Religion & Morality

[Saint John]

There is a problem in decision theory known as The Prisoner's Dilemma. It is sort of a puzzle.

Suppose you live in a totalitarian society, and one day you are arrested and charged with treason. The police say that you have been plotting again the government with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you say you don't even know Smith. But this does no good. It soon becomes clear that your captors are not interested in the truth.....you are going to be sent to prison no matter what. But the length of your sentence will depend on whether you confess. You are given the following information:

* if you confess, and smith does not, you will get one year in prison and smith will get ten. ( you get one year...this is the best you can hope for)

* if neither of you confess, you will each be sentenced to two years in prison. ( you get two years...this is second best)

* if you both confess, you will both be sentenced to five years in prison. ( you get five years...this is third best)

* if smith confesses and you do not, you will get the ten years and he will get only one. ( you get ten years...this is the worst that could happen to you.)

Finally, you are told that smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him and you have NO way of knowing what he will do...assuming your only goal is to protect your own interests....

WHAT DO YOU DO?

You should forget about helping smith. The problem is strictly about calculating what is in your own interests. The question is: What will get YOU the shortest sentence? Confessing or not confessing?

Mathematically, you'd be better off confessing, as there are a total of 6 years of prison time versus 11 if you don't. But, personally, I asked them what Smith said before I answered.

[conversationpc]

There is a problem in decision theory known as The Prisoner's Dilemma. It is sort of a puzzle.

Suppose you live in a totalitarian society, and one day you are arrested and charged with treason. The police say that you have been plotting again the government with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you say you don't even know Smith. But this does no good. It soon becomes clear that your captors are not interested in the truth.....you are going to be sent to prison no matter what. But the length of your sentence will depend on whether you confess. You are given the following information:

* if you confess, and smith does not, you will get one year in prison and smith will get ten. ( you get one year...this is the best you can hope for)

* if neither of you confess, you will each be sentenced to two years in prison. ( you get two years...this is second best)

* if you both confess, you will both be sentenced to five years in prison. ( you get five years...this is third best)

* if smith confesses and you do not, you will get the ten years and he will get only one. ( you get ten years...this is the worst that could happen to you.)

Finally, you are told that smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him and you have NO way of knowing what he will do...assuming your only goal is to protect your own interests....

WHAT DO YOU DO?

You should forget about helping smith. The problem is strictly about calculating what is in your own interests. The question is: What will get YOU the shortest sentence? Confessing or not confessing?

Mathematically, you'd be better off confessing, as there are a total of 6 years of prison time versus 11 if you don't. But, personally, I asked them what Smith said before I answered.

Now, now...That's against S2M's rules.

[Rip Rokken]

Reposting this from the Amy Winehouse thread - still waiting for Dave's response.

That's because, if you notice my quote above, I either accidentally deleted your question when I was editing my response or lost track of what it was you were asking.

I did see it, then posted it a 2nd time there - it was right before the conversation migrated here so you must have missed it.

Well, the "make-believe, intangible friend" dig aside, there are some good points here. There are certainly some (including the minister and most of the church members of the first church I attended after coming to faith in Christ) who would ascribe to the view that true believers cannot participate in aspects of the culture such as going to movies, listening to popular music, playing cards, dancing, etc. I don't ascribe to that theory but instead would follow the principle set forth in 1st Corinthians chapter 8. There are some things some Christians are convicted about that they don't participate in that others feel they have the freedom in Christ to do. Drinking is one of them. I never get drunk (not even once) but don't see a problem with having a beer every once in a while. Same goes with movies, music, etc. Mind you, I won't go to a movie that has a ton of cussing, any amount of explicit sex, etc.

I don't think it makes someone "part of the world" to see a movie, listen to a rock song, or play a game of cards. My question would be, does the person's life reflect the qualities and fruit of the Spirit that the Bible says should come from someone who follows Christ? I know people who may have a particular habit that's not something they should be doing. Taking myself as an example, I have a big weight problem. I eat too much and exercise too little. Someone might look at me and see a fatso and judge me that I must be hypocritical because I claim to be a Christian yet I have an area (or more) of struggle. Everyone does. However, that doesn't mean that that one area characterizes the whole of my existence.

And it also goes back to what I was saying earlier...We tend to see the bad in people way before we notice any good and it seems that from what you've been saying recently that's what you're seeing in spades also.

I reread my comments this morning, and think I posted that very late at night when my brain was starting to check out. I kinda went off on a tangent, and apologize for digging in on God so much in those comments.

The point I've been trying to make is on each person's level of conviction - I find it interesting that a little cussing in a movie is tolerable, but the line is drawn at a lot of cussing. Conviction supposedly comes from the Holy Spirit... does he just sort of grumble a bit for the first few F words before finally saying "Enough?". These are honest questions - I'm just highly analytical.

I know what it's like to cringe a bit during some G.D.'s, and still feel a bit guilty for not getting up and leaving a film. Inside, I realized that there would be hardly any enjoyable movies made without at least a little cussing, and so the line of tolerance eventually got pushed forward a bit. I firmly believe that it's actually us setting the level at which conviction kicks in, not a supernatural indwelling spirit. Otherwise, why would God convict people at different levels? We're talking about a being who is so exact, so through, and so inflexible in its approach.

I'm sorry about your struggles, and they are very human struggles that many face. The strength to face them should be coming from God. Have you ever prayed for help on that issue, and if so, where's the divine intervention, that extra strength needed to do what you are having problems doing for yourself?

Last quick comment - what everyone should be seeing in spades is the supernatural work of God in his church, and I'm afraid to say, they don't see much but human nature, good and bad, but nothing extraordinary that would lend easier toward belief. The bible makes a lot of promises in this area, but delivers very little.

I should have said, truth that comes from the gut, not from books. Feeling the truth and knowing the truth based on factual evidence are two different things.

Well, what is truth that "comes from the gut"? That sounds like that "everyone has their own truth" mumbo jumbo.

No, lol... that's the gag -- it's part of the definition of "TRUTHINESS" -- now I know you don't watch any of my videos. Here is it again from the Colbert Report, and I'm sure you'll find it amusing.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colber ... truthiness

[Rip Rokken]

Dave, a couple of quick follow-ups:

Do a Google search for "Satan planted fossils" for info on that teaching - there's a lot of stuff out there but I haven't dug in deeper to find where it originated from.

Here is the top Amazon review for G.H. Pember's "Earth's Earliest Ages" - a book written by a Christian over a century ago:

G.H. Pember lived from 1837-1910. As a result, this book's language can be quite difficult for the modern reader to follow. However, it is worth it. To begin with, Pember ably reconciles the 6000 year history of man from Adam to the present age with the scientific findings that the earth is much older than 6000 years of age. He also discusses some of the finer points of the book of Genesis, including the time of Noah, and the evil that was taking place upon the earth that was so bad that God felt he had to start over.

Probably the most controversial chapter in the book is the last - "As It Was in the Days of Noah" - which talks about the current age being the last. Pember lays out seven trends that prove that these (in his case, the late 19th century) are the end times. This is where he really gets mocked on various websites I have visited, but he does have some points that are undeniable if you give them some thought.

First Pember says that man has come to regard God - if he regards him at all - as Creator and Benefactor, not as a God that must deal with sinners. In other words the common view among people today is that "God is Love" with no regard for justice, and that somehow nearly all, with the exception of the worst criminals, will escape God's judgement.

Second, Pember quotes "An undue prominence of the female sex, and a disregard for the primal law of marriage." He doesn't discuss much about the first part of this sentence, but the second part he discusses at length as man's willingness to see marriage as a contract that can be ended at any time. This has clearly come to pass.

Third, Pember notes "A rapid progress in the mechanical arts ...Also a proficiency in the fine arts". Here, Pember is noting that the industrial revolution, which had already occurred at the time he wrote this, made life so much easier that man could disregard God due to the mitigation of the original curse put on man at the time of Adam. Pember argues that the fine arts "induce an entire oblivion of God" because entertainment tends to distract man from God. If this was true in 1900, it is so much more true today! In the U.S. people are becoming more and more obese because the world of entertainment and an easy life are killing them physically as well as spiritually as they hardly need to get off of their couches to perform any task or fulfill any desire. Not that anyone would want to go back to carrying water from earthen wells, but the effect of man's reliance on automation for so many things coupled with the ability to fill the resulting leisure time with custom-built entertainment of every kind imaginable undoubtedly makes it easy to ignor God.

Pember's fourth trend is "an alliance between the nominal church and the World". Here Pember is basically saying that the nominal church and the World wed by subverting spiritual things and making their gatherings more of a show devoid of God and His desires. Again, this is still seen in the present age.

The fifth trend is "a vast increase in population". Here, he never really makes a case as to why this is a bad trend, at least in my opinion.

The sixth trend is "the rejection of the preaching of Enoch and Noah". Pember is talking about the rejection of calls to repentence, and the fact that the Lord is tarrying in returning is causing many to mock the preaching ones. At the time Pember wrote this, he mentions a revival that had been going on fifty years. Add another century, and look around, and you can see that getting anyone to take you seriously when you say the end times are here is indeed a problem. However,Pember notes it was 120 years from the time God decided to flood the earth until it actually happened.

The seventh and final trend is "The appearance upon earth of the Principalities of the Air and their unlawful union with the human race." This was something mentioned in the book of Genesis and discussed at length in Pember's book about the times of Noah, although even Pember doesn't make a strong argument for this currently happening.

In summary, even though it is over 100 years old, I really recommend this book. It is hard to read due to the antiquity of the 19th century writing style, but it discusses matters you won't find in any other book. Also, if you think long and hard about what Pember is saying, you'll see that he has many points to make that are relevant to today's believers and the world condition. Of course, if you are not a Christian, you will probably be totally unconvinced by this book, since it is not a beginning book of evangelism.

[Rip Rokken]

Love this exchange on antievolution.org, lol...

Not A Monkey: Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word.

NoMissingLink: Did he plant them before or after the incident in the garden of eden?

Not A Monkey:The Bible is silent on this issue, but logic dictates they must have been planted at or near the time of the creation of the Earth. I do not think the Lord Almighty would plant the dinosaur fossils AFTER allowing Adam and Eve to settle, for his activities might have been conspicuous. However, since God is omnipotent, it is possible that the fossils were planted later on, sight unseen, and evidence of the planted fossils covered up.

Upon serious consideration of your question, I would have to say that it can go either way.

NoMissingLink:But you said Satan planted the fossils while God planted the Garden of eden. If Satan planted the fossiles prior to his first sin in the Garden of Ede with the intent on misleading mankind would this not have been his first rebellion against God? Why did God not eliminate him when he first planted the dinosaurs?

Not A Monkey:That is a most excellent observation, you are pointing out that I didn't think things through. But still, there could be two interpretations.

(1) God planted the fossils as a test of Faith.
(2) Satan planted the fossils to mislead us to fill up Hell with ever burning souls.

Whichever it is - doesn't really matter. You can only believe what is in the Bible.



http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =5004;st=0

[conversationpc]

I reread my comments this morning, and think I posted that very late at night when my brain was starting to check out. I kinda went off on a tangent, and apologize for digging in on God so much in those comments.

Much appreciated. I've always admired you for keeping your cool and being able to realize when you haven't. Good on ya.

The point I've been trying to make is on each person's level of conviction - I find it interesting that a little cussing in a movie is tolerable, but the line is drawn at a lot of cussing. Conviction supposedly comes from the Holy Spirit... does he just sort of grumble a bit for the first few F words before finally saying "Enough?". These are honest questions - I'm just highly analytical.

For me, it depends on the reason for it. For instance, I've seen movies that portray something like the life of a child in a bad home where drugs, abuse, etc., are the norm and, for effect, they include a lot of the bad stuff. I don't think it's wrong in those instances. Maybe that's just me? Who knows.

I know what it's like to cringe a bit during some G.D.'s, and still feel a bit guilty for not getting up and leaving a film. Inside, I realized that there would be hardly any enjoyable movies made without at least a little cussing, and so the line of tolerance eventually got pushed forward a bit. I firmly believe that it's actually us setting the level at which conviction kicks in, not a supernatural indwelling spirit. Otherwise, why would God convict people at different levels? We're talking about a being who is so exact, so through, and so inflexible in its approach.

Well, he's God and has perfect, infinite wisdom and understanding. We're not bless with that. For an earthly example...My daughter has some real delays and special needs (severe emotional issues and the like). Our job as parents is to raise her in such a way as to teach her how to be responsible for her own behavior. Unlike a normal child, there are some things about her behavior that she needs to change that we basically have to let slide while we work on the bigger issues, things that would cause real problems now that would be easier dealt with later on, after significant progress has been made on those other issues. Otherwise, if we "convict" her about those things when she might not be ready to deal with them, we end up hurting her in the long run and destroy all the progress we'd already made. That's happened numerous times and we've slowly learned the lesson on how to handle those types of things. If had another child, we would likely have to handle things differently because they're a different person, they have different needs, different levels of what they can handle, etc. I think that's a lot like the way God works with his children. It may not look "equal" to us, like someone else has special priveleges, etc., but ultimately God is the one who knows how to handle it best, just like we as parents know the different needs of our own children.

I'm sorry about your struggles, and they are very human struggles that many face. The strength to face them should be coming from God. Have you ever prayed for help on that issue, and if so, where's the divine intervention, that extra strength needed to do what you are having problems doing for yourself?

Yeah, I've prayed about it before but, honestly, I don't dwell a whole lot on it and really hadn't thought much about it at all recently until this whole discussion came up.

Last quick comment - what everyone should be seeing in spades is the supernatural work of God in his church, and I'm afraid to say, they don't see much but human nature, good and bad, but nothing extraordinary that would lend easier toward belief. The bible makes a lot of promises in this area, but delivers very little.

Doesn't the Bible say something about those who seek after a sign won't get it or something to that effect?

[conversationpc]

Love this comment from "Not a Monkey" on antievolution.org, lol...

Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =5004;st=0

[conversationpc]

Dave, a couple of quick follow-ups:

Do a Google search for "Satan planted fossils" for info on that teaching - there's a lot of stuff out there but I haven't dug in deeper to find where it originated from.

Here is the top Amazon review for G.H. Pember's "Earth's Earliest Ages" - a book written by a Christian over a century ago:

[color=blue]G.H. Pember lived from 1837-1910. As a result, this book's language can be quite difficult for the modern reader to follow. However, it is worth it. To begin with, Pember ably reconciles the 6000 year history of man from Adam to the present age with the scientific findings that the earth is much older than 6000 years of age. He also discusses some of the finer points of the book of Genesis, including the time of Noah, and the evil that was taking place upon the earth that was so bad that God felt he had to start over.

Probably the most controversial chapter in the book is the last - "As It Was in the Days of Noah" - which talks about the current age being the last. Pember lays out seven trends that prove that these (in his case, the late 19th century) are the end times. This is where he really gets mocked on various websites I have visited, but he does have some points that are undeniable if you give them some thought...

Yeah, another false prophet like that guy earlier this year that claimed the world was going to end in June and now in October. I NEVER trust anyone who starts naming dates.

[Rip Rokken]

Love this comment from "Not a Monkey" on antievolution.org, lol...

Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =5004;st=0

I edited right after you posted - go back and read the rest, it gets better!

[conversationpc]

Love this comment from "Not a Monkey" on antievolution.org, lol...

Dinosaurs fossils were planted by Satan to throw us on the wrong track, and away from the Lord. "Dinosaurs" never roamed the earth, and they never breathed. They only exist in the fossil state. Do not let Satan lead you away from the unaissailable truth the the Bible, which is God's unfaillible word.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ik ... =5004;st=0

I edited right after you posted - go back and read the rest, it gets better!

That was a good, entertaining read.

Honestly, I can understand people having differing views of interpreting some scriptures but to just make stuff up like that? Unbelievable.

[Rip Rokken]

Much appreciated. I've always admired you for keeping your cool and being able to realize when you haven't. Good on ya.

No problem - I was just rambling by that point, and I was embarrassed when I later read what I wrote -- felt it came off very disrespectful. Definitely not intended.

For me, it depends on the reason for it. For instance, I've seen movies that portray something like the life of a child in a bad home where drugs, abuse, etc., are the norm and, for effect, they include a lot of the bad stuff. I don't think it's wrong in those instances. Maybe that's just me? Who knows.

I think it's all just us.

Well, he's God and has perfect, infinite wisdom and understanding. We're not bless with that. For an earthly example...My daughter has some real delays and special needs (severe emotional issues and the like). Our job as parents is to raise her in such a way as to teach her how to be responsible for her own behavior. Unlike a normal child, there are some things about her behavior that she needs to change that we basically have to let slide while we work on the bigger issues, things that would cause real problems now that would be easier dealt with later on, after significant progress has been made on those other issues. Otherwise, if we "convict" her about those things when she might not be ready to deal with them, we end up hurting her in the long run and destroy all the progress we'd already made. That's happened numerous times and we've slowly learned the lesson on how to handle those types of things. If had another child, we would likely have to handle things differently because they're a different person, they have different needs, different levels of what they can handle, etc. I think that's a lot like the way God works with his children. It may not look "equal" to us, like someone else has special priveleges, etc., but ultimately God is the one who knows how to handle it best, just like we as parents know the different needs of our own children.

Very sorry to hear about this, too. My boss is also very God-fearing, and has been on his church's worship team for years. His second son needed to be resuscitated after birth, and there was some permanent damage. Apparently he has very severe emotional issues requiring medication just to keep them somewhat manageable. This brings up another question...

Why put these types of challenges into a faithful Christian's life? I know most take them with grace, and see them as a way to draw one even closer to God, but then I have to ask, why is it fair for God to test one person by bringing suffering on another? If he's willing to go after loved ones to prove a point or gain more obedience from another person, how does this make him different than any thug?

Yeah, I've prayed about it before but, honestly, I don't dwell a whole lot on it and really hadn't thought much about it at all recently until this whole discussion came up.

So he didn't give you what you asked for at the time. If it finally happens several years in the future, is it an answer to your prayer?

Doesn't the Bible say something about those who seek after a sign won't get it or something to that effect?

Yes, and part of it is in the sense of people demanding Jesus (or God) to perform magic tricks on command. That's understandable. But on another level, it's religion's arrogant way of demanding blind devotion while refusing to offer proof. It's perfectly normal to ask for some sign of God's presence, especially when we don't feel it - we've all done that.

[majik]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Have to disagree, not believing in something is a theory that there is nothing to believe in. When there is no belief or theories what is left then......... is-ness and is-ness is reality which evidentially exists whether it is believed in or not and doesn't require a theory.

[Duncan]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Have to disagree, not believing in something is a theory that there is nothing to believe in. When there is no belief or theories what is left then......... is-ness and is-ness is reality which evidentially exists whether it is believed in or not and doesn't require a theory.

No.

[Rip Rokken]

Was digging around and watching some vids on deconversion from Christianity and ran across this video series. This is Part 2, and the way he explains the logic, the thought process, and many of the feelings and realizations he went thru along the way really hit home to me. Definitely very professionally put together and well worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97IurNPoG8

Definitely not a guy who didn't really believe... just another person with a keen sense for what was real and what was not, who didn't find the answers or response from God or the church leadership needed to keep his faith alive.

I challenge any believer to watch his story and explain his situation from a Christian point of view.

[S2M]

I'd just like to know what people mean when they say they see evidence of 'god' in their daily lives. If a child is cured of a disease, and it is unexplained - does that prove he exists? I thought we were past the days of attributing the unexplainable to him....do people still think the sun is Apollo's chariot being drawn across the sky, or thunder - the angels bowling?

What are these events that devout people claim to have witnessed? Is it just the fact that people do kind things to each other? If that's the case, that's saying that we need 'god' in order to do good - and we are not capable of it otherwise....why would a omniscient being create a less than perfect world, then make it so that this less than perfect world needs his help? To what end?

[Duncan]

Was digging around and watching some vids on deconversion from Christianity and ran across this video series. This is Part 2, and the way he explains the logic, the thought process, and many of the feelings and realizations he went thru along the way really hit home to me. Definitely very professionally put together and well worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97IurNPoG8

Definitely not a guy who didn't really believe... just another person with a keen sense for what was real and what was not, who didn't find the answers or response from God or the church leadership needed to keep his faith alive.

I challenge any believer to watch his story and explain his situation from a Christian point of view.

I couldn't find part 5.

[Rip Rokken]

Was digging around and watching some vids on deconversion from Christianity and ran across this video series. This is Part 2, and the way he explains the logic, the thought process, and many of the feelings and realizations he went thru along the way really hit home to me. Definitely very professionally put together and well worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97IurNPoG8

Definitely not a guy who didn't really believe... just another person with a keen sense for what was real and what was not, who didn't find the answers or response from God or the church leadership needed to keep his faith alive.

I challenge any believer to watch his story and explain his situation from a Christian point of view.

I couldn't find part 5.

I checked the guy's YT channel and it's apparently not out yet -- a work in progress. Here is another I found that is also quite good, and really hits home on the challenge of critical thinking vs. faith when you're a believer. I don't know if it's complete or how many parts there are, but I just started Part 4. Here is Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ6ePE2tfUs

The important thing is, we aren't making a choice to think critically - not actively rebelling. It's a natural, subconscious aspect of our thought process that we can't really "help" aside from just trying to squelch those bothersome thoughts. When I was only 7 years old, I noticed and asked a question about a problem I noticed with the first church I ever remember attending. It caused my parents to think and they actually changed churches over it, lol. Out of the mouths of babes, I guess.

[whirlwind]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Have to disagree, not believing in something is a theory that there is nothing to believe in. When there is no belief or theories what is left then......... is-ness and is-ness is reality which evidentially exists whether it is believed in or not and doesn't require a theory.

No.

From "Essay On Man"..................A.Pope

"Whatever is, is right"

[whirlwind]

You found God? If nobody claims him in thirty days, he's yours!

[artist4perry]

It amazes me that it is O.K. for everyone to add their two cents into this discussion but Christians.

Not true at all, I think you're just taking the opinions of people who don't share your same view and making them out as some kind of personal attack against you and/or your faith. If you're at peace with it like you say you are, shouldn't be the case. They're just sharing their thoughts and not one of them have stated it's not ok for Christians to share their thoughts too.

Melissa, that's not the point of what she said. She's saying it's OK for agnostics or atheists to share their opinion here without being belittled but when a Christian responds with theirs, well, they're just unintellectual buffoons for doing so.

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence". Just an opinion.

Melissa, Personally it is hard for me to see how you know about how secure I am with my faith. I was just wondering how you could determine such a thing and not know me at all?

Personally I am going to let the guys hash this out for a while, and if I want to say something I will.

But I think you have misunderstood me from the get go. I have not been ugly to anyone, I just wanted to know where this was going, and what the purpose was. Once S2M explained I was fine with it.

I don't think anyone wants to be referred to as stupid just because they have a differing point of view. Do you? And since I have no real beef with you I just did not understand why you said what you said. Maybe I misunderstand where your coming from. As for the discussion I am O.K. with it.

[S2M]

There is a problem in decision theory known as The Prisoner's Dilemma. It is sort of a puzzle.

Suppose you live in a totalitarian society, and one day you are arrested and charged with treason. The police say that you have been plotting again the government with a man named Smith, who has also been arrested and being held in a separate cell. The interrogator demands that you confess. You protest your innocence; you say you don't even know Smith. But this does no good. It soon becomes clear that your captors are not interested in the truth.....you are going to be sent to prison no matter what. But the length of your sentence will depend on whether you confess. You are given the following information:

* if you confess, and smith does not, you will get one year in prison and smith will get ten. ( you get one year...this is the best you can hope for)

* if neither of you confess, you will each be sentenced to two years in prison. ( you get two years...this is second best)

* if you both confess, you will both be sentenced to five years in prison. ( you get five years...this is third best)

* if smith confesses and you do not, you will get the ten years and he will get only one. ( you get ten years...this is the worst that could happen to you.)

Finally, you are told that smith is being offered the same deal; but you cannot communicate with him and you have NO way of knowing what he will do...assuming your only goal is to protect your own interests....

WHAT DO YOU DO?

You should forget about helping smith. The problem is strictly about calculating what is in your own interests. The question is: What will get YOU the shortest sentence? Confessing or not confessing?

Mathematically, you'd be better off confessing, as there are a total of 6 years of prison time versus 11 if you don't. But, personally, I asked them what Smith said before I answered.

Well since this isn't an exercise in mathematics, you aren't better off confessing. Remember, smith is being offered the same deal. And assuming he ain't stupid, he will conclude from the same reasoning that he should confess...giving you both five years. But if you both would have done the opposite, you would have gotten TWO years. By rationally pursuing your own interests, you both end up worse off than if you acted differently....this is what makes it a dilemma....It's a paradox. You will both be better off if you simultaneously do what is not in your own individual self interests....

Again, this isn't an exercise in mathematics, but rather one that is supposed to teach the lesson about respecting the interests of others....over those of self.

[majik]

You found God? If nobody claims him in thirty days, he's yours!

When man searches for God he finds himself and when man searches for himself he finds God.

[Rip Rokken]

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence". Just an opinion.

I couldn't find any snotty comments about atheists or agnostics, but that only increases my belief that they are really there.

[artist4perry]

Hmm, well if that's the case then some of the comments directed back at the "agnostics" and "atheists" are a bit snotty IMO, but to each their own.

Which ones...Evidence, please.

I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence". Just an opinion.

I couldn't find any snotty comments about atheists or agnostics, but that only increases my belief that they are really there.

Rip your quotes are off I did not say the part "I said in my opinion, so there is no "evidence:" Just an opinion. I think that was Melissa's.

As far as I went, I meant nothing to be snotty, just wanted to know honestly what the purpose of the thread was. If it was taken that way I apologize, I just get wary of discussions like this going the ugly way. S2M clarified that for me and I am fine with it. I have no hard feelings towards anyone or their thoughts on this thread. I just asked for a fair playing field of respect. I think that is a two way street. I think most have been pretty reasonable and honest.

[Rip Rokken]

I couldn't find any snotty comments about atheists or agnostics, but that only increases my belief that they are really there.

Rip your quotes are off...

As far as I went, I meant nothing to be snotty...

Sorry, fixed the quotes - and you missed my joke! I was trying to have faith.

[artist4perry]

Rip your quotes are off...

As far as I went, I meant nothing to be snotty...

Sorry, fixed the quotes - and you missed my joke! I was trying to have faith.

Sorry, I am not very astute at night! LOL! You might have to explain the joke I am a bit slow at times. Been down with my back the last day or two, I am feeling better. But as I said, I might not be in this thread much. I just wanted Melissa and all to know I meant no disrespect to anyone, nor was I trying to be unkind in any way. If I was that was MY BAD! LOL

Have faith in our friendship, it is something unseen, but your heart knows it is there.

[majik]

Our world views, cherished beliefs and unshakeable faith can all be taken away by such a simple thing as....... sleep.

[S2M]

Ginger...I started this thread because it is an interesting topic...plus Rip mentioned starting a separate thread in the Winehouse thread...I just did it first. My goal was not to belittle anyone. I'm not the one taking offense to anything being discussed here...but let's make one thing quite clear....I stand by my earlier comment that individuals that are proponents of Faith-based religion do appear to be of lesser intelligence...I mean It's alright for a priest to hear voices, go to seminary, and ultimately spew imaginary myths to susceptible people...but if another claims to have heard voices, voices that tell the person to do any number of things from killing someone to playing a certain lottery number - this person is looked at as bat shit crazy with mental issues....just saying.

[verslibre]

I stand by my earlier comment that individuals that are proponents of Faith-based religion do appear to be of lesser intelligence...

And you are of a "higher intelligence" because you possess a Bachelor's in Philosophy?

I have a degree in English. The word "faith" is not a proper noun, but you just capitalized it. I guess you must be pseudophilosophizing too often to pay attention to basic grammar.

[S2M]

I stand by my earlier comment that individuals that are proponents of Faith-based religion do appear to be of lesser intelligence...

And you are of a "higher intelligence" because you possess a Bachelor's in Philosophy?

I have a degree in English. The word "faith" is not a proper noun, but you just capitalized it. I guess you must be pseudophilosophizing too often to pay attention to basic grammar.

Typing on a phone...auto-correct changes things.

About your poorly veiled dig....I'm not going to justify myself further. I hold knowledge on the current topic. Now if you wish to go point-counterpoint with my assertions, have at it...otherwise, the comments you've made so far aren't worth shit....