on discussing god and religion

The “I” you speak of is one of the gods, the hero of modernity no less, who “thinks therefore they are”. The principle myth of modernity. “Oblivion” you brought to the party.

“I” was intertwined historically with the gods in ways that were either similar to or different from the way it is intertwined with a God, the God today. Death is always around and any community of human beings needs to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions by enforcing one or another set of behaviors.

But: there are then the countless social, political and economic permutations awaiting any particular individual out in any particular world construed from any particular point of view.

What always remains the same however is the extent to which what one thinks is true about “the human condition” is able to be demonstrated as either true objectively for all or only deemed true by some subjectively.

And here, more than a myth, we’ll need a context.

I thought we already had a context: the modern myth of the conscious rational ego as a hero slaying the irrational monster of received religion.

By context I mean a specific set of circumstances. A “situation” familiar to all of us. One in which we can discuss “the modern myth of the conscious rational ego as a hero slaying the irrational monster of received religion”.

After all, the “conscious rational ego” seems unable to establish once and for all the distinction between the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do in a specific set of circumstances.

Not is it yet able to determine what the fate of “I” is after we die.

Which is why for hundreds of millions, a leap of faith is still better than the alternative.

We’re already discussing God and religion on a thread entitled “On discussing God and religion”. How many more iterations of meta do we need? We’re enacting the conscious rational ego slaying the irrational monster of received religion on this very virtual page.

Uncertainty seems unavoidable for anyone who reflects on ethics seriously. But I can’t be certain about that. :wink: I’m not big on afterlife fantasies. But, hey…go for it! Thinking that we can comprehend the “leap of faith” of “hundreds of millions” involves a leap of imagination.

As I iterate from time to time, this thread was created in order to explore the existential relationship between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave, what we imagine our fate to be on the other side of the grave, and how our thoughts regarding God and religion pertain to that.

Contexts embedded in that.

“Meta” – as in “more comprehensive…transcending” – is there [in my view] only when we go out to the very end of the reality limb: solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the matrix; or in regard to questions revolving around human autonomy; or the human condition going all the way back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

Or, of course, “I” if there really is an existing God. A god, the God. The overarching reality behind any particular individual’s “self” if God does exist.

Sure, if, in regard to God and religion, that frame of mind works for you then, by all means, stop there [here] and move on to the parts that revolve around actually living your life from day to day.

Me, I’m interested in whatever others think about these relationships insofar as it does impact on the behaviors that they choose after they leave this discussion and go about the business of living their lives. With or without a belief in God.

But there’s a certain literal-mindedness in that isn’t there? As if some of these words on the virtual page are privileged to be more than mere words on the virtual page. We’re back to the myth of the heroic ego-- the one personification of the mind who is charged by modernity to take itself as literally real. And that culturally reinforced mainstream Western ego is thereby locked in. Only I am real. Other putative entities are real to the degree that they think like I do. Otherwise they are in the " hundreds of millions" outgroup.

The Meaning of Life
Daniel Hill argues that without God, life would be meaningless.

As in, for example, defining it. A definition that comes closest to a technically correct understanding of it if you don’t actually take into consideration the things that you do in the course of, say, living it.

Assuming first that we can pin down the precise definition of definition itself. As that relates to an epistemologically sound understanding of what this means to those who take philosophy seriously.

And, some suggest, that can only revolve around the manner in which the human mind begets human perceptions beget human conceptions about life in regard to the shadows on the cave wall. Not life en soi. Not life going all the way back formally to one or another transcending font. God say.

And this is crucial pertaining to any discussion of determinism. Meaning may well be whatever nature evolved itself into construing it to be. It simply is nature itself.

Then this part:

But that only brings some of us back to the gap between the mind of the questioner and the minds of any particular individual providing an answer and a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. How are we all not stuck there?

What assessments like this bring me back to is encompassing the word meaning in a context in which explanations are able to be communicated back and forth such that reasonable conclusions can be derived. It means this or it means that. We just have to understand what the intent of the questioner is in regard to understanding the particular context.

On the other hand, in the is/ought world, the conflicting meaning that we give to words that encompass our value judgments, may or may not be resolved with a dictionary.

Not at all sure what this point has to do with my point.

In my view, we would use words on this thread in an attempt to connect the dots between the words we choose and the manner in which we can persuade others that they might be applicable to an understanding of their own lives. As those lives revolve around morality here and now, death and what comes after it.

Do you suppose the human beings are fully aware and autonomous? Do you think you’re fully transparent to yourself? When you look around at others, don’t you see that their apparently free decisions turn out to be effects of forces that are unknown to them? Do you suppose that you’re immune to these lines of force?

Well, my argument here is that in the either/or world, we may in fact be incorrect in our thinking about why things are the way they are. But: there are others able to set us straight as to how all rational men and women are obligated to think one thing rather than another. In other words, in regard to mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the rules of logic pertaining to human language out in that world.

So, no, we don’t have to be fully aware here as long as others are. As for autonomy, are there any among us able to demonstrate that in fact they are fully aware of all the variables that would go into demonstrating that the human species existing in our own infinitesimally tiny speck of the universe, are free to think and feel and say and do what they choose to of their own volition?

Instead, the crucial distinction I make is between “I” in the either/or world and “I” in the is/ought world. Now, if we lived in a wholly determined universe as I construe it “here and now”, “I” in the is/ought world embodies just the psychological illusion of freedom. The is/ought world would be no less an inherent/necessary component of the either/or world.

The human brain/mind here would [it seems] just be the most sophisticated matter of all. But no less subject to the immutable laws of nature. Unless of course, as some do, you count God. The main focus on this thread.

But even given human autonomy, “I” in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption interacting with others as “I” have come to encompass this in my signature threads.

Who are these people who can “set us straight”? And who are these rational men and women who can be set straight? What do the straight setters tell you about yourself? Do they know about the unique individual that you might happen to be? Or are you making yourself over in the mold that they supply to you?

So, there are others that are fully self-aware? Who? Where? Are you sure that they are not organisms that evolved to function predominantly unconsciously with a limited consciousness operating more or less epiphenomenally? What would that mean to your notion of “morality”?

“Immutable laws of nature”. That seems to be a metaphor based on human society with its laws. What about a different metaphor? That of habits? Maybe nature operates on the basis of habits not laws. If not, the notion of human autonomy seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we are the product of universe governed by natural law. In such a universe, moral choice is more likely an egocentric illusion.

You know me: It depends on the context. There are men and women who acquire a more sophisticated understanding of many aspects of the “human condition”. From biologists and physicists among the hard sciences, to psychologists and sociologists among the soft sciences. So depending on what you think you know is true they are more or less able to set you straight if your own understanding does not comport with facts that can be demonstrated.

My point on this thread however revolves around “I” in the is/ought world. “I” able to connect the dots in his/her head to one or another God, and “I” not able to. Here there does not appear [to me] to be the sort of expertise among the theologians, we come to expect from the scientists. They have faith in God. And the closest they come to demonstrating His existence revolves more around intellectual contraptions of this sort: edge.org/conversation/rebec … nce-of-god

Here, a mind-boggling 36 arguments!

Over and again: we need a particular context in which to compare and contrast that which precipitates conflicting assessments of, say, moral duty, and then examines the extent to which advocates are able to demonstrate their own point of view. Then we could address to them the point you raise here. Sans that, it’s just another intellectual contraption to me.

Tell that to the hard guys who have been probing these laws now for thousands of years. And, indeed, what they have begotten is the modern industrial world bursting at the seams with simply extraordinary technological achievements.

In contrast, human society and its laws are still all over the map in regard to any number of behaviors. The laws of nature followed by doctors in performing abortions encompass a precision that social laws permitting or prohibiting abortion don’t even come close to. Genes meet memes because the human species is the only one around [on this planet] where that actually has to be taken into consideration. But: what happens when that is taken all the way back to God. Among other things, moral closure, right?

Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding your point.

Sure, maybe. But how exactly would one go about demonstrating that distinction in regard to a particular context? One embedded in a God world, one embedded in a No God world.

No, I don’t know you. And you don’t know me. And mostly, we don’t know ourselves. But, you seem to think you do. The beginning of wisdom might be for you to realize that you don’t. Maybe one of your expert rationalists can help you. But, if you don’t want to see, you will pick ones that steer you away from looking. Then you can go on talking about “the human condition” as if you’re standing outside of it looking with the gaze of Medusa that turns living souls into stone. But hey, I might have this all wrong. You can “set me straight”.

Impressed you got this impression after not much interaction. I think this is a fundamental quality of his posts. As if he is outside looking in. His questions are as if he is outside and wondering where to step into reality to participate or not. As if he is not already acting in the world based on his beliefs. How sound are his choices? How do his choices compare with options others choose? Might if be worthwhile to try something different for a bit? Given that he is already inside, in motion, making choices with positive and negative aspects.

There is no transcendent position. So, then one is immanent. If one is immanent, then one must necessarily test certain things. Some of these may seem right for person A but not person B. We find ourselves in the middle of our lives, not at the beginning. We already have habits. Should we move from these? What seems right for me, given I am like X, given I live in Y, given, my personality is like Z? What are my goals?

Of course the answers may be tentative. That is what it is to be alive. Dealing with less information than might be ideal. There is something ad hoc about choices.

But one has no option not to choose a lifestyle.

And whatever you do, you do to 100%, even if it is to regularly be half-hearted or regularly skeptical.

That’s how you are going about things.

How is THAT working?

It is not all clear and easy, and yes some people think they have the answer for everyone.

There is no need to assume they are correct even in that.

Over and over and over again, I make that crucial distinction between what we think we know about ourselves and what we or others are able to demonstrate is in fact true.

What else is there?

Sans sim worlds or dream worlds or one or another rendition of the matrix etc., I know that I am sitting here typing these words. There are facts about me. My situation. My “set of circumstances”. Things that I am able to demonstrate are in fact true about me. Things that I and others know are true about me.

But this thread concerns itself with what I think I know is true about God and religion. And, subsequently, how what I think I know is true precipitates particular behaviors relating to morality on this side of the grave and to the fate of “I” on the other side of it.

So, what am I able to demonstrate here as in fact true? How do I determine if what I think I know about God and religion here and now is in sync with what is actually true about them going back ontologically – teleologically? – to an understanding of existence itself?

And how are you not in the same boat?

Think of all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables [from the day you were born] that go into the making of who you think you are today. Many beyond your understanding of or control over. How close can anyone come to nailing down a definitive understanding of themselves?

I already do recognize that. But what disturbs many about my narrative here [objectivists in particular] is how I am especially suspicious of “I” in the is/ought world. Here I focus on how and why being “fractured and fragmented” is a reasonable assessment given the assumption that we live in a No God world. Here I note my argument in my signature threads. Others are able to react to it by noting how it is not applicable to them.

Instead, most of them seem intent on keeping the discussion on this level:

In another words, another general description intellectual contraption.

To which I respond, “what on earth do you mean?”

So, what do you mean? Choose a context, a set of circumstances and behaviors we are all likely to be familiar with and embed your own assessment of “I” in it. For example, given the nature of this thread, how do you construe your own sense of identity in relationship to God and religion in relationship to the moral values you embrace in relationship to what you imagine your fate to be when you die?

Are you a moral nihilist as I am? If not, why not?

What I am here and now is inside a particular set of circumstances. Just as he is. And I react to those circumstances given all of the sets of circumstances in my life that predisposed me existentially to think and to feel one way rather than another. Just as he did.

On this thread that revolves around God and religion.

In one set of circumstances some years ago I believed in a God, the God, my God. And, in believing it, I behaved in what I construed to be the appropriate manner.

But other sets of circumstances have since come to predispose me to a No God world. And that has prompted me to come to the conclusions that I have about human interactions in my signature threads.

So, let him respond here by noting how, when one is not on the outside looking in at life, he might react to the points I raise in this thread.

For me to be a moral realist or a moral nihilist would require more knowledge about ultimate reality then I think is possible. I can talk in a limited way about my God the god of my experience although I cannot prove that such is ultimately grounded. Likewise my moral intuitions. I am learning to be open to the images my soul produces. They enrich my life and creativity. So for me these days it’s not so much a matter of believing as it is of entertaining. And I aspire to getting better at it with practice. I call what I’m doing phenomenology. One exercise involves meditating and observing the images that come. Another involves working on dream and hypnogogic images via active imagination. Based on my experience, I think that imagery underlies all thought. I’m finding that there’s more to “Know thyself” then I had previously imagined. The soul or psyche which is unconscious is the source of the imagery which is the basis of both art and religion. The predominant trends in both secular culture and fundamentalist religion cut people off from the depths of their own soul. So, at the moment, I’m espousing a mindset of openness to one’s own psyche as a source of possible transcendence.

Exactly. Especially [for me] in regard to those who insist that they have “thought up” an argument [philosophical, theological, scientific or otherwise] that allows them to view conflicting human behaviors from the perspective of the moral objectivist. That’s the crucial distinction I make. It’s just that I am then no less obligated to acknowledge that this distinction is as well no less far removed from all that would need to be known by me to grasp “ultimate reality”.

We’re all the embodiment of this predicament in my view. There is only admitting it to yourself or not.

What however do you mean by this existentially, for all practical purposes? Cite a few examples where in particular sets of circumstances your soul produced images. If I have a soul, it’s still beyond my grasp given any particular context.

Again, this sort of assessment is just another psychologism to me. An intellectual contraption embedded in a world of words that is not encompassed in turn in a description of a situation you have been in such that you can illustrate more substantively what you mean by it.

In particular, given the aim of this thread, as that relates to actual behaviors that you choose given a particular moral narrative out in a particular world/context…as that relates to what you imagine the fate of “I” to be when you are dead and gone.

Yes, you can go back here to noting the gap between “I” and “ultimate reality”. But, when I do this, I’m back to the components of own moral philosophy: nihilism.

Then what interest me is the extent to which others [in a No God world] are not “fractured and fragmented” when confronting conflicting goods. Here and now, I can’t think of a way not to be given the manner in which I have come to understand “I” in the is/ought world. As dasein. As an existential contraption ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

I see no point in further explicating my point of view for you at this time. I described how it seems to me at the moment and you’ve described how it seems to you. Now, if you’re claiming ultimacy for your point of view, that’s another matter.