Welcome, Gentle Reader, to the Feast of Christ the King. It falls on the concluding Dominicus of the Catholic liturgical year, which is similar a shot followed past times the inception of the Advent flavor that prefaces Christmas, the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus Christ. If you’ve hoped to revisit the Rumination I’ve traditionally posted on this feast day, here it is. However, what’s on my heed today is somewhat different.
The branch of finite mathematics known every bit game theory partitions games inwards several ways. One segmentation is past times aggregate payoff:
- If at the game’s end, the amount of the payoffs – losses are figured every bit negative payoffs – is greater than zero, the game is positive-sum.
- If at the game’s end, the amount of the payoffs is precisely zero, the game is zero-sum.
- If at the game’s end, the amount of the payoffs is less than zero, the game is negative-sum.
(A brief digression: At i fourth dimension a game was reckoned every bit positive-sum if an solely if all players were no worse off at the terminate than they were at the offset – i.e., no thespian lost anything. Games of that sort out have real footling analytical attention, for which argue the category was redefined every bit I’ve stated above.)
Real-world games that involve coin are almost e'er null or negative-sum. Casino gambling is the best instance of a negative-sum game: “the theater percentage” guarantees that. Bets betwixt individuals are unremarkably zero-sum; at least, I can’t intend of a counterexample at the moment. Positive-sum games are much rarer. The best instance of a positive-sum game is a rival inwards which both the winner too the loser have a reward from a third-party sponsor. Some sports contests too tournaments are similar that. So are goggle box game shows.
There are parallels to endure drawn betwixt games that involve monetary stakes too “games” that consist of arguments over ideas inwards politics, political economy, too social currents.
Some categories of argumentation are analogous to the segmentation of games delineated above. Arguments inwards which it’s possible for all participants to larn something may endure called positive-sum. Arguments inwards which i participant must “defeat” the others may endure called zero-sum, every bit long every bit the defeated participants lose goose egg simply the positions they espoused. But an declaration inwards which all participants lose past times playing would endure zero-sum. An instance would endure an central from which neither participant learns anything too both depart feeling insulted, injured, or alienated. These days at that topographic point are many such arguments.
The higher upwards mightiness create got you lot thinking of political arguments. Indeed, many would qualify. But this is a Dominicus Rumination.
Exchanges over religious beliefs are seldom other than negative-sum. Mind you, persons of unlike faiths tin central their views without arguing. I’ve for certain done too then frequently enough. But an argument must involve the testing of to a greater extent than or less suggestion against logic too the available evidence (if any). What are the usual consequences of an declaration over religious beliefs?
- Neither side is convinced of anything;
- Seldom does either political party larn anything;
- Insults too wound feelings are commonplace.
Today, the most mutual species of “argument” that involves religious beliefs occurs betwixt a Christian of to a greater extent than or less denomination too a militant atheist. Neither side is willing to concealment the other’s convictions. Only on the rarest occasions does either political party facial expression whatever verifiable facts novel to him. And yes, inwards the usual instance at that topographic point are insults too wound feelings to bargain with. Moreover – too this is what has me writing almost this discipline today – at to the lowest degree i political party enters the central knowing that that volition endure the outcome.
Why would anyone acquire inwards such a contest? What is he playing for?
With the Christmas flavor almost upon us, the diverse pseudo-public-service pitches volition proliferate i time again: the ones that enjoin “Keep Christ inwards Christmas” or to a greater extent than or less variation on that theme, too the ones that enjoin “Forget the Imaginary Friends too Just Make Merry” or words to that effect. And alongside those pitches volition blossom the usual arguments – to no one’s make I tin notice or imagine.
The “Keep Christ inwards Christmas” banners are largely aimed at persons who already depict themselves every bit Christians. More than anything else they’re an exhortation non to allow one’s family’s Christmas celebration acquire over-commercialized. Christ, afterwards all, is “the argue for the season.” Non-Christian Americans tin for certain celebrate the vacation flavor inwards their preferred way, simply for Christians remembering that we’re celebrating the Feast of the Nativity of the Son of God too the Redeemer of Mankind is obligatory.
For to a greater extent than or less reason, militant atheists tend to acquire peculiarly irritating at this fourth dimension of year. It’s every bit if their personal options aren’t plenty for them; they appear to experience a necessitate to “educate” the residual of us almost our “irrationality.” But every bit I’ve written on to a greater extent than than i occasion, whatever theater conviction almost the supernatural is a organized faith inwards too of itself, every bit inwards the nature of things it’s non-falsifiable. The atheist tin no to a greater extent than “prove” that at that topographic point is no God than I tin “prove” that at that topographic point is one, an observation that solely heightens the rhetorical temperature i time things acquire started.
Most militant atheists are brilliant plenty to endure aware that these are negative-sum games. Most of them tin foresee that no i volition make too – quite probable – to a greater extent than or less folks volition endure seriously insulted, perhaps alienated for life. So why acquire inwards into such an exchange?
I don’t know. I create got a theory, simply it’s i I’d prefer to continue to myself. What I create know is that it’s of import to avert such interactions, too to terminate or depart from the ones I blunder into earlier they acquire heated.
Well, life is for living too learning, too for conferring upon others what benefits are inside one’s ability to create. Perhaps i of my Gentle Readers volition create got an insight to share. At whatever rate, may God bless too continue you lot all – too expire tardily on the leftovers. (No to a greater extent than snacking from the tray of stuffing! I saw you lot sneaking a glance at the fridge. It’s non fifty-fifty noon yet, you lot naughty person. What would your woman raise say?)
