Yes, but:
…pertaining to what particular context out in what particular world construed from what particular point of view?
What happens when the contexts [experiences] change? What happens when, as a result of this, you bump into a conflicting point of view?
Relating to or not relating to God and religion.
Words like “faith”, “sin”, “justice” and “freedom” for example. Sooner or later the use of these [and so many similar] words are going to be misunderstood…or understood subjectively/contextually given the manner in which I have come to construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods.
This thread was created in order to discuss religious narratives as they relate to morality as that relates to one or another rendition of Judgment Day.
Or, if someone balks at the idea of God’s “judgment”, of reward and punishment of “the other side”, how is he or she able to demonstrate that this is a reasonable point of view?
The example at hand is your use of the word Dasein, which in my daily use of German has a specific meaning, but which doesn’t harmonise with yours. Thereby our communication is hampered by the fact that our communication is restricted to written exchanges and that lacking many facets of communication, as well as experience, we may never fully understand each other. We communicate, but we have particular assumptions about each other and our understanding of Dasein.
My own entirely existential understanding of dasein is encompassed here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
What are you own assumptions then regarding its meaning “out in the world” of human social, political and economic interactions?
Dasein at wiki:
Dasein is a German word that means “being there” or “presence”, and is often translated into English with the word “existence”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein
Being there instead of here [culturally experientially]. Being here or there now instead of here or there before or later [historically].
What aspects of “I” is this most relevant to? And, on this thread, how that relates to the behaviors we choose “here and now” in order to be in sync with what we imagine our fate to be “there and then”.
The same happens when people talk about God. We may have a one-on-one conversation on God and still come away not knowing what the others concept of God is – if they do at all have one. I have always wondered at Evangelicals who have ridiculed my intuitive approach to spirituality because it is “fuzzy”, but talk to three Christians separately and then you know what “fuzzy” is, or you know who has been telling them what/who God has to be for them.
Yes, this certainly seems reasonable to me. But intuitively or otherwise, your own understanding of God and religion is [in my view] no less an “existential contraption”. In other words, subjective/subjunctive fabrications [rooted in the actual experiential trajectory of your lived life] pertaining to that which you believe “in your head” that you either are or are not able to demonstrate to others as a reasonable thing to believe.
If it doesn’t come down to that in a philosophy forum then anything that anyone claims to believe is true “in his head” becomes the bottom line.
It doesn’t work that way among scientists though, right? So, where should the line be drawn among philosophers?
Going back to the caves [no doubt] God and religion factor into human interactions. In part because our brain is hard-wired through the evolution of life on earth to be “self-conscious”. We have the capacity to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”. And in a manner that far and away exceeds the capacity of any other creature on this planet.
Though, indeed, there may be creatures on other planets that far and away exceed us.
This involves first and foremost a capacity to think up The Big Questions: Why something and not nothing at all? Why this something and not another something instead?
Clearly the existence a God, the God, my God is one possible explanation.
You know, this “caveman’s God” has been bantered about for some time and I have doubts. Studies show that the brain of the “caveman” had enormous potential, and also that we fail to use the potential of our brains because we are preoccupied and distracted most of the time. The caveman couldn’t be distracted or he was dead and his distracted genes didn’t get passed on. He was focused and alert, and he was learning all the time. In fact, there is a lot of speculation going on today about this guys learning curve and consequently the collective learning curve. We seem to have simplified our outlook over time, rather than complicated it.
We can only speculate about what our “prehistoric ancestors” thought and felt regarding these relationships by interpreting the archaeological evidence. There are no written records. But it seems reasonable that any consciousness able to connect dots between “out in the world” and “in my head” is going to get around to “what’s it all mean”?
But: back then science was not around to offer “natural” explanations. Today of course religion doesn’t often go there. Instead the focus seems to be on this:
1] how ought one to live?
2] what happens after we die?
Which happens to be the whole point of this thread: intertwining the two as this relates to the behaviors that we choose from day to day to day.
Any particular individual will believe in God, not believe in God or be uncertain. And this is clearly rooted existentially in many, many vast and varied historical, cultural and experiential contexts. Also, any particular individual will interact with others of her kind or not interact with others of her kind. The vast majority of us do. And, as a result of this, our interactions precipitate conflicts that revolve around one or another set of behaviors that revolve around one or another set of values. With or without God. In turn, all of us will die. And that precipitates thoughts and feelings [in any particular individual] regarding our fate on the other side.
This thread was created in order for those individuals who do believe in God to discuss the manner in which they intertwine their behaviors on this side of the grave as that relates to the manner in which they have come to imagine their fate on the other side.
In other words, these narratives will [hopefully] be as far removed from “intellectual contraptions” as it is possible to convey in a forum such as this.
I think that the “caveman” will have been more a part of the collective than we are, with our imagined individuality and attempts to be unique in some way. Therefore, if the group had the concept of a singular or multiple Gods, our man will have too. If there is no God-concept, he will have none either. Therefore the interaction of our man is active and not reflective like ours is deemed to be. We forget that we can’t not communicate, we can’t not interact either. In one way or another we are always interacting, even though we might not notice or even forget where it was apparent.
Well, our earliest ancestors no doubt intertwined God into a rather primitive [prescience] understanding of nature. One imagines that the interactions in any particular community [and between communities] revolved more or less around might makes right. And then they either appeased “the Gods” or they did not.
Survival of the fittest [among themselves, between themselves and in conjunction with nature] would seem to be entirely more reasonable.
Films like Quest For Fire explored this. But no one really knows for sure.
Imagine trying to explain “Pascal’s wager” to them! Or Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith”. Let alone the appeal of Don Trump to evangelicals.
Therefore, I think that there are false assumptions on your part that means that the discussion you want isn’t actually happening. The question you should ask is the last one: How do they intertwine their behaviour on this side of the grave in order to have an effect on their fate on the other side.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the only answer you’ll get amounts to pascals wager.
My assumptions are rather straightforward:
1] we are all confronted [from the cradle to the grave] with the question, “how ought one to live?”
2] we all die
3] almost all of us will ponder the manner in which the two are intertwined “out in a particular world” from a “religious” perspective
This thread is here for folks to discuss that – given the manner in which they choose to live their lives from day to day to day. One way rather than another.