Scotter's Debate Proposal: Scotter's Wager

[Ouroboros]

I think you have good insights MathGeek. Very good points you made.

[♦ nivek ♦]

scotter:

 

What transpires in an Arena discussion/debate, is the Foundation of what is to transpire. See that happening here.

 

I setup an Arena "sand" for the participants to work in. It is the inviolate spot in which you will have the privacy of ONLY participants posting in there. any mistakes on part of "outsiders' will be pulled by Mods or myself as soon as they are found, participants should restrain selves from commenting on those.

 

There is a "Peanut Gallery" for those who wish to comment in any form from the outside. The Big However here is that participants in the debate are asked to withhold ANY comment in Peanutting. What this does is keeps focus on your part, and keeps sidebars from "rabbitholing" your efforts.

 

This is a serious discussion, I expect folks participating to go forth and do battle well.. Humor, fun, "someone being themselves" certainly is not forbidden. I would ask tho that things stay topical as they can.

 

Reminders from myself about serious *need to be addressed items* will be posted in red.

 

There are no wrong answers, however know that anything posted will be open to being "clay birded", shot at with

intention to knock out of the air.

 

In all things, try to be fair, and as knowledgeable as possible. Source quotes, and PLEASE source information, either with a URL to, or cert to original author.

 

So far our roundtable open discussions have been informative and interesting. I hope that this one will be also.

 

kevinL, Arena Sands poolboy and sweeper of Corona bottle caps

[Antlerman]

The only other saying I remember from Kierkeegard is that "we reason from existence, not toward it". By and large, if anybody can see God in something, then that person will see God in anything else.

I like playing with the thought that seeing God is like seeing images in clouds. Not everyone looks at things with the same set of eyes, and those that see things abstractly, rather I would say aesthetically in this case, tend to try to find a sort of metaphor to express that with. God is a handy one because it's part of the mythological language of our culture. Were I to choose a language system of mythological imagery to express this with, the Christian one would be a natural fit were it not for its abused form in literalism. To make those symbols literal kills it's ability to be representative, and hence useful symbolically.

 

Due to my own past, and most everyone's here, it's incredibly difficult to see them any other way. Even though I suspect our friend Scotter would be one of those who can because he likely isn't a literalist. My mother is a Christian, yet I would never dream of arguing against her beliefs, because I see in her the expressive nature of those signs as something that's wonderfully human in her heart. But you will see me go after those who use them in a literalist way, in that they are largely social/political arguments, as opposed to an expressive form.

 

What I would hope would emerge in a discussion with Scotter would be to show how that, though Christian symbols can be an expressive form, that the important point is what is behind what's being expressed, and what is it that we have in common. I'm not a philosophical materialist. I can and do seek to express the more abstract/aesthetic view of the world with whatever symbols seem to work for me. And that's the important thing. It's first recognizing the symbolic nature of these sorts of systems, then recognizing the humanity behind it. To argue that my symbol is the right symbol for everyone is like saying you should find find inspiration in this art because it's so spiritually moving to me (which it is):

This resonates with me on a great many levels. It speaks on a primal sort of level for me. It frees me into imagination. It allows me to feel an almost mythic creative force behind life though freeing me beyond the limits of lines, etc. The point is "God", is in its own right, like this. But God may or may not have lines and boundaries depending on which artist is expressing him/her/it. Some people like the more easily accessible pop-art like Thomas Kindkade. That sort of art does absolutely nothing for me, and in fact pretty much annoys me because it's not really an expression of spirit, IMO. Yet for those that need something that's sofa-art then it works for them, like a contrived picture of a bunny rabbit in a clover patch makes them smile. But on the more aesthetic/artistic side of things, some people may find impressionists, or realists to be more appealing. And that's perfectly fine.

 

So if Scotter finds his expression of God (which I can clearly see operates on a far deeper level for him than the Sofa-Art type of deity of the fundamentalist), that's fine. I'd like to see this conversation be about it being permissible, and in fact beneficial, for there to be a diversity of artists (prophets/visionaries) bringing their works before the world for inspiration and communication of abstract and transcendent views, which mythology is all about. There is no single true artist. It's all expressions of something inside us - something human/something "divine" (if that word speaks to you). The transcendent Christ is one image, the existential void is another. It's what resonates. And the beauty of all this is that it is ever in flux, ever evolving in tastes and perception because we are.

 

"No man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same" Heraclitus

 

 

How to proceed? Naturally?

[scotter]

Anterman's latest posts are what make my very first #1 post in starting a thread worthwhile, despite taking in some funny, irrational responses, and occassional insults.

 

And am I ever surprised by Papa Skip's Wall Street Journalistic eloquence. As I recall, Papa Skip went a mix of Texas and Southern a lot.

 

'Night.

[The-Captain]

Antlerman: I agree with what you said, spirituality and belief can be a beautiful thing. I still struggle with that idea due to my church past and can only imagine how we would all feel if we were to start carte blanche in this regard. Its a chimera if there ever was one, it has ennobled and benefited men, and also caused men to kill and oppress. I wonder, do your thoughts on the matter run concurrent with bringing up the "Conundrum of Religion" thread?

 

And do you mind if I call you Keith?

 

Scotter: I've been thinking about the original wager and at the moment I think the general idea works, sans the specific language about theist purpose > non-theist purpose. Is that your actual view or is it just a point of contention for debate purposes?

 

As an aside are we dropping the wager discussion in favor of a more open area, or would you prefer to stick to the original topic as outlined in your OP.

[Antlerman]

Anterman's latest posts are what make my very first #1 post in starting a thread worthwhile, despite taking in some funny, irrational responses, and occassional insults.

 

And am I ever surprised by Papa Skip's Wall Street Journalistic eloquence. As I recall, Papa Skip went a mix of Texas and Southern a lot.

 

'Night.

You're welcome. I do want to pursue some discussion. You have challenging thoughts to offer. I still prefer a slightly informal approach like this though. (Yes, Skip's style never ceases to make my day too, after all these years. )

[The-Captain]

And am I ever surprised by Papa Skip's Wall Street Journalistic eloquence. As I recall, Papa Skip went a mix of Texas and Southern a lot.

 

He's the Renaissance Fatman

[Antlerman]

Antlerman: I agree with what you said, spirituality and belief can be a beautiful thing. I still struggle with that idea due to my church past and can only imagine how we would all feel if we were to start carte blanche in this regard. Its a chimera if there ever was one, it has ennobled and benefited men, and also caused men to kill and oppress. I wonder, do your thoughts on the matter run concurrent with bringing up the "Conundrum of Religion" thread?

 

And do you mind if I call you Keith?

Is there a concurrent theme with the Conundrum of Religion thread? I suppose in that my thoughts run together in these areas. It's not a new thought of mine at all, as I simply can't intellectually justify dismissing the whole aspect of what religious belief is in the human experience of life from the earliest times till now, as a reaction to the literalists. I always argue it's neither literally true nor literally false. In fact that's really a non-question.

 

One of these fine days I may be able to pull all my thoughts together on this and articulate it simply. The best I have now is the aspect of language systems creating the framework for world views. Reality to us is tied to, constrained, or even set free within it depending. Visionaries are part of the evolution of the heart of man in response to his society, when it needs to grow and move beyond. That's where the Conundrum thread comes in. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the change that happens through natural evolution, and the rationalist materialist (Dawkins; et al) is a reaction to the more literalist flavors of religious language. Both are literalist in their thoughts.

 

I've always been attracted to the idea of Kirkegaard's leap of faith, yet not so much with religious signs. Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus resolves the issue of despair through the act of choice, and in a sense that fits me. Logically, rationally, there is no reason or purpose evidently inherent in life, but it's all a choice of believing it does. It's irrationality. Now one can put God as the giver of meaning, or one can find some other sign to give it meaning. They are really all leaps of faith in their own. (This is where science qualifies as a myth system in it's own as well - in the role it fills in giving a system of meaning. Factuality has nothing to do with the role of myth. Function does).

 

We choose to believe in hope, for the benefit it gives. We choose to embrace beauty because it connects us to the world and gives meaning on a primal, natural level against the conclusions of rationality. But is that choice to believe, or suspend rationality, then itself paradoxically a rational choice? Yes, in the sense it benefits us, but then it appears that the choice of will is truly what defines us as human in this regard! Suicide is not an alternative, we choose to live in the face of meaninglessness, and choose to find meaning to make it worth living. Quite literally, we create God through this very means.

 

So all this ties into the Conundrum thread in how does one bring these varying visions of life to humanity, without its message of hope becoming lost in the mechanisms of the system? (You really helped me with that link to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, BTW). The free expression of art is a powerful vehicle of the spirit, but there's so much more to society and its function that myth can bring where art is but a part of it. I honestly can't wrap my mind around this as well I wish I could, but then I'm just an armchair philosopher. I go about things the long way around sometimes, rather than getting formal education into areas like this.

 

Anyway, yes you can call me Keith.

[MathGeek]

Antlerman, that is a wonderful post and I agree with many of your sentiments. In your display question "Any Gods?", you answer "What's God?" I like how you think it is a journey over a long course, not some snap decision we make on a whim. I think it is a long, humbling process that makes us ask deep, penetrating question that go beyond the bounds of any human discourse. If anybody, be them theist or anti-theist, comes along and slams down some set of hard, fast tenets that are rigid and unbending, then those people really are robbing minds (even bodies, and dare I say souls) of letting them search the universe for their own meaning. If there are any metaphysical questions that still have a hard time being answered it is...

 

1) What is God?

2) What is mankind's purpose?

3) What is good and evil?

 

Many philosophers have given pat answers and there have always been men and women who have come along to challenge those pat assertions. This is why the questions are still left open today.

 

And this is likely why Scotter made up his wager.

[chefranden]

Is there a concurrent theme with the Conundrum of Religion thread? I suppose in that my thoughts run together in these areas. It's not a new thought of mine at all, as I simply can't intellectually justify dismissing the whole aspect of what religious belief is in the human experience of life from the earliest times till now, as a reaction to the literalists. I always argue it's neither literally true nor literally false. In fact that's really a non-question...

 

Here is some reading that might help on this quest: Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, that is a wonderful post and I agree with many of your sentiments. In your display question "Any Gods?", you answer "What's God?" I like how you think it is a journey over a long course, not some snap decision we make on a whim.

That response in there to that question has a lot of thought behind it for me. It's cool you picked up on that. It's not easy to explain that concisely. In a nutshell it's more coming to understand that God is not some sort of "being", that God is really more an expression of us; and as that it becomes an expression of nature itself in that way also. What I've come to see, or rather to hear, is what people are trying to express when they talk about God. It's all just a vocabulary of something in us, and as we are part of nature, a language of nature as well.

 

God is greater than the individual, as it becomes a symbol of hope for themselves; or for the individual by themselves as it is a collective embodiment of many individuals with shared values and aspirations. As that, it does exist (or "He" or "She" exists if you find an anthropomorphism helpful) beyond ourselves, and oddly in a way "independently" - sort of. It's a living and vital force of "ideals", if you will that is fed by us, and in turn feeds us back. It's greater than the individual, as it's the collective of shared ideals, and evolves and morphs just as any biological organism does, adapting to the environmental (societal) changes. Yet if all humanity, and the entire planet was destroyed entirely, then what God is would likely cease to exist entirely. God is tied to us. We are God, and in a very real way "God" is us.

 

So, all that to say I don't believe in a fully independent "Being" called God. But I believe in ideals. I believe in hope. I believe in love. I believe in peace. So what exactly is "God"? What are they trying to say by using that word? That dictates my response. Which is why I say I would never try to take away someone's symbol of God, if what they're espousing using it agrees with those things that speak to me on a level that's greater than simply my own wants.

 

If anybody, be them theist or anti-theist, comes along and slams down some set of hard, fast tenets that are rigid and unbending, then those people really are robbing minds (even bodies, and dare I say souls) of letting them search the universe for their own meaning.

Which is why I have come to recognize that science itself can become a religion to some people. To me, the minute you put up walls around possibility, you have imprisoned the human spirit. Be that religious dogma, or secular/rationalist dogma. It's the swapping of one religious truth, for another.

 

If there are any metaphysical questions that still have a hard time being answered it is...

 

1) What is God?

2) What is mankind's purpose?

3) What is good and evil?

All of the above are nothing that have an answer. The answer to me, is change, or as I'm fond of "the answer is there is no answer". The answer is "what works". Somehow we think it's finding "it". But "it" is the process.

 

Many philosophers have given pat answers and there have always been men and women who have come along to challenge those pat assertions.

Philosophers really offer perspectives and ways of approaching questions. It's sort of what religion does in its own way, symbolically. It's typically the politicians who exploit the ideas as "pat answers". People want the simple answer, and leave it to a politician to market it, sell it, and motivate the masses to his agenda. This also describes the priesthood. They move from guides to law. This ties into my thread on the Conundrum of Religion.

 

This is why the questions are still left open today.

 

And this is likely why Scotter made up his wager.

It could be his motives. In which case I respect that.

 

But what I want to ask Scotter, is how he feels the Christian thought (non-fundamentalist version) answers humanity's desires? I'm hoping to hear him bring up the question of a "Personal" God in the response. Does he feel that a belief in an infinite-personal God offers something beyond where other beliefs go? It's a topic that would interest me discussing.

[MathGeek]

So, is this debate on or what? Or did Scotter make his point and move on?