be really careful about getting too heavily into some subjects.)

[Soapy Sam]

Some people talk about it, yes.

Do you have a better explanation?

God exists, and we merely discover him?

One of Stephen J. Gould's many valuable reminders to his readers was that the cultural context inevitably affects the view of writers, and that scientists are not exempt.

The widespread belief that we might be hard wired to believe in gods is very much a meme of our times. Before the universality of PCs, very few of us would have used terms like "hard wired" of people at all.

Pre genetics, while many people believed behaviour could be inherited (Good breeding will out, old boy! It's in the blood) this wasa rather different thing from saying "Homosexuality may be a hereditary condition".

There is, so far as I'm aware, little solid anatomical evidence to support the notion that we are hard wired to believe in gods. There are several suggestive hints from biology / ethology, notably the very universality of the behaviour. Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here. A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

[Beady]

Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

Define "easily." In my own case, I first began toying with rationality while attending a Lutheran high school (the English teacher was foolish enough to allow us to do one of the courtroom scenes in Inherit the Wind). It took another 30 years or so before my skepticism and rationality attained some sort of coherence and, even at this point, I find it emotionally and intellectually difficult to completely disavow all religious faith.

[CFLarsen]

One of Stephen J. Gould's many valuable reminders to his readers was that the cultural context inevitably affects the view of writers, and that scientists are not exempt.

The widespread belief that we might be hard wired to believe in gods is very much a meme of our times. Before the universality of PCs, very few of us would have used terms like "hard wired" of people at all.

Pre genetics, while many people believed behaviour could be inherited (Good breeding will out, old boy! It's in the blood) this wasa rather different thing from saying "Homosexuality may be a hereditary condition".

There is, so far as I'm aware, little solid anatomical evidence to support the notion that we are hard wired to believe in gods. There are several suggestive hints from biology / ethology, notably the very universality of the behaviour. Yet religious belief actually seems quite easily shed if it is not constantly culturally reinforced.

"Hard-wired" is simply a term (slang, even) for evolutionary traits. It has nothing to do with cultural context, other than it makes it easier for people to grasp the idea quicker.

What we are hard-wired for is a less-than-perfect ability to discern between coincidence and correlation. This, we know for a fact. We can test it - e.g. via the Challenge.

This (in)ability results in a belief in the supernatural. It is a consequence of it.

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here.

Why, thank you! :p ;)

A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )

What I see as the most common trend is the desire to find out what is real and what is not. Plus, of course, a desire to see the harm done eradicated, or at least diminished.

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

It takes critical thinking, which is something that needs to be learned. Hence, the existence of this forum.

[Dave1001]

Are we non believers because our god gene is recessive, or because we were not forced into belief by our peers, or we were jolted out of it by someone's argument?

I think there are plausible arguments for all three.

[Nucular]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

Also, destroying one's life's work on one's deathbed is unlikely, I would have thought, to engender pleasant happy feelings. That to me would be the biggest downside to any 'deathbed conversion'.

As well as the thought that people would have a memory of me as an equivovating, 'do as I say not as I do' sort of phoney.

But it does sound incredibly unlikely, all in all. Not just because of who Sagan was, but also because of the claim itself - as someone pointed out, how do you 'disavow' scientific arguments for things?

If it's not a conversion to a 'mainstream' conservative, evangelical religion (and it sounds like the implication is that the conversion was to, eerily, a similar position to which the cow-orker subscribes?), two questions: how, and why?

How, because it'd be quite tricky, I'd have thought, to put together a coherent bunch of probably disparate beliefs along the lines, perhaps, of eclectic new-ageism (if that's the cow-orker's bag), close to death with time running out, and then say "so that's what I believe and why". It's at least a trickier enterprise than saying, e.g. "I'm a Christian, suddenly! Hallelujah!"

Why, because in the non-mainstream religions there are few conditions which would be compatible with a Pascal's wager sort of set-up. I've never heard of someone, for instance, claim that if you haven't accepted Cayce, you won't be reincarnated.

Finally, burden of proof, obviously. Beady's done his side of the homework, looking for said book himself even though he didn't need to, and finding Ann Druyan's wonderful writings which seem directly to contradict the claims. Surely nothing is left but for the cow-orker to produce said document, on pain of receiving a long lecture on epistemology.

[asthmatic camel]

Consider the posters on this board. I detect no geniuses here. A bunch of average smart folk is what I see. But what we have in common tends to be wide reading, good education, perhaps a streak of resistance to ideas being forced on us, (unless we find them interesting. )


I suspect that, as an obviously clever man, you choose to associate with people who possess a similar level of ability and therefore overestimate the average level of intelligence; Joe Public isn't terribly bright, believe me.

[brooklyn44]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".

hear, hear!!!!!

[switchtech]

... someone kill me!

jbs

[...JR]

Maybe proof of being "hardwired" that people always talk about.


Well I'm currently reading "The God Gene" by Dean Hamer and while I'm only on the second chapter, he goes into how some sort of spirituallity that we seek (not necessarily through religious means) is hardwired into our genes, but this is, of coarse, not the end of the story since as he puts it, there is an amalgamation of things going on, but his hypothesis is simply that, yes, spirituallity is something hardwired into us. I will let ya'll know how the rest of the book goes.

anyone read this book?

[T'ai Chi]

Or maybe evidence that people are afraid of death and take comfort in the thought of an afterlife.

If strong belief in everyone in the afterlife is hardwired, ya gotta start to wonder..., especially when many people "take comfort" in it while they are still healthy and not afraid.

[hgc]

If strong belief in everyone in the afterlife is hardwired, ya gotta start to wonder..., especially when many people "take comfort" in it while they are still healthy and not afraid.
Wonder about what? All the other "design" flaws?

[joobz]

The downside is abdication of principles. The downside is for those of us who remain; I would be dismayed if Sagan or, say, Asimov, had made a "deathbed conversion".
I find this amusing.
Why should any of us care if he changed beliefs right before he died. It doesn't have any bearing on the truth of the science. It doesn't detract from the work he did educating the masses. I wouldn't lose respect for him if he developed alzheimer's or any form of dementia.

Now, especially since the atheist believes that nothing happens after death, Why should it matter what he says or does on the way he dies? Why should it matter for those "left behind"?

It seems that the desire to believe Sagan didn't denounce his non-faith is an extention of some athiests needing to have their non-religion reaffirmed. Such is the halmark in the beginnings of zealotry. The desire to know that those you respect and all of those you interact with have the same viewpoints. Add in a sense of persecution and you can develop a whole fundamentalist non-god movement. Like Steven Colbert once said, "where is your No-god now?"


Remember:
Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus- I'd still have to bum rides off people.

[hgc]

It seems that the desire to believe Sagan didn't denounce his non-faith is an extention of some athiests needing to have their non-religion reaffirmed.
I seems to me that it's just anger at having someone who is highly respected being claimed to have taken the exact opposite position from what he is respected for, post-mortem. Believe it or not, fans of Sagan like the person for who he was in addition to believing in what he did.

[joobz]

I seems to me that it's just anger at having someone who is highly respected being claimed to have taken the exact opposite position from what he is respected for, post-mortem. Believe it or not, fans of Sagan like the person for who he was in addition to believing in what he did.

That I could understand. I would especially understand distain and anger against the propagation of lies and false information. But that isn't what I've been reading. Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

[Major Billy]

one who's really into woo claiming that Sagan's son wrote a book claiming that Carl disavowed a lot of what was in Cosmos. <snip> ...has anyone here heard of such a book?Well, Carl Sagan did say he wished he had given more voice to opposing viewpoints to the theories presented in his book The Dragons of Eden (http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-Eden-Speculations-Evolution-Intelligence/dp/0345346297/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-9559558-3064135).

And his son Dorian Sagan did write a sequal to that book called Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence (http://www.amazon.com/Up-Dragons-Evolution-Human-Intelligence/dp/0071378251/sr=1-2/qid=1162092667/ref=sr_1_2/102-9559558-3064135?ie=UTF8&s=books), a follow-up that presented new discoveries and new theories. Science advances, and corrects.

I'm not surprized the woo's get the son and the science wrong.

[brooklyn44]

That I could understand. I would especially understand distain and anger against the propagation of lies and false information. But that isn't what I've been reading. Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

Thank you joobz. You've given me food for thought. I'm still digesting. (Lest my honest reappraisal be misinterpreted as snark, be advised that this is sincere and not sarcasm.)

[Beady]

And his son Dorian Sagan did write a sequal to that book called Up From Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence (http://www.amazon.com/Up-Dragons-Evolution-Human-Intelligence/dp/0071378251/sr=1-2/qid=1162092667/ref=sr_1_2/102-9559558-3064135?ie=UTF8&s=books), a follow-up that presented new discoveries and new theories.

I think that may be it! Thanks!

If you have a personal bias against skepticism, have poor memory, and want to counter-argue a skeptic, this could be interpreted as a refutation of sorts of something Carl Sagan wrote.

[Gilmar]

Reread the post by gilmar or Imaginaldisc alond with brooklyn44's fervored agreement. there was no mention at anger against the defemation of a great thinker. rather, there was a greater concern for their no-beliefs to be affirmed.

I was addressing the specific claim of there being no "downside" to a deathbed conversion. It appears that ImaginalDisc was as well. For what it's worth, the defamation aspect does annoy me.

[bjb]

Here's an article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_n90/ai_19777389?lstpn=article_results&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

[Dave1001]

Here's an article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_n90/ai_19777389?lstpn=article_results&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

That's a great article. His son jumps around a bit in it, but some of his criticisms are on point (about being skeptical about science, for example). One gets the sense that Sagan's greatest gift to his son was being intellectually imperfect in those ways.

[AmateurScientist]

Here's an article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0GER/is_n90/ai_19777389?lstpn=article_results&lstpc=search&lstpr=external&lstprs=other&lstwid=1&lstwn=search_results&lstwp=body_middle)written by Carl Sagan's son, Dorian. Be careful, it is four pages long. He describes having a number of conflicts with his father as well as his father's philosophy, but he never accuses him of having a deathbed conversion. I'm afraid certain people are pulling stories out of thin air.

I just read it. Frankly, Dorian does not share his father's gift for writing clearly. In fact, Dorian has trouble constructing clear sentences and cohesive paragraphs. After reading his essay, I don't even know what his theme or thesis is, apart from expressing his regret that he did not truly reconcile with his father before his death.

What I do know is that I find his "skepticism about science" to be an instance of anti-intellectualism, which is something he decries himself in his essay. Mr. Sagan the younger is rather patronizing towards science, which he describes as packing "as powerful a punch as most all philosophy." What? Science is merely another philosophy? He gives it a condescending nod with the throwaway comment that science's "habitual appeal to nature gives it the upper hand," and he describes science as "cocky." "Gee, thanks for the validation, Dorian," scientists the world over must be thinking. Finally, he calls his father hypocritical for not being critical of science itself. His father must be turning over in his grave. Well, he would be, if he weren't cremated.

I'm really disappointed that he is not a better thinker and writer. It's disingenuous to be "skeptical about science" the way he is. That's a strawman version of science. Science isn't about knowing the truth. It's a way of discovering provisional truths, yet always ready and willing to discard them in favor of new and better truths. Science is a method, a process. Dorian suggests it has limitations in its ability to discover truth. Well, sure it does. Science is limited to describing nature. It does not pretend to be able to delve into the realms of metaphysics or ontology. Dorian appears to hold some reverence for science, but also to hold scorn and contempt for it as well. His position is foggy and unsupported.

I understand the reconciling with dad thing. I truly do. Outside of its being an instance of jealousy (of science, not of his father), what I don't understand is his rebelliousness against the beauty of science, and against his dad's championing it so eloquently.

AS

[Dave1001]

I just read it. Frankly, Dorian does not share his father's gift for writing clearly. In fact, Dorian has trouble constructing clear sentences and cohesive paragraphs. After reading his essay, I don't even know what his theme or thesis is, apart from expressing his regret that he did not truly reconcile with his father before his death.

What I do know is that I find his "skepticism about science" to be an instance of anti-intellectualism, which is something he decries himself in his essay. Mr. Sagan the younger is rather patronizing towards science, which he describes as packing "as powerful a punch as most all philosophy." What? Science is merely another philosophy? He gives it a condescending nod with the throwaway comment that science's "habitual appeal to nature gives it the upper hand," and he describes science as "cocky." "Gee, thanks for the validation, Dorian," scientists the world over must be thinking. Finally, he calls his father hypocritical for not being critical of science itself. His father must be turning over in his grave. Well, he would be, if he weren't cremated.

I'm really disappointed that he is not a better thinker and writer. It's disingenuous to be "skeptical about science" the way he is. That's a strawman version of science. Science isn't about knowing the truth. It's a way of discovering provisional truths, yet always ready and willing to discard them in favor of new and better truths. Science is a method, a process. Dorian suggests it has limitations in its ability to discover truth. Well, sure it does. Science is limited to describing nature. It does not pretend to be able to delve into the realms of metaphysics or ontology. Dorian appears to hold some reverence for science, but also to hold scorn and contempt for it as well. His position is foggy and unsupported.

I understand the reconciling with dad thing. I truly do. Outside of its being an instance of jealousy (of science, not of his father), what I don't understand is his rebelliousness against the beauty of science, and against his dad's championing it so eloquently.

AS

I think Dorian was criticizing science in the world, as it's practiced by scientists, and although not all scientists can be criticized equally in this regard, I think his criticism of his father in this regard does hit home in some areas.

Here's some choice quotes where I thought he did his oedipal :p job well:


He hated it when I claimed with Nietzsche that nature isn't given but already always an interpretation. Or when I spoke of the metaphorical nature of all language, including scientific discourse. Or when I pointed out the rhetorical way in which he used words like "science" and "evidence."


But when he wrote of those "standard postmodern texts, where anything can mean anything," I was as critical of him as he had so often been of me. To which standard postmodernist texts was he referring? Had he, in fact, read any? There is a huge difference, I emphasized, between a philosophical critique of science -- an historical examination of its social context, inevitable assumptions, and limitations -- and pseudoscience, the uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated beliefs.

[hgc]

I think Dorian was criticizing science in the world, as it's practiced by scientists, and although not all scientists can be criticized equally in this regard, I think his criticism of his father in this regard does hit home in some areas.

Here's some choice quotes where I thought he did his oedipal :p job well:
...

But when he wrote of those "standard postmodern texts, where anything can mean anything," I was as critical of him as he had so often been of me. To which standard postmodernist texts was he referring? Had he, in fact, read any? There is a huge difference, I emphasized, between a philosophical critique of science -- an historical examination of its social context, inevitable assumptions, and limitations -- and pseudoscience, the uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Oh God. I can see whey they might have clashed. This sounds like a classic intellectual argument between father and son. You haven't even read Kristeva, you old fossil! And the topic is the same old reality vs solipsism.

[joobz]

How common is it that sons find interests and Careers that are polar opposites to their fathers.

My dad; a machinist from the steel mills, hard core NRA Bush supporter and devote catholic.

Me, a chemical engineering professor centrist with no strong religous convictions.

Luckily we love each other greatly and I couldn't be prouder to have him as a father.

[Foster Zygote]

Science isn't about knowing the truth. It's a way of discovering provisional truths, yet always ready and willing to discard them in favor of new and better truths. Science is a method, a process.

I know the above concept has been stated a hundred different ways, but I like the way you've worded it.

Steven

[joobz]

Oh God. I can see whey they might have clashed. This sounds like a classic intellectual argument between father and son. You haven't even read Kristeva, you old fossil! And the topic is the same old reality vs solipsism.

The arguement is great for the development of a person's intellect. In much the same way high school students conduct momentum transfer experiments on a sliding track. We're not testing that feature anymore, we know the answer. It just aides the student to learn it.

The issue of "What IS real?" is dead. Clinging to the debate is intellectually equivilent to the Amish's rejection of mechanical power. Sure you can and I'm sure you can enjoy your life. But, there is more out there and most of us won't be bothered trying to convince solipsists otherwise.

[kmortis]

How common is it that sons find interests and Careers that are polar opposites to their fathers.

My dad; a machinist from the steel mills, hard core NRA Bush supporter and devote catholic.

Me, a chemical engineering professor centrist with no strong religous convictions.

Luckily we love each other greatly and I couldn't be prouder to have him as a father.

I'll be your counter example:

My Dad: retired Mechanical Engineer (what he really did would nowadays be called Industrial Engineering), who doesn't really hold strong political or religious opinions.

Me: Electrical Engineer who has learned from his past and now holds few strong political or religious positions.

Religiously speaking, my dad is more agnostic than I. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, he still pays lipservice to the Methodist church that he grew up in, but that's about it. Of course, paying lipservice to the Methodist Church is almost tantamount to being an atheist. :p

[Morrigan]

Once again, there's no downside to it. A subset of religions will damn you if you convert to the wrong religion. But as far as I know the same ones also damn you if you choose no religion. So converting to one of those on your deathbead costs nothing, but its like getting a free an afterlife lottery ticket to a lottery that probably won't pay off. But who turns down a free lottery ticket?
The downside is dying as a coward. Who would want that?

Also, do you really think that (a) God would be convinced by such a conversion? Such a "just in case" conversion wouldn't be sincere at all, and I'd think that such a powerful divinity would not be fooled.

But hey, if you want your last breath to be a weaseling, cowardly, insincere yielding, then be my guest. Some of us have this thing called dignity.

[Beady]

The downside is dying as a coward. Who would want that?...But hey, if you want your last breath to be a weaseling, cowardly, insincere yielding, then be my guest. Some of us have this thing called dignity.

How long does Dignity survive the death of the individual?

[UserGoogol]

There's not a whole lot of point in dignity when you're dead, this is true. But a person who is really "virtuous" is going to have some difficulty and discomfort in throwing away their dignity, and in that sense it doesn't neccesarily pay off.

And of course, my personal favorite argument against that sort of reasoning is that there is no reason to completely rule out the Gods who nobody believes in as possibile deities, and in which case you have to worry about Atheisto, the god who damns the believers and rewards atheists with eternal awesome.

[Hawkeye]

Or there’s also the possibility that God would be more accommodating to atheists than to those who vehemently believe in the "wrong" religion.
I think that even I am wrong about my atheism (which I seriously doubt); God would understand my lack of belief in him/her/it, given the lack of sufficient evidence to the contrary. :duck:

[AmateurScientist]

Pascal's Wager is a sniveling coward's bet.

AS

[Beady]

Pascal's Wager is a sniveling coward's bet.

When I'm dead, I won't care.

[AmateurScientist]

When I'm dead, I won't care.

True, but I'll care on my deathbed, assuming I am lucky enough to have enough time to reflect. Even in those final moments, I'll wish to retain my intellectual honesty and integrity, the courage of my convictions, if you will.

The deathbed converter forfeits that.

AS

[Beady]

The deathbed converter forfeits that.

Maybe, but regret doesn't last any longer than dignity.

[Nucular]

Thing is, in a godless universe, we products of blind evolution have to make our own meaning, and develop and subscribe to our own values.

To some that extends to a consideration of what we leave behind, and what people we are close to - or people at large - think of us, and how the good bits of our contribution to the world might be best continued after we've gone.

To others, that's less important.

To me, Pascal's wager seems like a mug's bet. But, I can see how it might not to others, though it's difficult to imagine how it could pay off, whether there's a God or not.

Ultimately, we all seem agreed that once you die, that's your lot; the issue is, how do you deal with that?

[ImaginalDisc]

Pascal's Wager is a sniveling coward's bet.

AS

Pascal's Wager also ignores the difficulty inherent in selection the right religion, as the South Park movie demonstrated by have droves of religious people in Hell. "I'm sorry, the correct religion is Mormon."

EDIT: Err, Hawkeye got this one.

[Dave1001]

There's not a whole lot of point in dignity when you're dead, this is true. But a person who is really "virtuous" is going to have some difficulty and discomfort in throwing away their dignity, and in that sense it doesn't neccesarily pay off.

And of course, my personal favorite argument against that sort of reasoning is that there is no reason to completely rule out the Gods who nobody believes in as possibile deities, and in which case you have to worry about Atheisto, the god who damns the believers and rewards atheists with eternal awesome.

I still think it's a very rational way to cover one's odds of a positive afterlife to convert to either christiany or islam on one's deathbed. In fact, to convert to whatever combination of religions one can hold simultaneously and expand one's afterlife odds. For example, I think one may be able to get baptized a catholic, accept jesus as one's savior, and submit to Allah without cancelling out being saved by each religion. If so, go for all three. If not, one should probably choose catholicism or islam. If there are no gods then it doesn't make a difference. If the only god with a say on your afterlife ends up being Atheisto, then you're admittedly screwed by this approach. But if one considers the religions people choose an "afterlife market", the market indicates christianity or islam. As an agnostic who believes markets can often be smarter than my personal intelligence, I'm going to choose Jesus and/or Allah over Atheisto to maximize my positive afterlife odds.