on discussing god and religion

[felix dakat]

Karpal Tunnel---Okay. Thanks for explaining your POV. I accept that my POV is Abrahamic and embedded in a subculture. I didn't claim ultimacy for it. Mystical experiences sometimes seem to occur unexpectedly. But they require interpretation, and at that point the individual's cognitive set and culture come into play. One can usually examine the past and find evidence of unconscious preparation as for example in the presence of significant cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, it's hard for me to imagine even a non-Abrahamic religion without an element of faith in it. For example, why would an adherent practice meditation if they didn't have faith in the results? When they lose faith, they stop practicing.

[iambiguous]

Atheists and others may think they are minisinterpreting those beliefs, but still there is a huge empircal component and also a utilitarian one, even in the supposedly faith based religions ((by utilitarian, I mean that many people, especially people who are born again or find god in rehab or convert or return to the church find that it helps them turn their life around. IOW it works for them. This is not proof for others, but it is important not to confuse this with simply choosing to make a leap of faith.

Who can doubt that religion works for many or that claims have been made regarding empirical proof of God's existence.

But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.

And that is telling in and of itself.

[phyllo]

But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.

And that is telling in and of itself.

And what's it telling you??

It seems that the majority of the world has reached some conclusions:

• 62% of people in the world define themselves as religious.

• 74% of people globally believe we have a soul and 71% believe in God; while 56% believe in heaven, 54% in life after death and 49% in hell.

• There is a connection between religiosity, beliefs and socio-demographic characteristics - such as age, income and education level. In general, as education and income levels grow higher, religiosity levels tend to diminish. On the other hand, the expression of different beliefs is higher among young people.

• The most religious countries are Thailand (98%) and Nigeria (97%), followed by Kosovo, India, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Ivory Coast (all of them with 94%). China is the least religious country, where almost 7 out of 10 people are atheists, more than double than any other country, and 23% consider themselves non-religious people.

• As for the different beliefs that were analyzed: God, soul, life after death, hell and heaven; the most believing countries are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea.

http://gallup-international.bg/en/Publi ... -the-world

[iambiguous]

But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.

And that is telling in and of itself.

And what's it telling you??

My point however is that what is of greater importance [at least to me] lies in exploring why each of us thinks it is telling us something different.

How [as a value judgment] this is embedded in dasein.

That and whether [through the tools of philosophy] we can arrive at an argument here that reflects the most rational and/or virtuous thing that it can tell us.

It seems that the majority of the world has reached some conclusions:

• 62% of people in the world define themselves as religious.

• 74% of people globally believe we have a soul and 71% believe in God; while 56% believe in heaven, 54% in life after death and 49% in hell.

• There is a connection between religiosity, beliefs and socio-demographic characteristics - such as age, income and education level. In general, as education and income levels grow higher, religiosity levels tend to diminish. On the other hand, the expression of different beliefs is higher among young people.

• The most religious countries are Thailand (98%) and Nigeria (97%), followed by Kosovo, India, Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Ivory Coast (all of them with 94%). China is the least religious country, where almost 7 out of 10 people are atheists, more than double than any other country, and 23% consider themselves non-religious people.

• As for the different beliefs that were analyzed: God, soul, life after death, hell and heaven; the most believing countries are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ghana, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea.

Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise? Go back 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 5,000 years...all the way back to the time our species was first able to even imagine and then to grapple with the idea of God and religion.

How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?

[phyllo]

Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise?

You had one point in that post :

Who can doubt that religion works for many or that claims have been made regarding empirical proof of God's existence.

But with so much at stake [both before and after we die] none of this has managed to reach the point where the whole world is talking about it.

And that is telling in and of itself.

And it seems to be that if people don't react as you expect, then it's evidence that your particular interpretation is correct. In fact, your expectations may be unreasonable. I don't know exactly you expect people to be doing ... wearing sackcloth and ashes? ... Constantly talking about God on forums? ... Making it part every discussion?

Apparently 71% of people feel that they have enough evidence to believe that God exists.

That has to count for something. But you just dismiss it.

[phyllo]

How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?

If one says that "an apple exists on this table" ... You wouldn't say that it's a historical, cultural or existential contraption. Right?
Even if you could not see it personally, you would not say it.

But if one says that "God exists" ... You say would that it is a historical, cultural or existential contraption.

What gives?

[iambiguous]

Prior to today, the last time you posted here was on December 12th. I figured you were using that time to come up with considerably more sophisticated arguments to use against me.

Nope.

I make these points...

1] My point however is that what is of greater importance [at least to me] lies in exploring why each of us thinks it is telling us something different.

How [as a value judgment] this is embedded in dasein.

That and whether [through the tools of philosophy] we can arrive at an argument here that reflects the most rational and/or virtuous thing that it can tell us.

2] Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise? Go back 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 5,000 years...all the way back to the time our species was first able to even imagine and then to grapple with the idea of God and religion.

How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?

...and all you are able to come up with is this?!

And it seems to be that if people don't react as you expect, then it's evidence that your particular interpretation is correct. In fact, your expectations may be unreasonable. I don't know exactly you expect people to be doing ... wearing sackcloth and ashes? ... Constantly talking about God on forums? ... Making it part every discussion?

Apparently 71% of people feel that they have enough evidence to believe that God exists.

That has to count for something. But you just dismiss it.

There is barely anything at all here to respond to.

I didn't dismiss your point, I reacted to it with considerably more substance than you did to mine.

[phyllo]

Prior to today, the last time you posted here was on December 12th. I figured you were using that time to come up with considerably more sophisticated arguments to use against me.

Nope.

I make these points...

1] My point however is that what is of greater importance [at least to me] lies in exploring why each of us thinks it is telling us something different.

How [as a value judgment] this is embedded in dasein.

That and whether [through the tools of philosophy] we can arrive at an argument here that reflects the most rational and/or virtuous thing that it can tell us.

2] Okay, but how is any of this contrary to the points I raise? Go back 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, 1,000 years, 5,000 years...all the way back to the time our species was first able to even imagine and then to grapple with the idea of God and religion.

How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?

...and all you are able to come up with is this?!

And it seems to be that if people don't react as you expect, then it's evidence that your particular interpretation is correct. In fact, your expectations may be unreasonable. I don't know exactly you expect people to be doing ... wearing sackcloth and ashes? ... Constantly talking about God on forums? ... Making it part every discussion?

Apparently 71% of people feel that they have enough evidence to believe that God exists.

That has to count for something. But you just dismiss it.

There is barely anything at all here to respond to.

I didn't dismiss your point, I reacted to it with considerably more substance than you did to mine.

This is one reason that I have lost interest in talking to you.

You dismiss my posts. You insult me. And you act as if I'm wronging you in some way.

Same in the other thread about objectivity. You suggest that I'm doing something wrong but you base it on no reasoning.

[iambiguous]

This is one reason that I have lost interest in talking to you.

You dismiss my posts. You insult me. And you act as if I'm wronging you in some way.

Same in the other thread about objectivity. You suggest that I'm doing something wrong but you base it on no reasoning.

Okay, fair enough. You know, if it is fair enough.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on to others. You know, if that's possible.

[phyllo]

Let's just agree to disagree and move on to others. You know, if that's possible.

Wer will, der kann.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Karpal Tunnel---Okay. Thanks for explaining your POV. I accept that my POV is Abrahamic and embedded in a subculture. I didn't claim ultimacy for it. Mystical experiences sometimes seem to occur unexpectedly. But they require interpretation, and at that point the individual's cognitive set and culture come into play. One can usually examine the past and find evidence of unconscious preparation as for example in the presence of significant cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, it's hard for me to imagine even a non-Abrahamic religion without an element of faith in it. For example, why would an adherent practice meditation if they didn't have faith in the results? When they lose faith, they stop practicing.

I think that is stretching the idea of faith. This would mean that my taking golf lessons from a particular golf pro would entail my having faith. Which, if we keep the definition of faith very, very open, would be true, but I think it's a trivial truth. To me faith has to do with believing despite the absence of any reason and even in the face of what seems like counterevidence - like your 12 year old daughter dies of leukemia and you still think God exists, is Good and there was a good reasons for this death. I know Hinduism fairly well, or one little portion of it. Here is why local and Westerner visitors might find themselves meditating at an asharm outside Mumbai. Good friends of theirs suggested it and they had interesting experiences and a sense of peace. It is part of a family or village tradition that they have not questioned. They met the guru and were stunned by the apparant peace and equanimity of this person. They asked how they achieved this and the gurus said 'meditation is central' So they gave it a try, had experiences that they liked and appreciated or that they were supposed to or were 'supposed to', so they keep going. Or they read about it and became curious and thought,what the heck,then experiences kept them coming back. Their intuition says it sounds like a good idea. So they give it a try. Their family or friends pressure them to go to the arsham and despite their skepticism during darshan they have a religious experience of oneness. They like this. They want more. They are told to meditate. They participated in the religion as kids, left it for a while as a young adult, went back because they missed it or hoped they would find something they feel they are missing.

These are all reasons encountered. And in most cases what people talked about were states of consciousness, sense of well being, sense of purpose, loss of anxiety, epiphenies, love of the guru and not faith. IOW they justified their continued participation on experiences and practical consequences.

Now I would like to make clear, I decided I didn't like that tradition, though I experienced thing not considered possible in current mainstream Western science and sometimes liked what I was experiencing. But in the end I felt it was not what I want or like. I am not selling Hinduism or gurus. If asked by a friend I would say it is not for me and go into detail why.

My point is simply that the tradition talks rarely about faith. Of course any outsider can question their interpretations and their experiences do not prove the metaphysical positions of the gurus. But those are other issues.

Similar things have been presented to me by people in shamanic traditions - traditions I feel much more kinship with.

Even Christians will talk like this, especially if they have returned to the religion in some kind of crisis. IOW they are not simply going through the motions. And, again, I am no Christian. I think there are Christian communities much more focused on experience and results. They would say it is working for them in some way or other and would refer to psychological, mental state, relational, meaning changes in their lives that they attritube to the religion and that they work on to improve via the practices.

Of course Chritianity vs. Atheist type talks often present this as a gap over faith, and proofs and skepticisms around beliefs and epistemologies are the focus. And the war between the epistemologies gets center stage. Iambiguous is a good example of this. He wants people to prove to him he should believe. He has no interest in seeing if the experience of any tradition might address the pain he sometimes refers to. He wants a word-based argument that will change his mind. I think Hindus or Buddhists would be more likely to find this an odd approach than a Christian would. Unfortunately Christians are often more than willing to present arguments, call him names, bring up the issue of faith and keep the discussion in this heady non-experiential realm.

There are few things that are learned and certainly very few learned well via argument. Imagine trying to prove to someone that riding a bike is possible over the internet and they won't go out and try. I mean, to prove that they can ride a bike or meet someone they love or feel more relaxed in nature than they do at home. And, of course, his lack of interest may well preclude learning to ride a bike or finding a tiny bit of solace in nature or meeting someone he loves. Or his hopelessness and skepticism might be well founded. Still, it's an odd way to go about learning. Of course our educations systems wildly overestimate the value of babbling on and writing essays about stuff. Poor Dewey must be rolling over in his grave.

A wonderful critique of the education system from an economist...
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money Hardcover – January 30, 2018
Shows how little use most education is and argues that children should play more and apprentice more and even higher education should be more apprentice based or learning by working. And he mounts a great case from that hard assed analytical anal side that I tend to be weak on, so it was a pleasant read for me since I draw similar conclusions in a different way.

The West often has this individual rationally deciding what to believe illusion myth noble image. It's not accurate as a description of how we come to believe most of what we believe. It is non-participatory. It sees us as islands, rather than the relational social beings we are. And it's pretty much an Ayn Rand position. And despite the fact that liberals, for example, detest Ayn Rand, they live by similar myths around learning and the monad, solipsistic individual.

[Ecmandu]

Both in the Christian bible and the Buddhist canons, we are asked to question all things.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Both in the Christian bible and the Buddhist canons, we are asked to question all things.

Most religions have internal contradictions, and while questioning all things can be a good start, some things need more questioning than others. So you have a general heuristic to question, fitting in with Christianity a whole lot of other stuff that can be quite (self) abusive and in Buddhism with a very effiencient system of self-control and disengagement.

[iambiguous]

How are these narratives not historical and cultural and experiential contraptions?

If one says that "an apple exists on this table" ... You wouldn't say that it's a historical, cultural or existential contraption. Right?
Even if you could not see it personally, you would not say it.

But if one says that "God exists" ... You say would that it is a historical, cultural or existential contraption.

What gives?

Note to others:

Is it in any important way realistic to make this comparison? What point of his am I missing?

In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.

But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of "I" upon dying.

Only the existence of God seems pertinent here.

And, in the absence of a God who reveals His existence to mere mortals in such a way that no rational man or woman could doubt His existence, it's just a leap of faith to a God you believe exists in your head and I believe does not exist in mine.

We're both stuck here in that respect. But I'm not the one making the claim that He does in fact exist.

[phyllo]

In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.

Just as the existence of God is either demonstrated to others or it is not demonstrated to others.

But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of "I" upon dying.

There is the crux of it. It's not the actual existence or demonstration of existence which is different. It's what people do with it later which troubles you.

Once you realize that, then you can go on to identifying which behaviors bother you and what can be done about them, if anything.

[iambiguous]

In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.

Just as the existence of God is either demonstrated to others or it is not demonstrated to others.

Sure, that will always be the case. If someone succeeds in convincing you that she has in fact demonstrated the existence of a God, the God, her God, then that need be as far as it goes. You now believe this God exists and will behave accordingly on this side of the grave in order to behave accordingly on the other side of the grave.

And then you may or may not be able to convince me and others of it.

But out in the world that we live in today, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of different Gods that folks claim in their own way to have demonstrated the existence of.

Then all the resulting conflicts regarding what to do on this side of the grave in order in order to attain one or another rendition of immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Then it's all about "one of us" vs. "one of them". Unless you are ecumenical in your outlook. Then you are in God's cafeteria picking out the behaviors that are the least problematic for you.

But: where is the demonstration that clearly pins down a God, the God, my God?

Well, for those who have faith in one or another denomination, it is accepted that the existence of their God has been demonstrated just enough for them to embody the comfort and consolation that faith/belief in God brings about.

But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of "I" upon dying.

There is the crux of it. It's not the actual existence or demonstration of existence which is different. It's what people do with it later which troubles you.

Once you realize that, then you can go on to identifying which behaviors bother you and what can be done about them, if anything.

Okay, but what can you do when an apple has been demonstrated to exist? What behaviors of yours will be impacted? Again, if the existence of the apple and the existence of God are somehow equated in your mind, and it is important to you here that they are, then that serves its purpose: to anchor your own particular "I" to a font able to guide your behaviors on this side of the grave and sustain "I" on the other side.

On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually "works" for you when confronting conflicting goods.

[phyllo]

On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually "works" for you when confronting conflicting goods.

Nor do you need to.

Your solution to behaviors that you find problematic, is to undermine people's confidence in their beliefs by calling them "cultural, historical, existential contraptions".

Instead, perhaps you ought to confront your own feelings and expectations about those behaviors. IOW, maybe you ought to work on yourself instead of working on others. That's much more under your control.

[Prismatic567]

Posted in Wrong thread.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually "works" for you when confronting conflicting goods.

Nor do you need to.

Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.

That was the whole point of creating this thread. But I don't need others to do this so much as being curious as to how they do it. Maybe how they do it might manage to reconfigure the fact that here and now I am unable to do it myself.

Your solution to behaviors that you find problematic, is to undermine people's confidence in their beliefs by calling them "cultural, historical, existential contraptions".

That is what a set of value judgments is to me. An existential contraption. Rooted out in a particular world. But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.

Sure, it can be what others have to lose. But I have to weigh that against all that I have got to gain.

Instead, perhaps you ought to confront your own feelings and expectations about those behaviors. IOW, maybe you ought to work on yourself instead of working on others. That's much more under your control.

Come on, how do we "work on ourselves" other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.

[phyllo]

Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.

You don't believe in God and you don't have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.

But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.

A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.

Therefore, another person's confidence can't be something that ought to produce a change in you.

Come on, how do we "work on ourselves" other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.

All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don't try anything that they are doing. At least you haven't done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don't appear to be working on yourself at all.

It seems like we're the animals in the zoo kind of entertainment/distraction for you. "Don't those monkeys act funny".

[iambiguous]

Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.

You don't believe in God and you don't have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.

No, not with any measure of precision. But we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".

What is there but the attempts themselves?

But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.

A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.

Therefore, another person's confidence can't be something that ought to produce a change in you.

I can explore what her confidence is based on. I can note the manner in which our lives and our experiences overlap such that I am [perhaps] able to come closer to understanding how she thinks about these relationships.

After all, this sort of thing happens all the time. We meet new people and we exchange narratives. Sometimes nothing changes in our life as a result of this, and sometimes a lot changes.

The crucial thing [for me] is the extent to which another is able to demonstrate why their confidence is justified. In other words, given the existential relationship between their values here and now and their imagined fate there and then --- beyond the grave.

Anyway, no one here [to the best of my knowledge] is forced to pursue these avenues of communication.

Come on, how do we "work on ourselves" other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.

All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don't try anything that they are doing. At least you haven't done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don't appear to be working on yourself at all.

It seems like we're the animals in the zoo kind of entertainment/distraction for you. "Don't those monkeys act funny".

And around and around we go. I'm the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.

And how comforting and consoling that must be.

[Karpel Tunnel]

And around and around we go. I'm the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.

And how comforting and consoling that must be.

Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?

I wonder who started the mind reading?

I am glad to see that your epistemology now includes being persuaded by the confidence of others as they tell you their stories.

You'll be a Bible thumper soon. I mean, I think Phyllo is probobly not the apex confidence believer out there. There are religious forums....

Things are looking up.

Well, different.

Or not.

[iambiguous]

And around and around we go. I'm the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.

And how comforting and consoling that must be.

Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?

No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:

...we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".

What is there but the attempts themselves?

In particular given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

These attempts can be and will be only so successful. But: What else is there?

Still, it certainly seems to me that given his belief in objective morality on this side of the grave, and the manner in which this is connected to his understanding of God and religion on the other side of it, how can he not be considerably more comforted and consoled than "I" am down in my hole inching ever so closely to oblivion?

I am glad to see that your epistemology now includes being persuaded by the confidence of others as they tell you their stories.

My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.

You'll be a Bible thumper soon. I mean, I think Phyllo is probobly not the apex confidence believer out there. There are religious forums....

What on earth does this mean?

I'll tell you what....

In the spirit of the OP, why don't you connect the dots between the manner in which you construe your value judgments on this side of the grave and the manner in which you imagine the fate of "I" -- your "I" -- on the other side of it.

In fact, the discussion I would be most curious about regarding this is the one between you and Phyllo.

[phyllo]

...we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".

What is there but the attempts themselves?

Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people's arguments?

My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.

I don't think that existence is insignificant. I don't think that 'infinitesimal' is equal to 'none' or 'nothing'. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.

Those are important differences between us.

In the spirit of the OP, why don't you connect the dots between the manner in which you construe your value judgments on this side of the grave and the manner in which you imagine the fate of "I" -- your "I" -- on the other side of it.

In fact, the discussion I would be most curious about regarding this is the one between you and Phyllo.

Maybe there are no dots to connect. Maybe what you do here and now has nothing to do with what happens after death. For example, the Stoics did not pursue virtue in this life in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment in an afterlife.

[iambiguous]

...we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the "human condition".

What is there but the attempts themselves?

Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people's arguments?

Over and over and over again I note the distinction between things we share in common in the either/or world and things we may or may not share in common regarding our reaction to these things in the is/ought world. With regard to human sexuality, pregnancy and abortion there are genetic and memetic factors able to be established as true for all of us. I am this, I am not that. You are this, you are not that.

Dasein, as "I" understand it, revolves around discussions of abortion as a moral issue. What can we say is in fact true or false about the ethics of aborting the unborn?

Note to KT:

Kindly explain my point to him or his point to me.

My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.

I don't think that existence is insignificant. I don't think that 'infinitesimal' is equal to 'none' or 'nothing'. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.

Those are important differences between us.

What you think about these relationships is not the same as being able to demonstrate that all rational men and women ought to think about them in the same way. I readily acknowledge my own inability to accomplish this.

Given the gap between what I think I know and all that can be known about existence itself.

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

That's the important difference between us.