on discussing god and religion

What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In a No God world.

Note to others:

I don’t read all of his posts. Has he attempted to demonstrate this to you on another thread? All I want to do here is to bring these assessments down to earth.

Think about it: How is it even possible for one mere mortal to “gather all of the necessary knowledge” when any particular one of us only has access to a tiny sliver of all the exchanges [experiences/information/knowledge] that our species has disseminated amongst and between ourselves over the centuries.

Then think about this:

There may well be be any number of key insights here that we are completely oblivious to. As this pertains to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

Right?

Here you don’t grasp the manner in which I surmise that, psychologically, you too are merely concocting [in a world of words] the secular rendition of God and theism. A frame of mind into which you can subsume “I”. Why? In order to sustain “in your head” the comfort and consolation embodied in championing one or another TOE. Indeed, at ILP alone there have been dozens of them proposed over the years. They clearly cannot all be right but down to the individual objectivist, they are all argued to be the one true assessment of the human condition.

Still, as with most of the other secular [humanist] narratives, when you die that’s it. No immortality, no salvation, no divine justice.

But at least you can take pride in having both the Intestinal fortitude and the intellectual integrity of encompassing All There Is – as it really, really is – in a No God world.

And folks like me are deemed “weak” because we won’t/don’t display the same qualities. We are still groping for a way up out of an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

You, on the other hand, have figured out how this all works. You understand God and religion [and why folks embrace them] wholly, fully, definitively. Not only that but “in your head” you have concocted the intellectual scaffolding from which mere mortals can derive absolute moral agendas in a No God world. As in fact they finally will “in the future”.

Here [of course] you speak of existentialism in an intellectual contraption. A “general description” of the philosophy. Okay, so let’s bring it down to Earth by embedding its components [as we understand them] in the is/ought world. In a context most here will likely to be familiar with.

In other words, “what in the world” are you talking about here:

From my frame of mind, this sort of thing smacks of pedanty. Almost as though you are imagining others reading it and marveling at how “deep” it sounds. How intellectual. But what on earth does it have to do with any actual conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods pertaining to a particular “human all too human” context?

Here you demur:

What “right practices”? In what context?

Then back again to this: How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?

Hell, you don’t even follow “politics”. In other words, so as to discern just how many conflicting goods still abound thousands of years after the pre-Socratics first broached [as philosophers] these interactions in the is/ought world.

In this contexts of complementing the knowing with the doing, I was referring the necessary exercises one has to do to deal with conflicts.
Personally I have been striving to cultivate a state of equanimity & other qualities and doing the necessary practices for MANY years to achieve reasonable progress to deal with conflicting goods whatever they are. I will not claim I have attained a 90/100 state of equanimity, etc. but at least I have ventured into it and been continually improving over the MANY years I have been into it.

I am not very sure what example of conflicting goods you want me to present.
Life is filled with all sorts of dilemma and the mother of all dilemma is the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. I have tackle this existing inherent unavoidable existential dilemma via theism to non-theism with a state of equanimity and whatever is necessary.

I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer’s standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.

So how can I demonstrate to you unless you know me personally and have seen what I have done physically or mentally.
The only way you can know what I know is from what I have posted here which is restricted to knowledge [knowing] but not the practical [doing].

But in your case, using the intention to be a skillful tennis player, you have learned (brainwashed) with ineffective knowledge on tennis and have not bothered to practice to develop your skills.

There are many perspectives to “right practices.”
Your problem is you don’t even have the concept of “right practices” within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed “right practices” [non-intellectualizing].

In contrast, Buddhism is also involves in existentialism in its own way, note;

Whilst Buddhism [existential] has tons of practices with deal with the real problems faced by the individual, Continental existentialists do not come up with actual practices [rewiring the brain] to deal with the existential issues.

I do follow ‘politics’ intellectually and analyze it philosophically but I don’t practice politics [not a member of any political party nor a fan of any political ideology].

As for conflicting goods I do not believe fire-fighting is effective, thus what I have done is to analyze the root cause of the mother of all conflicting goods, i.e. the existential crisis and apply the generic solution to all other conflicting goods or evil that naturally arise within my circumstances.

You are like living in a place surrounded by water and do not know how to swim but has a terrible fear of water.
Because you are surrounded by water, you have been advised to learn how to swim to be on the safe side just in case.
But unfortunately you have been exposed to superficial theories of swimming and has no interest [out of fear] and developed great resistance to get into the water to practice swimming.

The above is an analogy of the dilemma and catch-22 you are in.
You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.

I believe I have talked enough, it is up to you to gather more knowledge and get into the ‘water’ and act [do the doing].

This thread revolves around the moral narratives of those who embrace one or another God.

You of course don’t.

For you “progressive” behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.

Yet you are telling us that in the course of livng your life from day to day over the years, you are unable to recall a specific context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with anothers.

A context in which you are able to flesh out/illustrate the points that you are making scholastically above.

As I was once forced to with respect to John and Mary and abortion. A fundamental context in my own life because, in conjunction with William Barrett’s “rival goods”, my own embodiment of objectivism began to crumble.

I’m simply trying to grasp how your ideas might work given a particular context. If not one of your own then one that we might all be familiar with in following any number of conflicted goods “in the news”.

Not in other words something like this:

Here the relationship between knowing and doing revolves largely around the either/or world. The results are clearly calcuable in that you either do or do not become a great tennis player.

But, again, shift the discussion from that to the arguments [pro and con] about parents who take their kids at a very early age and try to shape and mold them into great tennis players. The controversy surrounding the “sports parent”. 24/7 some kids are made to live and breathe tennis.

Or some other sport.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? What would constitute a “progressive” parent in this particlar context?

The sort of controversy that swirls around things like this: huffingtonpost.com/john-oas … 50790.html

And yet everytime I try to bring these things down into the realm of day to day human interactions in conflict…

You basically respond like this…

All I can do then is to point out just how far removed we are from forging this exchange into a substantive discussion of conflicting goods in a No God world.

Then this:

Or:

You do not have a dilemma because you have managed to think yourself into believing that you have exhausted all of the necessary knowledge and views. And in the course of living your life from day to day you are wholly in sync with that.

And this brings you comfort and consolation. It brings you equanimity. And some day down the road when everyone else shares your knowledge and views, they too will all be doing the same things.

And, who knows, it may even be possible that you will actually be around to see this happen.

How confident are you of this?

Normally after >50 pages the theme gets lost and sway into other things. Since what we are into is related to existentialism, it is possible to reconcile this to the OP?

Nope! my emphasis is not solely on the rational.
My principle is complementarity, i.e. the rational must be complemented by the empirical, i.e. experiences by the subject toward continuous improvement based on the system approach.
Note the Yin-Yang where the opposites must embrace each other spirally.

I have stated one must be rational [using reason and intellect] to establish the knowing but at the same time one must act [doing] on what is known and reflect on the experiences within a Framework and System with a drive for continuous improvement in all aspects of life.

Being human I am definitely exposed to all sorts of dilemma, including those of conflicting goods [Barrett’s ‘rival goods’].

But the philosophy I had adopted treat these naturally inevitable and unavoidable dilemmas like water droplets on a lotus leaf. I experience these dilemma but they don’t stick around for me to ruminate on them like you do.
That is why I am not able to narrate any significant dilemma I have experienced in life that is traumatic {PTSD} enough for me to recall easily.

That is why I always fall back to the inherent principle of ‘learning how to fish’ i.e. doing and a generic do-it-yourself to tackle any life problems.

Barrett introduced the concept of ‘rival goods’ in his book, The Irrational Man’.

As you will note from the above, religions [Christianity in this case] has at least some crude rickety system [based on illusion and impossibilities but it works] to deal with the dilemma of ‘rival goods.’
The point is when existentialism explains away flimsy-theistic-religions into nothingness, meaningless and absurdities, it does not provide an alternative ‘crutch’ for the terrified and panicky newly converted believers of existentialism to cling on.

The above is your existing dilemma, i.e. in a limbo.
To resolve the dilemma I suggested a Framework and System of ‘knowing and doing’ as a generic technique to deal with the inherent dilemma.
What I had proposed is a generic [how to fish] technique re how to resolve dilemmas in life and not addressing any specific dilemma [feeding one fishes on a daily basis].

Once the person has cultivated the necessary state and skills to deal with whatever dilemmas, the dilemmas [including the worst] will be like continuous water [even if polluted] falling on and off lotus leaves.

My example is for a person who has a strong drive and personal interest in playing tennis to the highest level.
In this case you are shifting the goalpost of the discussion or changing the subject matter from the person who is personally interested in learning, to the parents.

But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.

The ultimate point is still about ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’.

Note my focus is on ‘how to fish’ while you want me to find the next fish to you, then presumably I have to do it on a daily basis.

It is not that I think I don’t have a dilemma.
Based on the right efforts I have put in over many years, I have managed to develop the necessary mental state to modulate ‘rival goods’ spontaneously without having to cry and ruminate over it.

As for the majority, I won’t be around to see the average person having the average state to deal with the existential dilemma effectively. However, given the progressing trend, I am optimistic it will happen, perhaps in >75 >100 years from now. What we can do is discuss the issue at present.

Yes, a fairly standard articulation of the faithful. They project into God all that they would be unable to fully comprehend about themselves in a No God world.

In other words, if God did not exist, He would have to be invented.

On the other hand, there are those who, having yanked God up and out of our lives, come to insist that God is not even necessary in order that mere mortals acquire a complete “knowledge and understanding of self”.

Ever and always their own. And then the irony here is completely lost on them.

God is gone, but not our capacity to differentiate right from wrong behaviors.

As “on of us” or “one of them”.

Naturally it seems.

But it doesn’t matter. If there is no way to determine right or wrong, good or evil, discussions of morals do not matter, and cannot be judged bad or problematic. Or, at least, you have no way to know if being objectivist is good or bad, if having opposing objectivisms is good or bad. You have no idea if your own repeated meta-ethical position is good or bad,does harm or good. There is nothing to complain about since for all you know it may be great that there are objectivists, even if their epistemology sucks. Perhaps the only harm being done is by nihilists. Who knows? we have no criteria to evaluate this

All I can do here is to patiently explain to you [and to others like you] that until this sort of “general description” is intertwined in a context most will be familiar with, I have no clear idea at all of what you are trying to convey here regarding conflicting goods.

In other words, from my point of view you have not really explained [substantively] much at all

This basically revolves around two things:

1] the extent to which your day to day interactions with others precipitates conflicts that revolve around value judgments that precipitate out of sync behaviors that precipitate actual consequences.

2] the extent to which you can then subsume these interactions in an intellectual contraption that allows you to believe that there are in fact actual “progressive” behaviors to be embodied.

And that, eventually, in the future, everyone will understand this. And, no doubt, they will be behaviors that you are already privy to here and now “in your head”.

That’s your rendition of existentialism. Mine suggest not that meaning revolves around nothingness…around absurdities…but that meaning [in the is/ought world] is embedded historically, culturally and experientially in particular contexts construed from partiuclar points of view embedded in the manner in which I have come to understand the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

But here you scramble straight back up into the clouds of abstraction:

What on earth am I to make of this?

Again, you are actually arguing that if the progressive parents have sufficient knowledge and are able to impart this knowledge skillfully to their children, they will then discern precisely where that line is drawn between too much tennis and too little tennis.

And what might that entail?

Quite true. On the other hand, I have always argued here that my own contribution to the discussion is no less an existential contraption.

This thread was created in order to encourage religious folks to connect the dots between the beahviors that they choose on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.

Clearly, with an extant God [often said to be omniscient and omnipotent], there is unequivocally a deontological font available in order to know the difference between right and wrong behaviors.

But what of the No God world?

What is the font – the criterion – then?

Given that mere mortals are anything but omniscient and omnipotent.

From what I have gathered so far is you too defensive to learn anything.
Note I am not pushing and insisting on you to learn or accept ALL of MY views.

What I had proposed is very positive and generic like, learn how to fish, increase your level of philosophical education, see the pros and cons of various issues and other self-improvement methods.
It is very unfortunate you have very rigid and non-pliable neurons in the learning part of your brain.

I sense your thinking is very perverted from the norm and that is why it is giving you so much problems, dilemma and conundrums.

I am not too sure what this is leading to. Perhaps you can give an example.

Whatever the problems with the above, I would propose we ‘learn how to fish’ as a generic approach to deal with the issues.

Note sure ‘understand what’.

I mentioned the generic solution to life’s problem to tackle whatever the problem, i.e.

  1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
  2. The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
  3. The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
  4. The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

If we let the suffering or problem be X, then we can resolve whatever the problem through the above model.

Don’t be doubtful because it has only 4 lines.
To be adept in the above one need years of knowledge and practices plus continuing attention on it to sustain its effectiveness.

Abstraction??
This is your problem that prevent you from any breakthrough.
As I had stated many times, all knowledge has to start with abstraction from past experiences to progress.
If you dismiss abstraction as ‘clouds’ then you are into trouble.

As stated there is no other way in such a discussion except to start with abstractions, i.e. hypothesis, thesis and various knowledge on the intellectual and theoretical basis.

What on earth am I to make of this?
The onus is on you to look into the Why, What, How, When, Who, and the likes towards knowing and doing.

Note the views of ‘existentialism’ is not mine but that is the general theme.
I believe your invention and understanding of your ‘dasein’ is wrong and out of alignment with the original. This is why you are having so much problems with it.

But the general view with existentialism is it does not provide existentialists with as set of practices to get them out of the problems of life it exposes. Agree?

Note we can deduce from empirical observations and matching with average expectations of what good parenting entails.
As for tennis we can gather evidences [good and bad] from what all the top tennis players and other non-pros has done in their life. This is not difficult at all. Then we can abstract the general norms of what constitute good parenting in relation to playing tennis and other sports.

As for good parenting we can do the same from observations, setting expectations, etc.
We can abstract what are the norms relative to various conditions.
In addition we will note what are the extremes to be avoided and the risks involved.
Again we reduce the above to ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ with a striving for continuous improvements.

Look, you are either convinced that objective morality exist [in a No God world] or you are not.

And you are either convinced that others can learn from you to embody rational/progressive behaviors regarding conflicting goods [in a No God world] or you are not.

But:

You will either bring all of this down to earth in order to substantiate your claims or you will not.

But you can’t resist it:

You tell me: Is it even possible to be more abstract?

Yet even in discussing abstraction you fall back on more of it:

Well, if this is true it smacks of determinism. And if determinism is applicable what does it really mean to hold me responsible for whatever I think, feel and do?

The norm? Subtantiate this please. A context. A set of conflicting goods.

Are you telling me you have never encountered others who objected to your behaviors because they violated their own understanding of right and wrong? What on earth then does it mean to “learn to fish” here? How was the dispute “dealt” with to the satisfaction of both of you?

Instead, your argument [to me] is that there is a progressive Middle-Way behavior out here and that in the future both of you will come to embody it if you wish to be thought of as rational human beings.

But only if this is “dealt” with first in an exchange of “general descriptions” of human interactions. You have this “thing” about “generic solutions to life’s problems”. But that doesn’t surprise me at all.

For example this thing:

And then when I ask you to bring this down to earth in order to grapple with an actual suffering human being in an actual context, you don’t see the point of that. Or you claim that [with me or with others] you already have done this.

I’m just not privy [yet] as to where and when.

Either that or we just have to agree to disagree regarding what that exchange entails.

Indeed, that is why folks like de Beauvoir wrote novels in order to situate the general themes out in a particular world that revolved largely around the actual existential lives of herself and those around her.

Even the mother of all Objectivists, Ayn Rand, made that attempt.

No, they suggested that those who insist that “essense precedes existence” [in the is/ought world] acted out of “bad faith”, acted “inauthentically”. Why? Because in order to embrace their doctrinaire, dogmatic and generally authoritarian moral/political prescriptions, they insisted that everyone else had to embrace [b]the same set of practices that they did[/b]. In other words, the psychology of objectivism: one of us vs. one of them.

That you know what is true not what you know is true.

Again, substantively, “what might that entail?” What particular behaviors would be in sync with a “progressive” frame of mind in regards to striking a Middle-Way balance [from day to day to day] between too much tennis and too little tennis?

What would all of the great tennis players agree upon here?

Though I suspect that you [much like me] don’t really have a clue because you [much like me] have never been a parent faced [existentially] with that dilemma. You just know that if one thinks about it in the right way equanimity will prevail.

Theoretically as it were.

I want to repeat the above has nothing to do with ‘objectivist’, it is about dualism and related to Moral Dualism in this case.

I do not believe it is possible for a God to exist as real.
I do not believe objective morality exist ontologically in the non-theistic No-God perspective.

However I believe we humanity can generate the idea of objective morality via the highest possible reason and work them together complementarily with relative morality. In this case it is not an either/or thing.

Note my concept of complementarity neutralize your dualistic either/on concept.

Whenever you encounter a dead-end either/or scenario look at it from the complementary perspective. This is the principle used in Taoism re Yin-Yang and elsewhere to generate optimality and rationality.
Note in Physics as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics

It is very common and normal for me to have disagreements with others.

Here is an example;
Note theists will not agree with my non-theistic views.
I believe there is a Middle-Way out of that chasm, i.e. the theists should learn ‘how to fish’ using the generic problem solving technique;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030
like I do which is much more that the theist’s mere belief based on faith.

Thus theists will have to execute [take real action on] right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

The theist will have to take real action to understand the issue in the whole perspective to get the right view, i.e. on

Why God is an Impossibility?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

the real solution is found in;
The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697

There is no easy way out, to learn how to fish [beside the above] one will have to learn and research as much as possible and practice whatever is necessary.

If one do not want to learn, research and practice, then it is the end of discussion.

Example;
Generally*, the route to be well rounded in education, one has to go through certain basic phases of educational processes, e.g. attend grade/home school to a PhD program.
But if the person refuse to go through the educational phases, give all sorts of excuses, be defensive and prefer to do nothing about it, then that the end of the discussion on the topic of education.

  • not taking into account the autodidactic.

Do you notice what you say in your response?

You say that other people need to learn things. Other people need to know and do a bunch of “right” stuff. They don’t know how to fish and they don’t know the “right” things, but you do.

If only they knew what you know and if they did the things that you do, then they would also be as good as you.

You don’t seem to be able to acknowledge that other people might know how to fish, they might know what is “right” better than you.

The two links which you provided have had many responses. People have pointed out your errors and yet you simply deny legitimacy of what they have said. You bring up those threads as if they are proof of your claims when in fact, they show how poor your claims are.

I am not expecting every one who knows what I know to be as good as myself. They could be better or lesser.

It depends on the subject matter. I don’t claim to be expert on everything but only in those areas I have expertise.
As far as my discussion with Iambiguous is concern, i.e. his dilemma related to existentialism and digging a hole so deep he cannot get out, I believe I am well equiped in knowledge and practices to address this specific problem.

Note this is a philosophy forum which by default is for people to present their views, the more the better.

In those two links, as far as I am concern I have countered all arguments against my views and there are no outstanding points for me to address and counter in the above two links. If there are outstanding points I will definitely want to address and I cannot leave them hanging and leaving my proposition in doubt.

I believe you have raised the same issues a few times and I have addressed them.
Why don’t you highlight the outstanding points you think I have not addressed in those links, I will definitely appreciate that and will addressed them accordingly.
I am also hoping there will be new counter arguments from different perspectives other than the ones already presented.

I’m not going to waste any more time on those threads.

Note to others:

He believes that he does not believe this. Others, however, believe that they do not believe that he what he believes he does not believe is what a virtuous man or woman ought to believe.

Then what?

What on earth does that mean? You won’t tell us. Why? Because, in my view, you are just one more of Durant’s “epistemologists”.

Either that or it’s a Yin-Yang thing.

Then this thing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics

So, what on earth does that have to do with the secular equivalent of choosing behaviors in a No God world as it relates to your fate after you are dead and gone?

As I had stated this is a separate topic which need to be discussed in a separate thread within the Philosophy of Morality.
I believed I have discussed parts of this in various posts but as usual your memory is failing you. e.g. [a quick search]
viewtopic.php?p=2629864#p2629864

He obviously remembered, he mentioned the Yin Yang thing above in this post you quote, then say his memory is failing him.

Here is the post you link to that you think explains something…

First off, to say that something is resolved by Kant is a mere appeal to authority. It doesn’t demonstrate anything. Kant could have been wrong, for example, which many modern philosophers believe. Your ‘explanation’ in the bolded portion is as mystical as anything from, say, St. Teresa.

I fully understand what I stated re Kant is merely a statement and ultimately my point must be justified.
This is not the place but I am fully prepared to justify my point where appropriate. Note I spent >3 years researching on Kant on a full time basis and I have a reasonable understanding of his philosophies.
It is not easy to understand Kant philosophy and the majority of philosophy do not understand Kant’s philosophy fully. Even those who are Kantian and pro-Kant end up having different interpretations of Kant’s philosophy, e.g. on the concept of the thing-in-itself aka noumenon.

The majority of philosophers understand Kant’s morality as deontological, but this is totally wrong.

That’s precisely why I want to bring all of this down to a particular context. I’m confused regarding your point here. Are you arguing that conflicting goods do in fact exist [here and now] but that, in the future, by embodying “progressive Middle-Way” behaviors, mere mortals [in a No God world] can interact sans conflict? Or are you arguing that if the conflicting goods are still around in the future rational men and women can choose to behave such that they will necessarily embody right rather than wrong behaviors?

In other words, what on earth does this…

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of or conflict between the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be “moral” and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview which has one god, more than one god, or none. - wiki

…have to do with the conflicting goods embedded [here and now] in an issue like abortion?