on discussing god and religion

We are clearly in two different discussions here. I want you to take your views on God and religion and note how they impact your actual interactions with others such that the dots are connected between your value judgments on this side of grave, the behaviors you choose as a result of them and the manner which your surmise this will impact your own particular “I” on the other side of the grave.

Instead, you persist in taking us up into the fluffy clouds of psychologism. Or, rather, so it seems to me. A T-Rex at the Smithsonian?! What does this have to do with the request that I made?

As well, from my frame of mind, just another abstract/abstruse “general description” of how you “feel” about all of this. In no way does it address the points that I make. Why? Because [in my view] the whole point of saying and believing fuzzy, featherty things like this is to sustain how it makes you feel. Nestled snugly in the comfort and the consolation of having something like this to fall back on in a world bursting at the seams with all manner of human pain and suffering.

Again:

Clearly you are not. This is the sort of airy rhetoric – “language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in meaningful content” – that we get from any number of New Age mystic sorts.

So, if you are not willing to contribute to the thread in the spirit of the OP, you can surely continue to post here, but I will not be inclined to read any of what you do post.

Convince me then that you are willing to go in that direction.

In other words…

To which you post:

Sorry, but this is not the sort of thing I am able to take seriously.

And, sure, that may well reflect my own failing here.

But there it is.

Again, we clearly have a need to go in different directions here. But stuff like this happens [a lot] in venues of this sort.

Let’s just leave it at that and move on to others.

First, of course, this presupposes the existence of a God, the God, my God.

But suppose for the sake of argument a God, the God, your God does in fact exist. Would you not want to insist that He favors you and your own flock? And that those who refuse to believe in Him or obey His will are…doomed?

Is it not of vital importance to pin down the existence of the particular flock that God does favor? After all, look what is at stake: immortality, salvation, divine justice.

Of course some will construe themselves as God’s “chosen people”. That would seem to be the only thing that makes sense.

I’ve never really understood the argument of those who presume instead the existence one or another ecumenical rendition of God. The catch-all God who doesn’t play favorites. After all, if this be the case, how then is one to know which behaviors on this side of the grave most please God? It’s like a cafeteria religion. You pick out the behaviors best suited to your own particular wants and needs.

Or it becomes a religion that revolves around the idea [expressed here by, I believe, Ierrellus] that God saves all in the end. But if that is the case then any and all behaviors on this side of the grave are able to be rationalized. If no one is really punished for their sins then morality becomes an entirely subjective cacophony here and now.

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Morality?
Thomas Swan at the Owlcation website

This thread was created by me basically to address what I have always construed to be the bottom line with regard to God and religion.

We need things. We want things. Sometimes the same things. Sometimes different things. And as soon as these wants and needs become entangled in an actual community of men and women there are going to be conflicts. And where there are conflicts there is a fundamental need for rules of behavior.

Call this morality, call it something else. But who actually decides what these rules are? Maybe those powerful enough to enforce behaviors that sustain their own perceived interests. Maybe that then evolves historically [with the advent of capitalism] into societies more inclined to choose democracy and the rule of law.

But there are always going to be human communities [large and small] where the idea of right makes might prevails. Power is vested in those – the ecclesiastics, the philosopher-kings – that embody such knowledge. They can revolve around one or another political ideology or one or another religious denomination.

But the crucial factor that joins them all together is this general belief that, through either God or reason, it is possible to actually differentiate right from wrong behaviors. The one important difference being that with religion this knowledge carries over beyond the grave.

For the secular objectivists, however, you do the right thing because it it is predicated on such things as “scientific socialism”, or tradition or even things like ethnicity and race. Or based on one or another Humanistic rendition of political idealism. Something able to meld together “for all practical purposes” individual freedom with social justice.

Here the argument of the religious folks is that without God, morality can never really be more than a particular consensus derived from a particular community historically and culturally. Why? Because without God, mere mortals lack the omniscience to comprehend beyond doubt which behaviors really are ever and always right or wrong. And they are not omnipresent meaning they cannot know beyond doubt who is being naughty or nice. Finally, they lack the omnipotence that seems to be absolutely imperative if divine justice is to have any substantive [and lasting] meaning at all.

Then the author basically tackles this head on. No God and how on earth can we realistically think about making those crucial distinctions between right and wrong, just and unjust behaviors?

If religion is able to be put aside in any particular community, what then of morality?

The proletariat as the Second Coming of Christ? Only this time the Savior is literally the embodiment of history understood to be unraveling through an objective understanding of “scientific socialism”.

In either telling though, the crucial ingredient is the certainty that the faithful are expected [obligated] to cling to. And then to embody. One or another ecclesiastical religion becomes one or another secular ideology.

But, here, however, the whole truth is predicated not on leaps of faith to one or another rendering of The Word, but to a rendering of words themselves reflected in the rational pursuit of that which motivates political economy to evolve organically down through the ages.

It’s just that some, after connecting these dots, are compelled to connect this particular “synthesis” to one of their own.

Everything gets reduced down to yet another objective narrative. It might be an entirely different political ideology; or a deontological philosophical contraption; or a dogmatic assessment of nature itself.

But ever and always is the need to anchor “I” to one or another psychological font.

To!
Believe!!
In!!!
Something!!!

And, really, down through the ages, what hasn’t been believed in?

Or, as Cicero once suggested, “There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.”

Or, here, some Kid. :wink:

Seemingly, the wonderful thing about believing something like this is that it basically makes the rest of the world go away.

You can choose to live by any covenant you wish. You can choose behaviors that are perceived by others to be nothing less than abominations. And yet still be saved as long as a God, the God, your God has access to your soul and knows that you believe in Jesus Christ.

God Himself in other words?

Forget the covenants, forget the rules of behavior, forget figuring out what God expects of you on Judgment Day.

Instead, everything – everything – gets reduced down to a single verse in the Bible. Your Bible. Embody that and you are saved.

As for those who grapple mightily with their faith in God. Those who despair as they go in and out of experiences that bring them closer to and then further away from God?

The fools!

Just simply will yourself into believing in Jesus Christ as your savior.

All the rest just follows: Christianity for the masses. Christianity for the flocks of sheep.

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Morality?
Thomas Swan at the Owlcation website

This is clearly a highly idealized description of “moralitity at the dawn of civilization”.

In fact, if morality/ethics is understood basically as another way in which intellectuals might describe the rules of behavior in any particular human community, it misses the far more crucial element embedded in the power needed to enforce rules that clearly sustain the interests of some over others. Maybe these methods of enforcement are ascribed to one or another God or not. But surely the “Divine Right of Kings” is not just a coincidence.

With religion however morality always moves beyond this world to the next one. And here things can get tricky. The powers that be may rationalize their dictums through one or another ecclesiatic entity [the Vatican say] but at least some semblance of “justice” needs to be preserved. It then becomes a matter of which particular historical and cultural norms prevail.

And it can always be argued that for God the behaviors that one chooses on this side of the grave pale next to the behaviors one must choose in order to prevail on the other side of it. And this will always go back and forth given the complexities of the “human all too human” world that we live in.

And that’s all but inevitable given the gap between what we do know and what is still to be learned. There was once a time when almost nothing was known about the natural world. So everything from great floods and earthquakes to solar eclipses could be wholly attributed to God. Now that won’t do. But there are always going to be profound mysteries embedded in “human reality”. In fact, the more staggering science makes the Cosmos, the more it seems imperative [to some] that there must be a Creator behind it.

And for self-conscious folks like us, what is still the biggest unknown of all? Death.

And there appears to be no way around that than God. A denominational God in particular. After all, how comforting is it to suppose that after you die you will be at one with the universe as star stuff?

As human beings we know lots and lots and lots and lots of things.

It’s just that as human beings – mere mortals – we don’t know why these things exist rather than nothing at all. And we don’t know why they exist as they do and not some other way.

Also, we don’t know what happens to us after we die. And, without access to a set of Commandments, we don’t know how to differentiate vice from virtue on this side of the grave.

It might also be argued that Gods and religions are mankind’s way of not being honest about all the things we don’t know about. That, instead, Gods and religions are invented [historically and culturally] in order to assume that what we think the answers are must prevail over any and all who insist the answers are something else instead.

And, mostly, it is not going anywhere, ever, because it is likely that on into the future people will be afraid of death and need to be convinced that there is in fact a right way and a wrong way to obviate it beyond the grave.

What Is the Relationship Between Religion and Morality?
Thomas Swan at the Owlcation website

But this is accepted by and large only to the extent that the deities are said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. In fact, with respect to the relationship between morality and religion, that is the whole point of God.

Unlike all the rest of us, there is nothing that He doesn’t know. And, so, there is no question of behaving immorally and it not being known. And, in being all powerful, there is absolutely no question of behaving immorally and not being punished for it.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of intelligence to recognize that even if mere mortals did have access to an understanding of the most rational, most virtuous behaviors, what good is that if someone can run rampant committing vice after vice, and no one knows it. Or some do know it but are unable to apprehend the miscreants? To punish them.

God [and only God] guarantees both the knowledge of and a just punishment for any and all immoral behavior.

And then God [and only god] can connect the dots between moral behavior here and now and immortality there and then.

The ones who follow the “most rational, most virtuous behaviors” have a better life and a better society than those who do not. That’s “what good” it is.

Right, like all the moral and political objectivists out there aren’t insisting that the “most rational, most virtuous” behaviors aren’t embodied in their very own moral narratives and political agendas.

It’s just that, say, historically, some have gone on in turn to insist that those who refuse to abide by their own normative prescriptions/proscriptions ought to be punished.

Then it becomes a matter of how severe the punishment is rationalized to be as justifiable for the “infidels”.

Still, for those objectivists who choose the No God rendition of this, they are still faced with the “for all practical purposes” consequences of possessing neither omniscience nor omnipotence.

But at least they are comforted and consoled by the knowledge that they [and only they] are still on the side of all that is good, right?

Only, in a manner I have never been able to apprehend, you’re sticking with God in all this.

The Christian God?

What does that have to do with it?

Moral virtuous behavior is more beneficial than immoral non-virtuous behavior, both for the group and the individual. That’s why morality exists. Without God, there is an evolutionary advantage. With God, there is a reward in this life and/or the afterlife. It works in both cases.

Why don’t you just acknowledge that and move on from there.

I think one can hold this position without believing in objective morals. IOW it benefits - in evolutionary terms - a group to have a common set of interpersonal rules - they can think of these as morals, and most tend to - so that they work together smoothly or at least more smoothly than they would otherwise.

If people have no idea what others will do, even just in social interaction, and how the rest of the community will react to breaches, there will be, I would guess, more distrust, more hesitation, more avoidance, less support and other things that make people head out of the house with some degree of secure feelings and shop, date, have kids, apply for jobs, barter…

If parents raised their kids by saying anything goes or we think any action or pattern of interaction cannot be seen as better or worse, it’s like playing the lottery out there, I think you will have an even more violent society and one that will be vulnerable to other societies that use morals or at least customs (which are also value based) to create cohesion.

Again this doesn’t mean we know what society A should have as social heuristics (morals), just that they have something probably promotes more physical health and better protection from other groups. If you have no idea what others will do, you are not a society. This doesn’t mean we know exactly which will work best, though we can probably rule out some. Like everyone should kill their kids would inhibit societal survival.

This doesn’t mean it is good for societies to survive (in some objective way), but does explain why these things occur, since we do want our groups to do well in relation to other groups - like not being taken over - and to be able to deal with catastrophies ( survival).

Okay, pick your own moral narrative regarding a set of conflicting goods that all of us here are likely to be familiar with. Note how that which you construe to be beneficial outweighs the things that those who take the opposite point of view deem to be more benefical instead.

Indeed, we can take this into account when you name the conflict and demonstrate how your own moral narrative assures the greater “evolutionary advantage”.

Or once again is it just to be assumed that those who don’t share your own political prejudices flush the species down the toilet.

As for God, let’s assume that a God, the God, your God is the one. So, in regard to an issue we are likely to be familiar with, who gets rewarded on Judgment Day?

And why?

Why don’t you actually respond to the points I raised above and maybe we can.

I’m not talking about my “own moral narratives”, “a set of conflicting goods” or that others will not take an “opposite point of view”.

I’m saying that there is a benefit to morality which is separate from any particular context and any particular individual.

It’s analogous to traffic lights. It’s beneficial to have a system of traffic lights and for people to obey traffic lights. I’m not saying that running a red light would not be beneficial to a specific person who is late for work or to someone who is going to the hospital with a medical emergency. I can see those benefits. And I don’t claim that those benefits “go away” when I make an argument in favor of traffic lights.

If one looks only at individuals on particular journeys, one can argue that traffic lights slow down that individual in every case. But if there were no traffic lights, the journeys would be much slower and more dangerous, in most cases. If people routinely disobeyed the traffic lights, then the journeys would be much slower and more dangerous.

Therefore, there is a benefit to traffic lights when a large number of people are involved. It’s a result that only appears when there are interactions among many people.

Again, it’s not about me.

And it’s not about any specific individual, any specific conflict or any specific moral narrative. Evolution deals with large groups over long periods of time.

If there was no advantage to morality, then social animals would not be using it. It would have been abandoned if it didn’t work. Moral social animals are more fit to survive. That’s it.

Once again, it’s not about me.

So you want to talk about my God.

But here you impose your own ideas about reward and judgement day on me. Who says that there is a judgement day? You. That’s how you want to approach it. It’s like you can’t imagine anyone thinking about it in any other way.

Okay, I responded. Your turn.

Okay, but this thread focuses clearly on the benefits derived from embracing a particular moral agenda as that precipitates particular behaviors on this side of the grave as that precipitates what one imagines their fate to be on the other side of the grave.

Within any given community, sure, social, political and economic interactions are facilitated when rules of behavior are in place. Instead of, say, anarchy or a might makes right agenda.

But sooner or later this “general description” of morality is going to be tested in particular contexts in which conflicting goods confront us with the need to resolve them. This thread merely takes us beyond the here and now and confronts us with the there and then.

Still, even something as concrete [and clearly necessary] as traffic laws are open to dispute given particular contexts. But rarely do these disputes reach the point where God and religion are invoked.

I suppose if someone was a selfish bastard and chose to completely ignore red lights and stop sign and speed limits, resulting in numerous accidents, resulting in numerous injuries and deaths to others, it might come up on Judgment Day.

But how to compare traffic laws with laws revolving around abortion or gun ownership or homosexuality or animal rights? There are some things in common, yes, but in other ways [re God and religion] things become considerably more problematic and consequential.

No one is arguing that there is no advantage to having “rules of behaviors” – morality, laws – in any given human community. Instead, this thread was created specifically to explore this in regard to value judgments that come into conflict precipitating behaviors that then carry over into any particular individual’s belief regarding his or her fate on the other side of the grave.

How on earth can an exchange that revolves around the behaviors religious folks chose on this side of the grave derived from what they perceive their fate to be on the other side of it, not involve an understanding of what they believe about God?

My own conclusion that moral nihilism seems reasonable on this side of the grave resulting in oblivion on the other side of it, revolves precisely around my belief [here and now] that God does not exist.

But: I have no illusion that this is not in turn just another existential contraption derived from the manner in which I construe the meaning of “I” here as dasein.

Thus I am not “imposing” my own narrative on you. I am suggesting instead that your own narrative may well in turn be but an existential contraption derived from dasein.

You choose behaviors here and now. You have reasons for doing so. Those reason are connected to what you believe about God and religion insofar as “I” is sustained beyond the grave.

Here and now. There and then.

You’ll either discuss that in some detail regarding the behaviors that you do choose or you won’t.

And nothing could possibly be more absurd [to me] than someone accusing me of not being able to “imagine anyone thinking about it in any other way.”

That’s all I ever think about!

In fact, it is the existential implications of this that keeps shoving me back down into the hole I’m in.

And all you have to do is to keep clinging to the God that keeps you up out of it. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

In fact, you seemed to be saying that there is no difference between virtue and vice and no advantage to virtuous behavior.

Right here:

That’s the quote I took issue with and I responded to it specifically. That’s the only quote I care about at this point in the thread.

Now you act is if you never wrote it and never meant it. #-o

No, I seem to be saying that in any particular human community, moral conflicts revolve around those objectivists on one side of a moral and political divide who insist not only is there a profound difference between virtue and vice, but that they have in fact already discovered what that is. And if others want all the advantages bestowed on those deemed to be “one of us”, they had best become one of them too.

Right?

Huh?!

That part of my argument revolves around a human community that does have access to a demonstrable set of right and wrong behaviors. Philosophically, say, or scientific. They are able to prove that rational men and women are obligated to behave in a certain manner if they wish to be thought of as men and women of vice or virtue.

BUT:

They have no capacity to link this to a God that is in turn able to be demonstrated as in fact existing objectively.

See the problem?

Yes, they have, in fact, figured out what objective morality is. But, sans God, they have no capacity to ensure that those who choose vice over virtue are either caught or punished.

Let alone that if they choose virtue over vice they are assured immortality and salvation on the other side of grave.

Sure. They know which behavior is virtuous. You already said that by using this phrase : “if mere mortals did have access to an understanding of the most rational, most virtuous behaviors”.

No, I don’t see the problem. If they know and practice the virtuous behaviors then they are reaping the benefits. The existence of God is irrelevant to them. Or if you prefer, the demonstration of the existence of God is irrelevant.

“Those who choose vice over virtue” do not need to be caught and punished by God. They are punishing themselves by choosing vice. And those who choose virtue are rewarding themselves.

It must work that way if virtue and vice are different and therefore produce objectively different results in life. But if virtue and vice are the same, then God’s reward or punishment at Judgement Day constitute the entire difference between virtue and vice - producing different results only in an afterlife . IOW, the idea that vice is bad only because God will catch you and punish you. That looks like what you are thinking.

Which then just begs the question: what might be the actual existential implications of this if…

All I can do here is to [once again] relate that to the reason I created this thread: to allow those [like zinnat] who do believe in God to connect the dots between behaviors they choose here and now and through their faith in God in imagining the consequences of that in the there and then.

In other words, I speculate that a fundamental reason Gods are invented is that the benefits of knowing [philosophically, scientifically etc] that which is virtuous is just not enough. Not when folks know that those who choose vice instead may well not get caught. Not when folks know that those who choose vice instead may well not be punished.

And then the behaviors of the nihilists, the sociopaths, the narcissists, the psychopaths. What care they of the benefits reaped by those who do practice virtue? Instead, their intentions are often to take advantage of that.

Besides, this hypothetical community of those who are able to grasp virtuous behaviors in regard to conflicting goods, exist here just for the sake of argument.

As for this…

Sure, if you can actually think yourself into believing this, that’s one way to make the real world go away.

On the other hand, as though the tiny percentage of folks who own and operate the global economy while literally hundreds of millions of men, women and child barely sustain an existence from day to day, are punishing themselves for it. Hell, many of them have concocted philosophies that simply rationalize these grotesque disparities. And, besides, at least they’re not communists, right?

Ah, but the virtuous can still seek solace in knowing that they are virtuous, right?

But: Virtuous in regard to what? What does it mean to be virtuous [in a No God World] in regard to abortion, gun control, homosexuality, the use of drugs, social and economic justice, gender roles, animal rights, capital punishment, separation of church and state, just wars, immigration…and on and on and on.

What objectively different results in regards to issues like those above? Leaving aside our la la land hypothetical community that for the sake of argument we both agree have discovered the objective distinction between vice and virtue, what might that be in the real world here and now?

Sure, any number of folks might choose virtue over vice because they now know it is the right thing to do. And because they perceive clear benefits for themselves in doing the right thing.

But that does not make the points I raise above go away.