on discussing god and religion

But my point is that if, hypothetically, America and England were to merge, there would not appear to be a way in which to determine objectively [sans God] whether driving on the left or right side of the road is more or less inherently good or bad.

And that, if, hypothetically, this particular convention was of interest to God on Judgment Day, different denominatins might have conflicting assessments regarding that which constitues a sin here.

In other words, driving on the left or the right side of the road would become just one more behavior to take into account re the OP.

Well, in a nation where democracy and the rule of law prevailed, those conventions would revolve to one degree or another around moderation, negotiation and compromise. The whole point being that if an objective truth cannot be pinned down regarding any particular behaviors, what other recourse is there. Aside from, say, might makes right.

The difficulty arises only when in a No God world “perfectly reasonable” means many different things to many different people in any one particular historical, cultural and experiential context.

Which clearly seems to be why so many feel the need to invent Gods in the first place.

Folks on both sides of the conflicting goods keep insisting that they and only they “use their brains”.

I’m not arguing that in a No God world people can do anything. I am suggesting only that the things they choose to do are embedded in ever shifting and evolving historical and cultural contexts precipitating ever shifting and evolving moral narratives and political agendas.

And that these existential contraptions revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. In a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. In any one particular context involving actual choices that we make.

And, on this thread, the manner in which the religious among us choose particular behaviors and react to others embedded in a frame of mind that connects the dots between “here and now” and “there and then”.

The consequences of our behaviors are obviously not dependent on the existence of a God, the God, my God. Nothing stops them.

But what of being rewarded or punished regarding particular behaviors in a No God world? Given the manner in which different people react differently to those consequences?

A remarkable post. Very educational.

Iambig : “What on earth does that have to do with my point though?”

What indeed?

When Iambig wrote “Not sure exactly what you mean by this …”, I interpreted that as a request for an explanation. Therefore, I wrote more about what I had meant by “God says so” moralities being less objective. But actually, he’s not interested in anything that I have to say about it. He wants someone to talk about what he wrote and what he thinks is important. He’s not even interested in the contents of the response, as long as they are discussing his stuff.

Iambig : “Again, the whole point of this thread is to bring assessments like this down to earth. To imagine actual observable actions in actual contexts that allow folks to connect the dots between here and now and there and then.”

Attempting to control the entire discussion. Everything in this thread has be exactly about what he wants it to be about.

Iambig : “But: Being caught and being punished is the whole enchilada in discussions of this sort.”

Yup. We’re only allowed to discuss morality, God and religion in terms of punishment and eternal damnation. Everything else is off the table.

Iambig : “But my point is that if, hypothetically, America and England were to merge, there would not appear to be a way in which to determine objectively [sans God] whether driving on the left or right side of the road is more or less inherently good or bad.”

Again, ignoring the point in the original quote and my response to it. Instead we are required to only deal with Iambig’s hypothetical tangent.

Iambig is completely egocentric. There is no reason to continue responding to him.

And even if it does respond, but not in a way he likes. And even if it fits the OP better. Even if it is someone else’s thread and he is the one off or more on a tangent.

Yes. And the response is not really a response. It is a reassertion of his position. He did not interact with your ideas. He does not justify the continuation of saying that sans God is so different from avec God, around determining what to do, GIVEN what you wrote. Reassertion posing as critical response. Been there suffered that.

But he cannot give up saying there is a radical difference between sans God and avec God. The latter must solve all the problems, otherwise what is the point of this thread and others. What reason would there be to bait theists into the rabbit hole of never really being responded to discussions that give opportunities for him to say that they have failed to convince him.

Of course many theists agree with him. So, he should have his autumn and winter years filled with the same activity.

A truly grounded discussion of religion could only have experiences in it. IOW it would involve attempted participation on his part and then a sharing of specific experiences they each had with religious practice and then likely experiences that just arise. Of course this might not solve the gap between him and theists, but the really odd thing is he think that he can understand a theist’s world without actually experiencing any of it. And without then trying to see if what a theist bases his or her experience on has parallels to what he bases decisions, actions, attitudes and beliefs on. That’s the second step, one which few active non-theists takes…first participate, then compare the actual bases for decisions, actions, attitudes and beliefs that it seems like theists have, with his or her own bases for those things. IOW if you really want a Christian to show you why they believe what they believe, you can talk until you are blue in the face, or you can go to mass, read the Bible, and spend time on that. You can also go deeply into how they arrived at their beliefs, probably best talking to people who went from atheism to Christianity. Find out exactly what experiences they had, practices they engaged in, and at least pursue these a bit yourself. Also, once you begin to understand the make up of their process, see if, in fact, it mirrors processes in your own arriving at beliefs, attitude, choices, actions. They may be more similar, as far as epistemology than one realized. This could lead to thinking there would be no loss in continuing the day to experiencing of a religion. Other religions could also be experienced in this way.

So of in the spirit of the first approach below from the OP
My emphasis added…

Now that is a false dichotomy. Even this thread is neither one of these processes, so there is at least a third. But note the importance of experiencing in learning.

Reading arguments, even with specifics, is not doing this. It is a forumula for repetition.

From my frame of mind, this is basically the route that KT takes: Making me the issue.

Switch the discussion from the extent to which you do address my point above, to a discussion of what I am doing here. Once I am exposed to be what you claim that I am in these discussions, the substantive discussion itself is beside the point.

So, I can only leave it to others to decide for themselves which of us is closer to whatever the whole truth here might possibly be.

Guilty as charged if I am being accused of focusing the exchange on the actual points being raised in the OP.

That’s what creating other threads is for, right? This thread allows those who do believe that the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave will reconfigure into their imagined fate on the other side of the grave.

But what does that mean when he or she encounters others who challenge the behaviors they choose. Either because their God has a different set of Commandments or because they do not believe in God at all.

Something [God or No God] is “in their head” “here and now” that prompts them to choose one set of behaviors rather than another. With zinnatt, I was interested in exploring both the manner in which he himself connected the dots here, and the manner in which he reacted to the components of my own moral narrative.

You’ll have to be more detailed here. I don’t even know what this is actually in reference to. Start from the beginning. What original quote, what response to it? What hypothetical tangent?

I was merely reacting to your driving on whatever side of the road “convention” by bringing it down to earth. What if a nation driving on the left merged with a nation driving on the right. And what if this behavior was a factor in regard to the OP. A behavior, in other words, that a God, the God, my God judged.

Or, for that matter, what if the merger involved a more controversial issue, like the death penalty. England abolished it in 1999, not so in any number of jurisdictions in America.

Does your own God include capital punishment in the commandment “thou shalt not kill”?

Right, like someone is forcing you to respond to me.

And one thing still has not changed: You have your God, you have your objective morality, you have your comfort and consolation.

So, for all practical purposes – and you know how important that is to me – you win. I have none of that.

Just thought of something…

You have your God, KT does not. You have your objective morality, KT does not. So, you have a frame of mind that begets a level of comfort and consolation that might be compared and contrasted to the comfort and consolation that KT’s pragmatism begets.

Why don’t the two of you beget a new thread. Discuss this given a context that most of us will be familiar with.

Not only to explore in more depth your own respective comforts and consolations, but to provide all the rest of us with an example of an exchange that entirely avoids all of the narcissistic pratfalls that my own posts exude.

Why would I want to do that? :-k

I think that your ideas about our “comfort and consolation” are bullshit. They don’t make sense to me. They are not applicable.

I got thrown into this world and there are things in it that I like and things that I don’t like. I try to avoid and/or change what I don’t like and enhance what I do like.

I think that God is a good explanation for some things that I have observed. That’s why I think God exists.

I don’t think that there is an afterlife. I’m living this life. But I don’t piss on people who think that there is an afterlife.

Humans have needs, wants, likes and dislikes which are founded on their biology. That’s where objective morality comes from - human biology.

It’s that simple.

To one degree or another, someone either does or does not believe in a God connected to behaviors that are chosen on this side of the grave connected to what they image their fate to be on the other side. And, to one degree or another, this frame of mind comforts and consoles them.

The part about bullshit revolves around an assumption that all of the actual existential complexities that coagulate into any one particular “I” in any one particular context can be reduced down to an optimal frame of mind.

Still, all we can do [in places like this], is to explore each other’s perspectives.

Though, sure, why you either would or would not want to explore this with KT, is no less an existential contraption.

Me too. This thread merely allows those who do this to examine their likes and dislikes “here and now” as that relates to what they imagine the fate of “I” to be “there and then”. Through God and religion.

And, in particular, what happens when these likes and dislikes come into conflict precisely because the subjective contraption that they call God is not in sync with another’s subjective understanding of Him.

Either in regard to scripture or for the secular a moral philosophy.

Thinking something and demonstrating to others how and why you think what you do is the reason venues like this were created. To go below the surface and to explore a belief more rigorously. And even to explore the extent to which beliefs might never fully be grasped.

Same here.

When people get pissed off at me, though, it’s usually because I aim the discussion more toward examining not what they believe so much as how they have come to believe what they do given the actual accumulation of experiences that encompass their lives.

They like and dislike what they do not because they are in touch with a “real me” able to rationally distinguish “the right thing to like” from “the wrong thing to like”. But, rather, because the very trajectory of their lived lives situated out in particular worlds predispose them to go in particular directions.

“I” as an existential contraption in the is/ought world. Only, for some, God becoming an important factor in this trajectory.

Well, it’s always that simple when expressed as an utterly abstract general description of human interactions.

Indeed, folks like Satyr over at KT could not possibly agree with you more about the biological nature of human morality. Sans God of course.

And, as long as you both stay up in those general description clouds, merely believing what you do is enough.

But let someone suggest that, say, human wants and needs are more biologically in sync with Communism than capitalism…?

Where was “comfort and consolation” in that “utterly abstract general description” of my life and thinking? Nowhere. It’s not applicable.

If I wanted to be comforted and consoled then I could adopt other thinking.

I could pretend that Communism is good. It would be great if Communism worked as described in the writings, the slogans and the movies. But in reality, it’s a miserable failure. Or to be more accurate, it’s a bigger failure than capitalism.

The fact is that almost any belief can be comforting and consoling, even ones that seem unpleasant. Nihilism can be comforting because it justifies not trying all sorts of things. Now, to be clear, it need nto be comforting, but it can be. He would likely say that his nihilism is unpleasant, but that does not mean he is not avoiding things that scare him. It might not or it might.

So it’s just boring ad hom stuff. He is suffering so his beliefs are not based on consolation. We seem to be suffering less, so our beliefs must be based on consolation. Snore.

How does this all related to discussing God and Religion?

It relates because the religious and atheists alike love to go for ad homs. If we are speaking generally.

And that doesn’t seem to be very practical as far as either group’s goals. At least the one’s they generally proclaim.

I think a real discussion between theists and atheists would have it’s form very dependent on the goals. And the goals would likely not be mutual.

If the atheists want to push forward epistemological concerns, then it behooves them to join in the practices of the theists in question. If the theists want to compel the atheists to believe, then they are going to have to suggest this also, but further understand that such processes would necessarily be long. and also understand that the atheists may not be interested. Hence a gap in experience. Gaps in experience, huge gaps, make certain kinds of discussion extremely limited. And either side pretending they know what the other person’s experiences really are, or mean, is making psychic and epistemological claims that I think are week.

So, given the most atheists won’t participate in practices and community, how does the discussion happen

given the gap.

Depends on the goal.

What’s the goal?

“Comfort and consolation” is code for “You guys are avoiding looking at the truth. You’re compromising, rationalizing and ignoring in order to be comfortable.”

I don’t see either of us doing that. He hasn’t presented a simple bit of evidence that we are.

There would have to be a mutual respect in the first place and I think that’s missing these days. I’m surprised how little respect there is in these forums(not just ILP) and how quickly posters become judgemental, aggressive and dismissive. It’s a “I’m wonderful, you’re delusional” attitude that stops effective communication. Ironic in an age where we are all supposed to be connected in a global village.

And then it would be beside the point, and assumes, on the side of that he has no such reasons for his beliefs, lack of beliefs, and attitude.

We’re connected more with like minds and then like data through those minds. Or so they say.

Okay, if the manner in which you think about God and religion and objective morality does not bring you some measure of comfort and consolation, it’s not applicable to you.

On the other hand, in order that others might come to understand this relationship as it unfolds for you [for all practical purposes] you will either intertwine it in a description of the life that you do live or you won’t.

I can only base my own speculations here on the many experiences I have had with those for whom God and religion were an important foundation upon which to engender behaviors that then came to revolve around the “real me” in touch with “the right thing to do”.

As, long ago, it once did for me.

Obviously: It will work differently for different people. That’s the whole point behind exploring the existential relationship between “I”, value judgements, context and dasein.

Historically, it was a spectacular failure. But advocates still today can spin you a narrative that explains why that was the case. And why it had nothing to do with the inherent goodness of Communism. And why capitalism will always revolve around the greatest good for the fewest number.

But, as with God and religion, secular political ideologies are tailor made for the objectivist mind. A psychological foundation upon which to embed “I” in the best of all possible worlds.

Again, it’s less what you believe the font is and more that you believe the font exists.

Ever and always your own.

It makes me think that it might be good to put the goals you have for the discussion first. Which might save a lot of time. On the other hand one has to be honest about those goals, especially, or at least first, with oneself.

Goals like:
I was raised in the church left it and I have a lot of bitterness.
I hate what people get away with nowadays and I want to put the fear of God into them.

Of course there may be all sorts of goals more conducive to a pleasant, interesting meeting of the minds, but if there are these things, then they should be out front. That way it is clear what is happening and what will likely happen.

And then if there was some sort of backdrop to such discussions that encouraged exploration over defeating.

I discovered that I had to eat in order to survive. I enjoy eating. I might as well enjoy it since I have to do it anyways. But I didn’t invent eating to get enjoyment, comfort or consolation from it.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

Even after all these years, I have no idea what the practical consequences are of this. The “real me” is the one that exists in the present moment and everyone thinks that he/she is doing “the right thing” when doing it.

So what’s the real issue down on the earth?

You’re mistaken about how you see yourself? You make mistakes when making decisions? Seems to describe everyone.

People are too arrogant. Sure. People ought to be confident but not arrogant.

That doesn’t seem to be anything that you can change.

No, not really. At least not as it relates to the trajectory I wished to explore on this thread. The one that grapples more with the moral parameters of consuming food on this side of the grave as it relates to the fate of “I” on the other side.

You eat food because you have to. Nature made it taste good to prompt you to eat the stuff all the more. Nature also created hunger pains and death by starvation in order to compel you.

On the other hand…

“Every day, more than 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes–one child every five seconds. 852 million people across the world are hungry, up from 842 million a year ago.”

mercycorps.org/articles/qui … bal-hunger

Now, this thread would focus more on how one might react to these facts, given how one might choose to behave “here and now” in order to sustain what they would like their fate to be “there and then”.

How are “I” and “Thou” and human values intertwined existentially here in the life you live.

Assuming, of course, that human autonomy is a factor.

The “real me” is certainly embodied existentially in the “facts of life”: How old you are, where you reside, the state of your health, your financial situation, your interactions with others, the actual experiences you have had etc. etc. etc…

No one can dispute any number of “things” about you. Unless they are not of sound mind. Why? Because these things can often be clearly demonstrated.

But what of the “real me” in regard to the behaviors that you choose or the God that you believe in; or the way you connect the dots between them here and now in your head?

To what extent is “I” here more an existential contraption rather than an actual “thing” that exist deep down inside any particular individual. The “core” you. The “soul” that you are.

How is that demonstrated to be true for others? In particular as it relates to the points I raised in the OP?

Yup.

There is no prospect of any advancement.

That’s all folks.

[attachment=0]LL5S.jpg[/attachment]

Nope.

There is always the prospect of advancement in exchanges such as this because everyday there is in turn always the prospect of one of us having a new experience or a forming a new relationship or coming into contact with a new idea etc., such that it reconfigures our thinking.

It’s just that when someone’s way of thinking here and now already provides him with a respectable measure of psychological comfort and consolation there is more resistance to this reconfiguring “I”.

There’s just too much to lose.

Now, I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves who this is more applicable to. :wink:

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

This seems entirely reasonable to me. With God you have that crucial transcending point of view such that there can never be any doubt as to what is immoral, who is being immoral and whether being immoral will get one punished.

Nothing those who advocate secular renditions of morality have come up with down through the ages has ever come close to this. After all, how on earth could they?

So, for any number of human communities, it’s not a question of if God exists, but in challenging those who refuse to accept their own. With God they have behaviors reduced down to sin. Without God they have endless conflicting goods that, sooner or later, comes down to who has the actual power to enforce their own.

And around and around they go. But, let’s face it, the secularists have never really managed to make those points go away. And that’s before the part where immortality and salvation kick in.

And even if you can’t bring yourself to believe in something that has never actually been experienced by you in any substantive or substantial manner, there’s always a leap of faith. You just have to be convinced that it is a genuine leap of faith.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

Over and again, I stress the importance of this with respect to human morality.

Without an omniscient and omnipotent font to seal Hitler’s fate as [one presumes] a denizen of Hell, it still today comes down to mere mortals embracing conflicting assessments.

Though I’m sure there are those out there able to link fascism and genocide to their own rendition of God.

Just look at the narrative that Donald Trump is stirring up today in America.

It is simply imperative for some that this narrative be condemned as inherently, necessarily evil. And I certainly once believed that passionaitely myself.

Which it still may be. But how is this established sans God?

This is now the part that my own “fractured and fragmented” “I” is unable to sink down into. The Trumps of the world may prevail down the road but at least some have the comfort and consolation of knowing that he is unequvocally on the side of evil. And they are unequivocally on the side of good.

With God you get a demarcation here that is beyond all doubt. Without God you get whatever it is that you are able to think yourself into believing is good or evil.

The existential contraption “I” and “Thou”.

Bingo! The classic religious narrative. With regard to morality and everything else.

Then [of course] the true believers are left with the task of establishing “here and now” what that Good is. At least insofar as embodying it gains you access to the fate that you crave “there and then”: immortality and salvation.

And this thread was created for those who believe in God to flesh that out insofar as it impacts the behaviors they choose from day to day.

“Can We Be Good without God?”
William Lane Craig from the Reasonable Faith website

Having proposed the argument that God is the necessary component enabling mere mortals to embrace objective morality, he next moves on to atheists.

And, as an atheist myself – “here and now” – this seems to be a perfectly reasonable assessment of human morality in a No God world.

Which is not to say that this makes it true objectively.

I am still forced to acknowledge that…

1] objective morality is possible in a No God world but the argument and the evidence demonstrating its existence have not come to my attention
2] the arguments and the evidence have come to my attention but I am not able to grasp them

Here I can only fall back on the assumption that if the argument and the evidence does exist, it would be all that everyone was talking about.

Just as if the argument and the evidence for God’s existence itself were available, that in turn would be all that everyone was talking about.

So, I am in the same boat that you are in: left to base my beliefs on the accumulation of actual experiences that I have had inclining me to go in one direction rather than another. And with no particular font around that is able to settle it all once and for all.

Again, this in turn seems entirely reasonable to me. Morality revolves around biological imperatives that are, in complex and convoluted ways, able to be shaped and molded memetically as human interactions evolve historically, culturally and interpersonally over time in particular contexts understood from particular points of view.

And, thus, our only recourse then is to devise methods – science in particular – that allows us to best differentiate things able to be demonstrated as true for all of us from things that are not.