Bob wrote:I think its hard to decide whether we want to pursue the investigation of a determined universe, or a “mechanistic” one.
More to the point [mine] it is hard to determine if wanting to is actually within the reach of autonomous minds. It becomes somewhat surreal when you consider the fact that, when neuroscientists investigate this, they may well only ever be able
to investigate it in precisely the manner in which they
have to.
And certainly one possible explanation for this is that God willed it. But what does that then mean for all practical purposes with respect
to human autonomy? What is "beyond" God's will there?
Bob wrote:To my mind the question of why there is something and I can take part in it all leads us to assume that my awareness is normal. It seems to be where life in the universe is leading to, but whether there is a personality behind it all who is interested in my personal part in it all and has interest in all my deeds seems to me to be illusional. I follow a perhaps deistic view that yes, this was set in motion with an aim “in mind”, but it is for each of us to find our way through it all.
To my mind, a "general description" of this sort can precipitate a frame of mind that seems "anchored". But anchored to what when the beam is focused instead on particular human interactions that come into conflict? That part of most interest to me with respect to God and religion. And with respect to the moral narratives of mere mortals who, instead, embrace deontological reason or political ideology or narratives regarding nature.
Bob wrote:I am also quite convinced that in the outcome, if we should ever know what that is, it would be very different from the individual ideas that our cultures have come up with. And yet, I think that our cultural traditions may have at least an inkling of something beyond our knowledge. So yes, in the end nobody knows.
By and large I tend to agree. But that just tugs me back to this:
With so much at stake -- immortality, salvation, divine justice -- would not a "loving just and merciful" God [as most construe Him] be considerably more explicit regarding a "righteous path" on this side of the grave?
It is one thing for God to demand that we "struggle" with this, another thing altogether when, however much we do struggle, there is seemingly no definitive way in which to measure our success. I suspect that is why folks like Ierrellus take a leap instead to a God that, in the end, welcomes all into His Kingdom. Otherwise how "on earth" are we to continue that seemingly futile struggle given a belief
in Judgment Day.
iambiguous wrote:But my reaction to this sort of speculation is to draw a distinction between a "general description" of human interaction, and the extent to which folks are able to bring these conjectures "down to earth"; and then to implicate them in actual behaviors that they choose as this relates to their imagined fate on the other side of the grave.
Otherwise they ever remain just "general descriptions" of...of what exactly?
Bob wrote:They are general descriptions or “working concepts” as I said. We need a hypothesis to work on because the possibilities broaden as our knowledge increases. The more we find a way of coping with our situation, accepting that the solution is not readily available, the more we can learn from experience and learn to intuitively understand, albeit to a small degree, what is going on. I am quite sure that this intuition is more able to come up with a breakthrough than scientific study, although science would have to follow up. The reason I say this is that all discoveries have been enhanced by intuition, and breakthroughs have very often happened away from the laboratory, on a bus or in a crowd, in the country or in the bath.
Of course such working concepts give us ideas about the other side of the grave and it seems that most people have a feeling, whether right or wrong, that life will go on and they prepare for it as their cultural upbringing dictates.
From my frame of mind, this is basically just a general description of a general description. What interest me is in how such thinking unfolds in a particular mind in a particular context. In other words, in a set of circumstances in which a man or a woman comes to choose a behavior that others deem to be wrong. Either with or without God and religion.
Once we acknowledge that narratives change historically, culturally and experientially, we are back to square one: Judgment Day. The part where, from the perspective of most believers, we go up or we go down.
Or the part where "I" disintegrates into nothing at all.
And that is also the part where I am most intrigued by the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods. We chose particular behaviors because we were existentially predisposed to given a particular confluence of personal experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.
In fact it is here that the moral objectivists will invariably draw their lines. Then it is just a matter of whether they choose God or Reason or Ideology or Nature as their default.
This part:
iambiguous wrote:Again: How then do you relate this to the particular behaviors that you choose?
In part, you can clearly see how they are profoundly intertwined in a set of particular historical and cultural and interpersonal experiences.
But how profoundly?
In other words, to what extent can you and I and others account for all of that and still come to the conclusion that specific behaviors are in fact more reasonable/virtuous than others?
And how is that then intertwined in our religious views: in our current assumptions regarding immortality, salvation and divine justice?
How specific can you be here? Or is what you believe just a general sense of things that appeal to you "here and now".
Bob wrote:My behaviour is dictated first of all by the common agreement, and less by my intuition. At least my behaviour in public is, although it is to a certain degree at least guided by my intuition. The more my intuitive decisions find acceptance among my peers, the more I can influence the common agreement – at least locally at first. Historically, such influences have been shared by more people before they find acceptance. This seems to be the process of all developments, good and bad.
"Common agreement" and "intuition" are basically no less existential contraptions to me. They are no less embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. The tricky part here though is that "intuition" is often a complex intertwining of what we can know objectively and how we react subjunctively in particular contexts. The part where reason and emotion and psychology and instinct become entangled in genes/memes; and then a clear demarcation between "true for all of us" and "true for me" is hard to come by. The part where "I" become entangled in my dilemma above. And with no God to comfort and console me.
Bob wrote:I experience existence as vague. There are people who have long before I ever saw the light of day tried to fathom out how to live. I find that their conclusions are occaionally helpful and sometimes they are too primitive and fail to take the whole picture into account. However, I am today in the position to learn from many people, form the past and present, which is all I can hope for.
"For all practical purposes" this may well be the only sensible approach to take if one is drawn to God through a leap of faith, rather than through an adamant belief that He does in fact exist. And that He has provided us with a
Scripture, enabling us to properly differentiate between right and wrong behaviors.
I am less trusting in it myself however because my dilemma tends to fracture and to fragment "I" such that I am ever tugged in different directions.
In other words, my own "existential contraption" is considerably
more existential than others.
