on discussing god and religion

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?

Yes, there are religionists among us who, psychologically, are so compelled to twist the world into their own rendition of God that even the laws of physics are compelled to obey their will.

Thus, miracles are no longer necessary at all. We merely need to reconfigure the laws of nature in order that they be in accordance with the “miracle”.

In fact, a miracle is merely a more precise understanding of the world we live in. Even if that world exists only “in our head”.

Sure, when folks practice a particular denominational religion, individual experiences are generally reduced down to one or another scripture, dogma, liturgy.

Whereas if you embrace God and religion “spiritually”, this spirituality can be derived from your own particular experiences; and then from your own particular assessment of what they mean to you – what they mean to you – “in your head”.

And then no one can really argue against it because they have not had your experiences and do not have access to your thoughts and feelings.

And so God and religion become whatever you think and feel they are. Whatever you happen to believe they are.

And then with respect to moral and political values and your fate post mortem, they too become whatever you think they are.

Thus, in places like this, there is absolutely no threat from folks who ask you to demonstrate this beyond what you do believe is true in your head.

Lots of folks like that here, right? Just as there are lots of folks here who define God into existence. Nothing really tangible need ever be discussed at all.

I really do try to imagine what it is like to be inside the mind of someone who can make assertions like this – as though he could know that something like this is true!

And it just seems as far removed from God the Dude who gives you a thumbs up or a thumbs down on Judgment Day as a discussion of God can possibly get.

There “otherness” seems to revolve soley around whether you do get the thumbs up and go up…or you get the thumbs down and go down.

And yet that’s when so many folks seem compelled to tug the narratives “down here” into political ideologies – where once again they either give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

And, then, miracle of all miracles, this creator just happens to be the one that they believe in. The Real Creator

All the more incredible, this creator can easily be demonstrated to exist. Indeed, it can be done without even leaving the comfort of your recliner.

A creator, in other words, that is simply defined and deduced into existence.

Go ahead, try and prove that this creator does not exist.

But then as soon as you bring good and evil down to earth you are forced to acknowledge that what some see as good, others see as evil.

And then you are forced to acknowledge in turn that these assumptions are often rooted in a belief in the very same God.

So you are stuck. You want to do good because that brings you immortality and salvation. But good and bad regarding the very same behaviors are attributed to the very same God.

And then you note how this quandary hardly ever comes up here.

True. But where do all of these multifaceted, layered beliefs reside? In their heads. Heads rooted historically, culturally, experientially. And for many, most all of them, that will be the extent of it until the day they die. Or so it seems so far.

The challenge then is to bring God and religion out of their heads in a more substantive, substantial way. Is there a way to do this? Or will it really just come down to a leap of faith in the end? In other words, believing that what you do believe is true about God and religion need be as far as it goes. Or even as far as it can go.

As though all atheists presume that omniscience means the same thing. Or, for that matter, that all theists presume it means the same thing.

In relationship to, for example, God.

Presuming of course we can all come to agree on the meaning of that.

Let’s start with the definition:

1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

Then move on to the controversy this definition might provoke with respect to any particular God said to be omniscient:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience#Controversies

Now, all I aim to do is to bring all of this down to earth and discuss it in the context of identity and conflicting value judgments.

Anyone interested?

imb,

Just back home after many days. Reply tomorrow.
Sorry for that.

with love
sanjay

That’s fine.

Why don’t we focus in particular on this:

The extent to which you are able to explain to me, “whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not.”

That’s where this all more or less began.

As you wish.

with love,
sanjay