on discussing god and religion

Right. For the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals the “abyss” is really just an intellectual contraption that they are trying to pin down philosophically, ontologically, epistemologically, theologically.

Death and oblivion? Why they really have almost nothing at all to do with it!

Oh, and when are you going to respond to the points I raised above? These:

[b]

[/b]

Never.
You gave your opinion on something that James wrote. I think that you misunderstood and I tried to explain what I think James is trying to say.
That’s it for me. No need to add anything.
I’m not interested in discussing immortality, salvation and judgement day. I can sum up but it’s not what you want to read. :smiley:

So, you’re just going to let “the objective truth” here fall over into the abyss with you? :astonished:

Okay, fine. It’s just that, from my experience, most believers [from leapers to evangelicals] seem to link God and religion [u][b]to[/u][/b] those things. I guess they’ve got a lot to learn about theology.

Well, you can discuss it with them and maybe teach them. Enjoy. :smiley:

Look, this is all starting to veer ever so closer to intellectual twaddle and glop. And you [and James] already know how I feel about that!!! :wink: :laughing: :wink: :laughing: :wink:

Do you have more success on other sites? Seems that only Zinnat is still discussing these things with you here.

And even then only “up there” so far.

Look, folks are either willing to discuss God and religion with respect to morality and death and Judgment Day or they are not. If God and religion don’t ultimately revolve around “how ought I to live” on this side of the grave, how is it not just one more rendition of mental masturbation that some “intellectuals” are so keen on pursuing.

I say fuck philosophy if all it is going to revolve around is the sort of scholastic shit that Will Durant’s “epistemologists” seem to crave: the dueling definitions and deductions.

That’s just not my own “thing” here.

Though, sure: for better and for worse. In other words, I’m not trying to argue here that my way is better.

Yes, some theists are reduced down to this.

But it does not change the following:

The theists maintain a belief in [or faith in] one or another God. It is therefore incumbent upon them to demonstrate the extent to which this belief/faith is something they can then take “out of their head” and substantiate “out in the world” with others.

They either can or they cannot. Putting the onus on the atheist to demonstrate that a God, the God, their God does not exist is [in my view] preposterous.

And that is before all the theists embracing all the different Gods are able to demonstrate to each other why their God is the God.

Indeed, that’s why so many religionists [here for example] prefer the “ecumenical” or “pantheistic” approach to God and religion.

That way they can just focus the beam on their “spirituality” and not have to deal at all with the relationship [“down here”] between their moral values, their behaviors and Judgment Day.

And, come on, Judgment Day is really what [existentially] religion will always be about. And that’s because this is the part that revolves around immortality and salvation.

And not all the intellectual bullshit that is largely derived from the “definitional logic” of deduction.

Or [perhaps]:

A “God” is merely a measuring concept and extends infinitely in opposing directions. Anything can be measured using a “God”…There is no such physical thing as a “God”… A “God” is merely a concept of direction, much like saying “Right and Left”. There is no physical “right” “God”.

John Lennon once suggested that “God” is a concept by which we measure our pain. That sounds about right. At least “out in the world” with others. Or around the time we come eyeball to eyeball with death and oblivion.

On the other hand, “in my head” God can be practically anything at all. And measure practically anything at all. And [best of all] all you have to do is to believe it!

I am not sure what you mean by that and how it is related to my reply.

Not at all. They do not have the same experience of the moral side of the abortion in their heads. That is why they differ on its morality only, not biology.

Your try needs to push itself a lot in that sense. You keep bringing others on and one in spite of my many reminders.

Imb, i cannot answer for others but only for me. It is useless to complain me about others. You better sort it out with them. I will not say a single word about others so is useless to bring those again and again.

Let us talk about what we are discussing or saying to each other only.

Not necessarily, particularly in my case. As i said before many times, i would not use the premise of God to decide morality. I do not see any need of that either.

Yes, the dots can be connected but morality does not entail that.

imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.

You are entitled to remained focus of what you want. That is fine. But, you try to use others as a shield to say what you cannot say to me directly. Point out directly what you find objectionable/unreasonable/illogical in me. I would not mind that at all but do not use any proxy.

You are quoting me out of the context. I tried to explain him my focus and how got involved in philosophy, but all that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

Imb, you are accepting my argument of arithmetic/algebra yet again asking for discussing algebra and skipping arithmetic!

How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?

Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.

Forget about what others think. Why should you or me worry about that here?

It is very much related with you, your belief and your value judgments. That is why i asked that. But, you again prefer to question my question instead of giving an answer.

Your experience is absolutely right. I agree that is there is no purpose in moving in circles behind definitions and deductions.

But, are you not doing the same when you refused to give me such an answer that i can understand, and gave me a para of confusing sentences? You expect all honesty and clarity from me in one go, but refuse to own that responsibility even to some extent? Is it fair?

Imb, you should not presume the result in the middle of an unknown event.

May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.

Yes, i accept that, even if it an allegation from you or you consider it a mistake. That is what i am certainly trying to do. Because, that is the only possible way in which i can make them understand (not believe ) what i am saying. After my explanation, they will be free to judge whether that was enough/justified or not. I will leave it to them to conclude.

And, this is precisely that analogy of desert/hill was. If you want to see the snowfall, you have to come to the hills. I cannot make snow falling from the sky in the desert. You have to at least once follow my argument till the end before questioning.

As you mentioned before in either of these threads, you are striving for this answer since long. So, i can assume that you also can bear some time more. If you are a true seeker, you will certainly do that.

Secondly, as far as i am able to understand your mindset from our conservation, you are settled for a position where no rule stands. Most of the modern nihilists see this as an ultimate destination where the mankind will ultimately found itself. But, for some reasons (your intelligence/wisdom is one of them), it frightens you (rightfully so) and you look for some refuge in other alternatives. But, your impatience and waywardness fails you then.

You are complaining that i have not brought the discussion down to the earth till now. But, you have not paid any attention to my request that do not bring your past encounters with others into the discussion. I repeat it many times in every post but did you listen to that? You keep bringing others.

Thirdly, as soon as i try to go on with the line of my argument, you instantly put up a question; how it is pertinent with the God? And, instead of going on with the actual subject, we become engaged in discussing how the pertinence should be decided.

That is precisely what is happening.

Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.

Yes, it is.

Now, you said it what i just mentioned above.
Imb, you need to understand that is precisely your mistake.

Who is trying to proof the existence of the God, you or me?
Who will decide the direction of the discussion, you or me?

Imb, if you want to have a general discussion about religions, god or related subjects, it is going fine. But, in that case, you should not complain that discussion is not reaching anywhere and your months have been wasted. If you want it to reach anywhere, stop questioning in the middle of the argument about its pertinence and validity.

.

That usually happens in long and time taking discussions. Involved parties lose the focus from the issue and hand and tend to side step again and again. Though, I do not see it as a big issue.

I hope so.

At this point, you are misunderstanding me from the very beginning of our discussion. Let me clear my perceptive.

The term bias needs to understood carefully. There is a slight difference between being biased and having a particular subjective perception. A biased person is not such who owns his subjective POV. That is a philosophical position and nothing wrong with that too. But, when such a person is not ready to listen arguments coming from the other side honestly, he becomes biased.

It looks to me that i should not have used the term biased in my reply above. Perception would have served the purpose better.

All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other’s POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.

You can see the difference what you are interpreting of me and what i was trying to say.

That is why i said this-

Listen like a student/child but question like a master/adult.

That sums up what my intention was.

Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?

It is certainly within the capability of philosophers and philosophy. But yes, most of philosophers use/used the premise of God to settle down the moral issues. But, that does not mean that it cannot be done without that.

All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.

Not at all. It was not my interpretation by any means, but most of the Islamic scholars, though I agree with that. But, unfortunately, they have gone in the background and some shrewd clerics and leaders, having vested interests, have usurped the position of sole representatives of Islam. And, it suits them to keep the issue of conflicts alive.

The fact of the matter is that interpreting cow as metaphor was/is well established in the Islamic countries, from where Islam was originated. But, Muslim invaders/rulers interpreted it verbatim in the past as a cow intentionally to kill cows here, because it was a cheap and easily available source of meat and it proved their dominance over Hindus also.

Imb, you are forgetting that i gave this example of cow in the reply of your assertion how language affects our daily lives. Remember this-

So, whether the approximation of the language affects our daily lives or not? Are you agreeing?

I am not sure what are you asking and in which context. If i start addressing each question that you raised, it may need a separate post. Like, how and why people killed each other in India itself a complex issue and requires the details of history.

imb, try to stick to the particular context. Do not generalize everything every time. That will keep discussion focused, pertinent and succinct.

That does not answer my allegation of you being objective/subjective at your will. Though, I can very well understand your problem in explaining your position.

You said this in this very thread-

Look, how sure you are about the behavior of some people! What make you so sure or anything what is in their head only?

But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.

imb, when, even being a subjectivist, you can be so sure or things, why others cannot? What is the difference between you and objectivist here?

Let us try to probe this issue of subjectivity/objectivity a bit deeper.

imb, the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.

The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?

But, as soon as you feel/think about anything, objectivity comes into play, even if you are not sure about anything.

is also an objective statement.

You may not realize that but you are as objective as any other objectivist. You have to be. There is no other option either. The only difference between you and others is that they think their subjective opinion is the final/objective one but you do not commit the same mistake and think that others may have their different subjective opinions about the same thing.

The difference between an objectivist and a subjectivist arises at the last stage only, when an objectivist says that either his judgment is an ultimate decision or there can be at least one, and subjectivist says there cannot be any such. But, if you look carefully, this statement of a subjectivist is also an objective decision, because he is sure of the uncertainty.

I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.

But, what criteria you have for that other than your head? Tell me if you have any other!

So, if is fine when you judge and pass objective comments on others using what is your head, but you hold others guilty when they do the same! Why? What is the difference?

Again, you are impying here that you are rational but others not. How you concluded that?
Again, it is not something that could be in your head only!

I will address this later in this post with the verification issue.

Yes, it is true for you. Means, you can think of me in that way unless i would not convey what is in my head to your head.

This is again the same issue of different degrees of verification, about which i talked in the last post.

Not only N but that will happen to anyone who will pursue this premise of moral nihilism beyond a certain point. But, i was not referring to that. My point was whether you give some importance to such philosophical premises or not, or these are useless as they exist only in some heads? After all, we do not have real evidence of such things like science.

May be. But, i will not comment on others.

You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.

Secondly, i usually do not do this kind and tone of discussion, which i am having with you right now. I prefer to focus on real issues of the people, whether religious, mental (meditation) and social. You can check it from my posts and threads, if you want.

But, during my tenure of philosophical forums since last three years, somehow i got the impression that, most of the intellectuals see religious persons like me as a fool or at least incapable of having that level intellectual discussion, which philosophy entails. They think that a religious person must be blindfolded by his faith and cannot be rational ever.

The fact of the matter is that i am following your style of discussion. You are showing the way. It is not me but you, because i realized in the very beginning that is what you tend to do. Remember, It is not an allegation from my end. I am fine what that too. I am following this because that is only way i can make you understand what is my head as you can read my head only through your head only.

That does not answer my query-

Do you agree with that? If not, how would you like to defend philosophy? Or, you agree with the science that philosophy is nothing but some confusing and vague manifestations of some fertile heads?

I am not talking about only morality here but the whole of philosophy.

I am well aware of that by now.

Yes, it is. But, you neither realized its importance not try to address it. Actually, it is the answer to many of your qestions, especially what you keep raising again and again of connecting dots between up there to down here.

Secondly, this is also pertinent what you asked above-

That three levels of the verifications are the actual distintions. You cannot conflate between those. Let me explain.

Suppose, there is a woman and she beomes mother. Now, she is very pleased for having that baby. She is taking care of him 24/7, even the expence of her own comfort. But, why?

The only answer is because she loves her child. Now, the second question arises why she loves and cares that much for her child? There is no answer for it except because he is her child. But, from the pure logic, it is circular reasoning.

Now, from the POV of a computer, she must be insane, becuase firstly she suffered a lot during nine months of pragnency and giving birth, and now again she is suffering day and night for him. Is it insanity or not? Yes, we know that she is doing the right thing, but how can we explain this to a computer? Can you? Try any argument and i will nullify it from the computer’s POV.

imb, every premise has its own realm and fits only there too. As soon as you try it to bring to other realm, it would lose both of its purpose and meaning.

Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.

The same is between the relation of science/philosophy and philosophy/religion. If philosophy cannot provide scientific evidences for its premises, how it can expect religions to do that? Is it fair?

But, where i am restricting you to do that?

You may assume what you want in your head. But, that is not my intention to declayer to rational or irrational. I just want you to choose and give the reasons for your decision. That is all.

But, you are not ready to do that. You accused many other members of doing highly intellectual philosophy which has no relation to common people, but are you not doing the same here? In every reply to this simple question of mine, you write some come confusing lines but do not give any clear answer. Is this the way you address the day to day issues of a common man?

The same thing here. A lot of words but no answer.

Then, do not say that you are thriving for having the proof of the God and do have not anything after two months.

First of all, everyone has the right to have his own set of preferences, including you and me. You should not object that, though i am okay with your preferences.

Secondly, as i said before, whether the God actually exists or not, and where his premise serves any purpose or not, are two entirely different issues. You neither can canflate nor discuss those at a time. You can choose anyone but you have to take one at a time.

That is not a bad thing to do, and you accepted that too in the last post. Perceptions take time to traven from one head to other head, thus, the slower, the better.

That depends on you, not me. I would be able do that only when you allow me to do so by stopping side stepping.

See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?

imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.

But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?

I am not saying that these things are not interlinked. Of course, they are. But, for practical reasons, we cannot take up all in one go.

Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.

We are what our history made us that will be the same ever. We learn fro history and present and add something to it. I do not see any gap in this. You are doing the same as i do, neither you are an exception nor me.

Yes, that is true. But, can you say that we are the same what we were in the Iron Age? Have we made progress from that or not?

Yes.

That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.

If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?

with love,
sanjay

But: whatever they think “in their heads” regarding the biology of human sexuality and the biology of abortion, the objective facts embedded in both transcend whatever their subjective opinions might be. That is always my own distinction here. What are the objective facts pertaining to the morality of abortion? What are the objective facts pertaining to religion and God?

No. In my opinion that is just your own assumption here. If one professes a belief in God [especially a God, the God] not to conflate them seems irrational to me. At least with respect to what draws me into exchanges like this: dasein and conflicting value judgments. And then in understanding them in a world either with or without God.

But, sure, let’s examine the extent to which we really can stick only to the part about a God actually existing.

I can only note once more that, with respect to God and religion, there are those things that others believe to be true “in their heads” and there are those things that they either can or cannot demonstrate to others as being true objectively for all of us.

I don’t need to be in their head in order to discuss the idea of God and religion. That is rooted instead in the brain’s capacity to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”. God is just one possible explanation for an ultimate understanding of this.

But that is not the same thing as convincing me to believe in the existence of an actual God embedded in an actual religious narrative.

And yet my very point is that “mistakes” may not really exist at all pertaining to what is said to be true regarding the existence of God. Instead, we are “right” or “wrong” depending on the subjective [and, culturally/historically, inter-subjective] assumptions that we make “in our heads” about God. But until you grasp this distinction – the one that I make – then, sure, we may well just go around and around in the same circles.

In that case, this [for me] becomes more an exercise in curiosity. Sure, I am intrigued by whatever your conclusion might be. But it seems that it will have almost nothing to do with the reason I am myself now interested in discussions of God and religion: in exploring the relationship between mere mortals [this side of death] and immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].

Back to my own distinction however:

To the objective truths for which there can be no bias, no subjective points of view. Here a clear demonstration that a God does in fact exist. That is always what it comes down to for me: [u][b]Whatever the gap might be between what “I” believe is true and what I can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women must believe is true as well[/u][/b].

But I acknowledge right from the start that, with respect to God and religion [and objective morality], I am making certain assumptions rooted subjectively in dasein. All I ask of others then is that they demonstrate to me that their own narrative is able to transcend this and [u][b]establish[/u][/b] things as in fact true objectively as opposed to things that are [u][b]claimed[/u][/b] to be true objectively.

On the contrary, all of that is required from my point of view. That is why I was curious to hear how you would respond to the points I make. And to respond in the context of actual religious conflicts “out in the world” regarding an understanding of the one true God and religion. In other vwords, the way these things actually do unfold “down here” existentially. Which, it seems, is the part that you are least interested in exploring in this exchange. If I understand you correctly.

Yes, you make assertions like this about me. As though in merely asserting it to be true that makes it true. As though anyone [including me] who does not necessarily share in these assumption doesn’t really understand me at all. Not as you do.

In other words [it seems], if I do not recognize myself in your assertions, it only demonstates how far I [the student] has to go in order to grasp what you [the master] know to be true.

Really, that [to me] is how, at times, you “come off” here.

Then you will assert something like this:

But what – out in the world – does that mean? From my vantage point, it is just another abstract “analysis” bursting at the seams with the circular logic of words defining and defending other words…

Thus when I note:

You note:

Again, two and one half months into this exchange and [apparently] we have barely scratched the surface regarding, “the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not.”

And that [apparently] is a million miles more from establishing the actual existence of God.

You accuse me of discussing the manner in which I construe these relationships as just another manifestation of objectivism rooted in my head. And yet, unlike you, I have absolutely no hestitation in integrating/situating “dasein” and “conflicting goods” and “political economy” out in the world of actual human interactions. Pertaining to or not pertaining to God and religion.

Now, this may not seem fair to you. I may well be seen here as the one who is objectifying you. But I can only react honestly here to what you post.

Yes, like James, you have your “God and religion threads” and your “social, political and economic interaction” threads. But my point is precisely that you refuse to connect them. As though a philosophical/theological discussion of God and religion really should be a million miles away from the conflicting value judgments that propel human interactions throughout history. As though that is the only rational manner in which to discuss God and religion “out in the world”. And yet to the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals these two things could not possibly be more connected.

Instead, it seems, you wish to situate God and religion only in “the whole of philosophy”.

And then, from my point of view, if someone asks, “what in the world does that mean?”, the objectivists put on their “master” garb. In order to teach the “student” how to be as wise about these things as they are.

In other words, only when I finally grasp [as you do] the fundamental philosophical premises regarding “the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not” is there any chance I will understand in turn the difference between a mother loving her child and a pregnant woman aborting the child instead.

I am simply not “ready” for that part yet. The irony again being that, over the years, any number of objectivists embracing any number of Gods and any number of secular ideologies [Reason] have pointed that out to me. And then when I point out there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting [even contradictory] renditions of this, they still insist that only their own rendition is the one true objective reality.

Either that or only their own intellectual/philosophical/spiritual path is the one that takes us there. And that just brings me back to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

And yet on our other thread, you have had plenty of opportunity to do just that. But have you? Instead [to me] it’s basically been more of the same: abstraction, theorizing, defining, deducing — epistemology, the jargon of scholastic intellectuals. The standard objectivist argument: only when, as serious philosophers, we have come to agree on the manner in which serious philosophers must discuss these things conceptually, theoretically, academically, intellectually, etc., can we then bring the world of actual human interactions into it.

And yet again, ironically, my point is to focus instead precisely on the limitations of philosophy [language, logic etc] in examining these relationships.

Please, though, do pick a topic there and let’s do this.

In fact, as I noted above:

And yet if moral/political/religious objectivists were in fact able to provide us with the most rational argument [path] in which to examine/resolve the issues in these blooks we could at least differentiate [objectively] those books [teachers] who were educating the children in the most reasonable manner. And thus providing them with the most reasonable manner in which to comport themselves “out in the world” when actual behaviors [and actual consequences] were involved.

For instance, books/sources of information relating to capital punishment. As rational men and women, how should we teach our children to think about that?

But then this:

But out in the real world men and women will either be or not be executed depending on which opinions the legal/political authorities subscribe to. What could possibly be more “the problem” if you or someone you love is now sitting on death row? Or if you or someone you love lost a loved one who was killed by someone sitting on death row?

And how is this related then to your own particular belief in your own particular God? And what happens when another man or woman has their own particular belief in their own partiuclar God that is not in sync with yours on this issue?

And, going all the way back to the “iron age”, what constitutes “progress” here? How is that not rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and [with respect to the law] political economy?

Yes, theoretically.

Sure. And everyone has the right to insist that, what they now believe is true “in their head”, is also true objectively for all of us. As long as we all agree on the gap between that and actually proving it objectively.

Sure. But here you have no intention of doing so. Instead, the sole focus of your argument is to demonstrate “whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not.”

And if I then ask “what on earth does that mean?”, I am missing the whole point of this exchange.

Yes, this is more or less the point I keep raising over and again here:

If 1] you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God and 2] this God is linked to objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality/salvation on the other side of it, what is really the point of pursuing philosophy?

Philosophy would seem to be either in alignment with a God, the God, your God or not.

I simply try to yank the philosophy of these strange objectivists down to earth.

As though this is actually a rational rebuttal!

Or, sure, maybe it is. If only one of them could convince me.

It seems pretty obvious. If asking the question is wrong then it would be impossible to arrive at the unblasphemous answer - God.
Other interpretations are equally nonsensical … why are we here? meaning - what is our purpose? That would still be an unblasphemous question since God provides the purpose.

If he had asked … 'Is it blasphemous to answer the question in any other way than : God, God knows, God’s intent ? ". Then it might be open to discussion. But he didn’t ask that.

I still don’t see how this is really relevant to the OP. At least not if one professes to believe in a God, the one God, their own God. What is blasphemous is what God says is blasphemous. It’s all right there in the Book.

How does a pursuit of philosophy change that? After all, isn’t this why Kant linked his own deontological ethics to God? All that extraordinary philosophy and it still just comes down to the transcendent font in the end.

Bottom line: God is the Kingdom of Ends when our behaviors are finally assessed on Judgment Day. Right?

Being or not being a philosopher would not seem to make any difference then.

Now, if this were ever to happen to me, I would certainly be impressed. And it would surely nudge me a bit closer to the path that might nudge me a bit closer to God.

On the other hand, if only those who do claim to have had these experiences were able to have them again – only this time in the presense of folks able to test them scientifically, empirically, phenomenally.

In fact, for the folks here who do claim to have such experiences, I would recommend that they go here: web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

They could well be a million dollars richer and, if they are actually able to demonstrate what they claim is true, it might aid and abet me in grappling with the abyss.

Let me know how it works out.

This, to me, reflects precisely a mentality about God and religion that would, by and large, be of interest only to academics – historians, theologians, religious scholars and the like. Their interest is only to understand the differences culturally and historically. To describe the differences.

In my view, it completely sets aside the very reason that Gods and religions come to exist [within actual human communities] in the first place: to secure a transcending foundation for objective morality on this side of the grave and to ascribe a final judgment pertaining to immortality and salvation on the other side of the grave.

[aside from the role it plays in the context of political economy – the opiate of “the people” ]

In that regards, what difference does it really make whether you call yourself a Jew or a Moslem or a Christian or a Hindu or a Shinto.

The bottom line is always the same. With God, objective morality, immortality, salvation, divine justice etc. are within reach. Without God they are not within reach.

The rest [to me] is just didacticism.

If this isn’t a classic example of religion encompassed in an “intellectual contraption”, I am certainly willing to entertain others.

To ask what it might mean “out in the world” of actual race and gender relationships…interactions embedded in, say, cultural and historical conditioning…might be a good place to start.

And what can this mean other than that “spirituality” is even more the creature that you concoct “in your head”.

Then it all comes down to the extent to which “spirituality” revolves more around unique personal experiences and “feelings” or around definitions and deductions.

Either way, they are still a million miles away from what most concerns us “out in the world” with others: How ought I to behave?

On this side of the grave, in order to interact the least dysfunctionally with fellow mere mortals…and on the other side of the grave in order to please God.

Either way we are judged. The reality then becomes how we balance these judgments in the choices we make.

You can clearly see though how, with God and religion, this really would not work. Not with a God or a religion that eventually comes down to Judgment Day.

In other words, with immortality and salvation itself at stake, you either worship and adore [u]the[/u] God or you don’t.

So, if you make contact with those who worship and adore another God [the [u]wrong[/u] God] the potential for violence seems inevitable.

If for no other reason that you will feel compelled to witness for [u]the[/u] God in order to save the souls of those who witness instead for the [u]wrong[/u] Gods.

As for all the rest, that seems rooted as much in political economy as anything else.

I would ask “what in the world does this mean?” but I know from experience that folks who make points like this are often the least interested in going there.

But, what the hell:

With respect to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments – “how ought I to behave”? – how does one get to “spirituality” when “mixing” religion, teleology and living?