Sure, given the vast and the varied circumstantial contexts in which mere mortals can find themselves in, and given the enormous complexity of human psychological states, any particular behavior chosen by any particular individual will be bursting at the seams with all manner of problematic components. And that includes our own reaction to those behaviors.
But that is basically my point. What the philosopher Simone de Beauvoir called “the ethics of ambiguity”.
In my view, the function of God and religion is to efface that ambiguity. It is to provide a subjunctive anchor — a “spiritual” foundation — so that “in our head” there is [b]something[/b] that we can aim for in order to make that crucial distinction between an essentially meaningless world that topples over into the abyss, and a righteous path that brings us closer and closer to immortality, salvation and divine justice.
And, on this thread, folks are either willing to connect these dots as that pertains to their own behaviors and their own religious faith or they’re not.
And, as well, they are willing to at least make the attempt to demonstrate why reasonable men and women are obligated to emulate the same behaviors and share the same faith, or they’re not.
And then there is the fact that atheists keep saying that religious “folks” were brainwashed and indoctrinated as children. So these “comforting and consoling” beliefs have been inflicted on them and may be contrary to their preferences. Some atheist call religious instruction “child abuse”. Right? No inner conflict there?
On reflection, it doesn’t seem all that straightforward.
However one acquires their faith in God, it seems abundantly straightforward [to me] that God [if there is a God] either judges our behaviors on this side of the grave or He does not.
And that with immortality, salvation and divine justice at stake, those of faith are surely going to grapple with the behaviors that they choose “here and now”.
This is just a thread that allows them to describe how, for all practical purposes, this “works” for them “out in the world with others”. To the best of their ability. And, given the profoundly existential nature of such attempts, it is quite the opposite of “shoehorning” the faithful into a one size fits all “stereotype”.
My own frame of mind here merely focuses on instances when, in choosing behaviors, they come into conflict with others. Conflicting religious narratives precipitating conflicting religious agendas out in a particular world where there are any number of additional secular narratives in turn.
Of course, on this side of the grave, I am entangled in my dilemma. So, how are others not entangled in it?
And, as for the other side of it, in whatever manner I behave “here and now”, I have nothing at all to comfort and console me with regard to “there and then”.