Honesty, loyalty, intellect, reliability, compassion, and hard work are but a few. Letting poor arguments go unchallenged is not one of them. …it would be easy though.

I found Mr. Shore’s defense of Pascal as a Christian proponent to be lacking some breadth and omitted things (intentionally or otherwise) that demonstrate a far more complex position. Unless one is familiar with the pertinent sciences to which Mr. Pascal contrubuted (very greatly I might add); few know more about him than the barbarically paraphrased ‘wager’ that bears his name.

In the context of a discussion of Pascal’s Wager specifically and his Christian proponency in general; what is wrong with relating his statements?

I don’t think I can be more clear that the ‘religious conviction’ in no way says the religious are innately violent…merely that pairing violence with religious conviction make it less amenable to being defused. I think the majority of believers and non-believers alike would agree that evil is bad, but evil combined with religion is worse.

It would seem that the offense is taken by misinterpretation of what Pascal was saying.

He said it…and it is in fullest textual context available. I am not sure what more I can do.

It would seem that the offense is taken by misinterpretation of what Pascal was saying.

No, TJ, obviously that is not it. Are you actually not getting it?

A non-believer quoting a believer (out of context as you did) back to a group of believers is arrogant and insensitive, or naive. Communications 101.

Remember back when the Pope quoted Muhammad out of context and the Muslims didn't take it too well? He and the Vatican attempted your style of defense. It was ridiculous then, too.

My citing the 'religious conviction' quote in no way should be read to connote that I or Pascal says that all religious people are evil. That would be ludicrous. The quote suggests that, if evil is perpetrated, religious conviction in those actions will make things far worse. Most believers and non-believers would recognize that to be true. The corollary might be that greater good can be done if done with religious conviction. I hope I am clear on that matter.

I would not have interjected it had Mr. Shore not [in my opinion] poorly represented just where Blaise Pascal fits into the pantheon of Christian proponents.

As to why I show up here…

Automated Google searches link me to various topics of interest. Mr. Shore wrote something that showed up in one of those searches and I clicked the link. His blog has two nice characteristics: 1) his writing style is amusing and 2) it is not so heavily trafficked that it has 200 comments and 20 conversations underway the first time you visit.

I assume that one maintains a blog to exchange ideas and not simply to reinforce what one already believes…that would be very Fox News-esque. My interests lie in church-state separation and science education and reasoned thought. I am not here to denigrate believers, but I will challenge those that demonstrate poor logic. If that offends you, then you should petition Mr. Shore to block me.

I would side with you, though, that lobbing it in where Burns did could be considered a cheap shot. I will be careful.

Regards,
TJ