Jump to content
ReillyMarkowitz

Exploring the ocean for God aff

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking about cutting an aff that says we should explore the ocean for evidence of God's existence. Whether or not evidence were found, it would put to rest many of the existence of debates and arguably reduce/end religious violence. Any ideas on where to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking about cutting an aff that says we should explore the ocean for evidence of God's existence. Whether or not evidence were found, it would put to rest many of the existence of debates and arguably reduce/end religious violence. Any ideas on where to start?

Nietzsche

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant ocean-specific lit. I know Nietzsche questions God's existence but how does it tie into the topic?

I was mildly trolling there.  I mean yeah, Nietzsche says God is dead, but he's not really talking about it in that way.  

 

Anyways, this is not really a strategic aff.  Topical, yes, but what does it really get you.  Religion tends to be a touchy subject, so a lot of judges may not be for it.  Plus, philosophers (such as Nietzsche) do not look kindly on the idea of God, so trying to prove the existence of God is probably bad.  For those religiously inclined people, searching for God kind of mitigates the purpose of faith.  The whole point of faith is that you can't know, that you shouldn't know.  Probably turns the aff.  Also, what exactly would you be looking for.  You're not going to find some sign at the bottom of the ocean that says "I am God! I am Real! Love me!" so any "evidence" you find is just open to interpretation and probably just going to exacerbate any pre-existing religious tensions as people disagree.  Also, a lot of atheists would not be huge fans of the USfg spending money to try and find God. It's also probably illegal.

 

Finally, just why.  There's a ton of really fantastic affs out there, both policy and kritikal.  There's a lot of better options that you can adapt to your own specific style before you should be trying to write this aff

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you could go with NOAA Exploration but have the program target specific areas where answers may lie.

 

Suppose you ran such a case, how would you answer the following

 

- Define "God"

- When you say God do you refer to a particular religion?

- Is there one god or several?

- Why is it worth the funding, resources and attention from the federal government to venture out and find something/someone that may or may not exist?

- Is it possible to find god?

- ^If yes or perhaps, why haven't we found gods?

- Why is NOAA/Ocean exploration key to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I had cut a God link to Wilderson for a reason.

 

Anyways, yeah, there's so many alt causes to religious violence, not to mention that there's no way this would solve it. People from all religions have been searching for proof of the existence of their respective deities for millennia and people still kill each other over it. Not to mention it's basically not strategic. Not even Liberty (college) goes for religious arguments any more really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean yeah, Nietzsche says God is dead, but he's not really talking about it in that way.  

 

 

This is Alenka Zupancic in 2003, from her book The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsches Philosophy of the Two:

 

Nietzsche’s thesis is actually twofold: “God is dead,” and “Christianity survived the death of God.” As we shall see, the ascetic ideal, in its purest form, concerns precisely the nature of this Christianity without God. When it comes to the thesis concerning the death of God, we should be careful to distinguish between two claims that are by no means identical. The first was formulated by Hegel, and later explored by Lacan: it is not simply the Son of God who dies on the cross, leaving intact (transcendent) God Himself. God, too, dies on the cross, and this “death of God” is the very condition for the birth of Christianity. To put it simply, the death of God is the condition for the universal bond in which God is born on the level of the Symbolic; it opens up the (symbolic) debt in which we have our place. This is why, in an obvious reference to Nietzsche’s “God is dead,” Lacan affirms that God has always been dead, that He has necessarily been dead from the very outset of Christianity. This entails, logically, that there is nothing really subversive in the affirmation “God is dead”—or, more precisely, that the statement “God is dead” cannot easily be interpreted as a foundation for atheism. Yet, pertinent as this Hegelian–Lacanian observation might be, it somehow misses Nietzsche’s point, a point that is situated on an entirely different level. Nietzsche’s affirmation concerns precisely the death of the symbolic God, that is, the death of God as the power of the Symbolic, as the name of the Christian symbolic bond. Nietzsche’s statement “God is dead” could be said to refer to a new configuration—a configuration which did not escape Lacan’s attention, since he also proposes a very poignant formulation of it: “We are no longer guilty just in virtue of a symbolic debt. . . . It is the debt itself in which we have our place that can be taken from us, and it is here that we can feel completely alienated from ourselves.”2 In other words, I should stress that Nietzsche’s “God is dead” refers, so to speak, to God’s second death: to His symbolic death. This implies, however, that the death of the symbolic God can itself be real. We should bear in mind that, throughout the history of Christianity, we are dealing with two Gods, traditionally referred to as “the God of theologians, philosophers, and scientists” and “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”3 This difference, often defined in terms of the difference between God as “big Other” and the personal God of faith, should not be accepted too readily as the difference between the Symbolic and the Real. One could, rather, argue that this distinction is inherent to the Symbolic as such. On the one hand, God appears as the logical/grammatical God, as the synonym of the symbolic order (and of its orderliness), namely, as the structure of the world/universe/language. On the other, “God” appears as the “Real” of this very symbolic order, as its “light,” the point of its generative power, of its productivity, of its excess. This, for instance, is the difference between the God of Newton and the God of Pascal. The first is the God of orderly regularity, the God that coincides with the very structure/organization of the universe or nature—in short, the God of the theologians, philosophers, and scientists. The second is the God of excess, but—and this point is crucial—an excess of the Symbolic itself. Herein lies the substance of Pascal’s deservedly famous insistence upon the purely symbolic ritual as the generator of (the most intimate) faith (“Kneel down, pray, keep repeating the words, and the faith will come . . .”). God as the “excess of life,” or simply as the presence of life, is inherent to the Symbolic. “God” is the name through which a personal and singular experience of the “excess of life” is engaged at the level of the universal (for instance, in the Christian community). Formulated through Lacanian concepts, the difference between the two Gods is precisely the difference between S1 and S2: the difference between, on the one hand, the master-signifier as the point of the generic and generative (Nietzsche would say creative) power of the Symbolic, and, on the other, the “signifying chain” that structures the field of positive knowledge and belief. In this respect, one could say that God as S1 can “die,” that is to say, this God can cease to function as the agent of a given symbolic discursivity. On the other hand, God as S2 is a God in relation to whom it makes no sense to say that He is “dead”—one can only argue whether He exists or does not exist, with both sides of the argument finally amounting to nothing more than claims about the existence  or nonexistence of contingency, as well as about the existence or nonexistence of the world/language as a (consistent) whole. The God referred to in Nietzsche’s statement “God is dead” is God as the (generic and generative) power of the Symbolic, God as S1. On the other hand, Nietzsche is much more modest in his statements concerning God as a synonym of the symbolic order or linguistic structure: “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.”5 With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that, for Nietzsche, the “death of God” is consonant with his statements concerning the death of “true masters,” that is, with his general diagnosis concerning the extinction of the “master’s discourse” and its ensuing replacement by a different, “sterilized” (yet all the more tyrannical)6 form of mastery. This replacement does not mean that we now get a Symbolic without mastery. Rather, the opposite is the case (and we will return to this shifting of discourse). For the time being, it is sufficient to bear in mind that the God whom Nietzsche proclaims dead is God as the name of the point of excess, and of the generative/creative (one could also say performative) power of the Symbolic itself. The consequence of this is that, with the “death of God,” we get a Symbolic deprived of its inherent power, a Symbolic that does not manage to create or produce anything more with its rituals. Nonetheless, the point is not simply that these rituals became empty on account of the “death of God.” Instead, the fact that, for instance, believers themselves “all of a sudden” find these rituals empty and meaningless is the same thing as the death of God. One is not the cause of the other; the two phenomena are to be situated on the same level. Nietzsche’s statements and arguments concerning the Reformation should be understood from this perspective. In a way, the basic declaration of the Reformation is nothing other than “God is dead,” in the precise sense in which we read this statement: God is absent from the Symbolic (from all kinds of church rituals and practices which, in the best case, are considered as “superstitions” or, in the worst case, as direct expressions of the “Anti-christ”). In other words, the whole attack against the ritual (or “performative”) dimension of Christianity carried out by the Reformation could be understood as an (early) variation on the statement “God is dead”: God is absent from the symbolic rituals in which He was (previously) supposed to be present. 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Anyways, yeah, there's so many alt causes to religious violence, not to mention that there's no way this would solve it. People from all religions have been searching for proof of the existence of their respective deities for millennia and people still kill each other over it. Not to mention it's basically not strategic. Not even Liberty (college) goes for religious arguments any more really.

Ahem: http://opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/Weber/Shoell-Shackelford+Aff

 

That said, even then it's more an critique of religion than a "fire and brimstone" aff, which may (?) be viable on a super conservative circuit like Utah.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of faith is that you can't know, that you shouldn't know.  Probably turns the aff.

 

 

This is desively not true.  Faith and reason aren't opposites.  They are complementary.  They integrate with each other. [not to mention when they are juxtaposed like this....reason has a particular mode or type of reason is used.  Its a very shallow version of reason--a reductionist version of reason.  Its not Aristotelean reason.

 

Do you think its irrational to form relationships with girlfriends/boyfriend, family, etc.???

 

Faith is about trust.  Trust can still rely on evidence.  I trust you based on X.  Or I trust you because I've had a deep relationship with you for 5 years (and that indicates that deep down you are a good person who fairly consistently acts in a good way).

 

For instance, this peer reviewed research (actually a lot of it) says that faith as an activity is quite rational, because it builds communities and families.  Thats science, not cherry picking particular moments in time which point in a particular direction and suggesting they are the only ones that matter (selection bias/overgeneralization/cherry picking):

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/01/bg1064nbsp-why-religion-matters

 

I don't think you have to win that God exists to win with this aff.  There are other ways to access benefit. 

 

Also, I'm curious if wonder/inspiration of the deep (i.e. learning about the ocean = awareness).

 

This dude Paul Copan answers most of the New Atheist arguments:

http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/

 

There are some less than strategic aspects of this aff, but its potentially interesting.

 

You would probably want an impact framework that spiritual good/ethics/awareness trumps all (ie physical harm).

 

I would think this multi-culturalism (faith is exclusive) & Nietzsche argument would potentially be the first types of arguments folks might look to.

 

The counterplan to search for God elsewhere might be compelling.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...