Can we have a Wanker's Corner?

[onebatmother]

Hello.

It's been noted in the past that there are some pretentious wankers amongst us who like to discuss some general subjects (eg.Porn, Religion) in a fairly, erm.. academic manner, and that this sometimes seems to intimidate and/or infuriate other posters.

There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this problem: there's no doubt that people really do feel intimidated and that it might prevent them from posting on a subject that concerns them. It also must feel hijack-y at times.

At the same time, it's hard for the Wanker's to be told that they mustn't post anything that might intimidate.

Would it be possible to have a special place, with very hard chairs to keep us awake, that we may call our own?

On the business of free will and belief, of 'choosing' to believe, it's good to think about Pascal's Wager.

Pascal says that we can't know whether there is a god but we have to plump for belief in him or for disbelief. He says something like: the costs of wrongly disbelieving are huge (damnation), and the benefits of correctly believing in him are massive (heaven)-- whereas the costs of wrongly believing in him are relatively small.

So it is rational for us (holds out the greatest expectation of gain) to belive in god, and we should therefore set about acquiring that belief. These days his argument would have been furrther bolstered by the need to get his kids into the best school.

There are loads of objections to Pascal, including the claim that we can't 'choose to believe'. What we can choose to do is expose ourselves to relevant literature, the emotional experience of churchgoing etc, and hope for the best. I.e. we can embark on a project of acquiring belief, which may or may not succeed. That is consonant with free will because it is parallel to other sorts of life projects in which our autonomy consists.

Another way of reconciling free will and the imperious nature of truth (i.e. the fact that it commands belief) is that whereas in general we are dominated by causes, in the case of belief we are dominated by reasons, and in what else can the freedom of rational agents consist if it does not consist precisely in acting in accordance with reason.

Freedom can never simply be indetermination -- because where nothing determines us, our actions (beliefs, etc) are random. Randomness isn't (an interesting/valuable kind of) freedom.

Respeck to thready for that post. I will have to go away and digest it.

Yes, respeck like policy says.

I quite can't make my brain grasp the distinction between causes and reasons in this context - could you expand on the way in which we are dominated by reasons in the case of belief?

I hadn't heard of Pascal's wager but it is very funny. Sounds like the sort of thing Voltaire might have made up as a joke.

Yes, it's the penultimate paragraph that makes me feel (particularly) stupid.

Yes, my brain keeps buckling. Could someone break it down for me? I think I need something KS3 in bitesize if that's possible. Thready, you've been reading too much George Eliot - that penultimate paragraph is one sentence.

I love the simplicity of the mathematics. But self-delusion does not equal belief, even if the self delusion has been thorough and rigourous to the point that the self-deluded individual is unaware he is self-deluded. I was raised a strict Catholic, am I not living proof?

If Pascal was here today do you think he would be a rich Hedge Fund Manager in the City? Or a Turf Accountant?

Swedes, I'm now having trouble with your penultimate paragraph (neatly broken though it is into three modern sentences).

In what way does self-delusion not equal belief? It is quite commonplace to believe one thing and then to change one's mind upon receipt of new information. It doesn't make belief in the first thing any less of a belief, even if one does come to regard it as delusion. Does it?

I think he would probably be in insurance.

Iorek - I am Tracey Beaker to Thready's Daniel Deronda. Some people insist they believe and claim they are God-fearing Christians (for example). But in reality the way they live their lives it at odds with Christianity. If they truly believed they would not be such fuckers, surely?

Come back WilfSell.

Iorek - I think you might be right about insurance. An actuary?

lol at Tracy Beaker. Swedes, I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give examples? Is it the whited sepulchres of the Harpenden and Hemel Christian Dogging Society that have been irking you? Have they been - ahem - congregating in the church car park again?

On the other thing, no - selling door to door. There's no place for the philosophically minded in the modern world.

Most Christians I know do not accept the Bible in its entirety as an infallible supreme authority; they cherry-pick the bits they like and discard the bits they don't like. If one takes away the Bible what is left of Chrisianity? Most art, music and literature is inspired not by God, but by an interpretation of the Bible. A true believer would be terribly careful to stick to the principles (I agree their own interpretation of those principles) in the Bible. Surely?

Perhaps cherry-picker Christians are banking on term-time in Heaven and a time-share in Hell for the hols?

Iorek - LOL at selling door to door.

Heaven is prob much cheaper in term-time (imperfect Christianity prob covers the cost). And it's well-known that school holidays are Hell, So you are probably right

Three probablies in one post. Yuk.

Do you have that ad for Visa on this page? My dog looks almost exactly like that.

I don't agree Swedes. I think religion is more culture than belief. And you would have to be insane to accept the entirety of the bible as an infallible supreme authority. How could you? It is a huge collection of works.

Threadwworm, that's a pampers ad! Your dog looks like a baby

Iorek I agree that religion is more culture than belief. I thought we were talking about the nature of belief though?

True believers would skip Daniel Deronda and the Sunday Times and concentrate instead on making sure the 66 books of the Bible were carefully digested.

Surely not. You could be a true believer and regard the Bible as relatively unimportant, couldn't you? If I were a Christian I would regard the Old Testament as irelevant and ther New Testament as a flawed account of Christ's teaching

Thready - Arf. Perhaps you could. I remember asking my priest why I needed to go through a medium (ie him) to confess my sins - why could I not go straight to God? Religion is all about control.

Must run. Rugby pick ups.

Well, but there are plenty of protestants who almost deify the relationship between a Christian and his or her conscience -- no medium. That is scary. I'd almost rather have a plump daft priest setting out my punishments than leave it to my quite fearsome hellfire and brimstone conscience.

It would be better (kinder to self)if we could have god-as-ego-ideal rather than god-as-super-ego. Super ego being conscience, and ego ideal being the re-acquisition of the good self a la Daniel Deronda

Sorry. too wanky even for wankers' corner. And too condensed. Much. Genuinely interested in talking about this and free will/belief if anyone else interested but otherwise will lay off for fear of spoiling this very funny thread.

Don't give up thready. I'm still waiting for the info to trickle down to my brain stump . Probably won't happen tonight - well not after I've drunk the rest of this wine anyway. But I will come back to it. And if that sounds mildly threatening... it's meant to.

I think you need the priest. The "punishments" in any case are a formality (is it not invariably 3 Hail Marys?). It's the telling of the sins that's the important thing (much like therapy), and you need a person for that.

Threadwworm I am very interested in talking about free will and belief, particularly as I'm not entirely sure that I believe in free will, except as a sort of illusion created as a by-product of consciousness. I'm also interested in this idea of God as ego-ideal - please expand.