on discussing god and religion

iambiguous · September 16, 2020, 7:40pm

felix dakat:

iambiguous:

I’ve never argued that life is meaningless. On the contrary, existentially, it is bursting at the seams with meaning. But in a No God or No Religion world there does not appear to be a way in which to ascribe – teleologically – any essential meaning to it. Thus no font for differentiating right from wrong behavior on this side of the grave and no font to attach “I” to on the other side of it.
felix dakat:
 So according to you life is meaningful existentially but not essentially. And, I suppose then, right and wrong can be differentiated existentially as Dasein but not essentially according to some absolute.  
iambiguous:

No, more like this: based on my own experiences in life to date, combined with my efforts explore that life philosophically, I have come to conclude “here and now” that, in regard to my moral and political value judgments, “I” is the embodiment a subjective point of view rooted in an existentially evolving fabrication rooted in dasein.

Okay, so life is meaningful to you but you are aware that your moral and political judgments are based on your personal history and philosophical inquiry and that they lack final objective certainty. You think that’s probably true for other people too but that they [especially the objectivists] don’t recognize it.

Yeah, something like that. Given the reality of human autonomy and the gap between what I think about this “here and now” and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself…in order to confirm how close to or far away from the whole truth I am here.

Also, that given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas from others [here for example] I might come to change my mind.

Finally, that my own assessment here as it relates to God and religion is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein than yours is.

Or, rather, here and now, so it still seems to me.

iambiguous · September 23, 2020, 3:27pm

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

For some commentators, the evidence for religion promoting beneficence and making people behave better is at least as strong as that for it fomenting, justifying, and organising conflict and cruelty. Historian JCD Clark has argued that “Egalitarianism was a religious principle for many centuries before it became a secular one: the idea that ‘all men are created equal’ has real leverage only when the emphasis is placed on the word ‘created’ and that term is construed literally.” (‘Secularization and Modernization: The Failure of a ‘Grand Narrative’’, The Historical Journal 55, 2012). However, a particular difficulty of judging the overall impact of one religion, Christianity, is well expressed in the British Humanist Association pamphlet The Case for Secularism (2007):

“Christianity has been the dominant culture, so it is unsurprising that it has provided the vocabulary of both sides in most significant moral and social divisions. Those who argued for the abolition of the slave trade argued their case in terms of Christian values and so did the slave-traders. Many of those who sought to improve the atrocious working conditions in factories and mines invoked Christian values – and so did the factory owners and mine owners who opposed reforms.”

Clearly, if you come to construe certain behaviors as “good” and others as “bad” and one or another religious denomination has over time favored/furthered those behaviors more in sync with your own moral and political values than, sure, in that sense religion can be deemed a good thing.

On the other hand:
time.com/5171819/christianity-s … k-excerpt/
washingtonpost.com/local/th … story.html

And, for others, the idea of egalitarianism itself is considered the abomination. And not just the Nietzscheans and the Ayn Randroids.

Similarly, Christianity can be twisted in defense of either socialism or capitalism.

Then this part:

Here I lump all of these basically authoritarian and/or dictatorial moral and political dogmas under the general heading of objectivism. Those who argue that there is but one overarching assessment of the human condition and it is their own. Then it just comes down to how far the adherents will go to sustain their own agenda. The part where the ends can come to justify practically any means.

And, since the “secular religions” are unable to provide the comfort and consolation that comes with believing in an afterlife, they have to be all that much more adamant about sustaining all the things they promise regarding human interactions on this side of the grave.

iambiguous · September 29, 2020, 3:38pm

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

Resolved in what way? Scientifically? Philosophically? Theologically? Empirically? Spiritually? Net positive or negative using “the greatest good for the greatest number” as a yardstick? Or one or another deontological assessment of good and evil? Or sheer numbers alone?

Instead, we are left with a jumble of religious denominations intent on proselytizing the Word. Scouring the globe to preach the faith. And why not given what is at stake? It’s only the fate of your eternal soul.

And history among the ecclesiastics is no less written by the winners. There are still only a relative handful of major religious denominations that [by far] sustain the largest flocks.

On the other hand, some have argued that religion here is more in sync with materialism. That in order to understand the role that religion plays in our daily lives it must be fitted into one or another historical evolution of political economy. Thus in the West as feudalism gave way to mercantilism and burgeoning world trade configured into full-blown capitalism, religion itself configured from focusing the beam less on the “next world” and more on “this world”. Protestantism and capitalism making a much more seamless fit.

As for “returning established religion to a central place in our cultures and power structures” just look at how this is unfolding in America now as Trumpworld forges an allegiance with the multitudes that encompass the evangelicals. That Trump may be playing them for suckers doesn’t make that demographic segment itself go away in November.

Pinocchio · October 3, 2020, 7:25am

Is there a Heaven?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gjVv7ezo8Y[/youtube]

promethean75 · October 3, 2020, 6:31pm

If my memory doesn’t deceive me, that’s the smartest guy in the whole wide world.

felix_dakat · October 5, 2020, 12:09am

He’s not exactly a poster boy for the validity of IQ testing.

iambiguous · October 12, 2020, 5:02pm

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

Of course this is the part where the focus shifts from religion examined, assessed and judged by theologians, philosophers, scientists, politicians, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to the fact that all of us as individuals come to embody it in all manner of conflicting and contradictory ways. Given all of the very different lives that we live.

We start with the part where the evolution of life on earth has culminated in a species able “think up” God and religion as one possible explanation for existence itself. The source one can go to for all things ontological and teleological. And given all of the profoundly complex and problematic contexts in which any particular individual might take this, sure, there are going to be any number of examples of what are deemed by most to be “good things” coming from the “vast, rich cultural legacy owing to, or inspired by, religious belief”.

On the other hand…

Of course: Assessments that only intellectuals are prone to dispensing. I try to to grasp it in terms of my own life but nothing really clicks. Yes, given the role that Christianity has played historically in the shaping of “Western culture”, there’s no getting around the manner in which it sinks into any number of relationships. But how on earth am I to connect the dots here between Christianity as a “schemata” and the manner in which my own unique experiences led me to abandon it in favor of moral and spiritual nihilism?

As soon as I make the attempt to translate this particularly abstruse “intellectual contraption” into something more substantive – existentially substantive – and make it more pertinent to the life that I live, it all just vanishes into thin air.

Though, sure, others might read it, and make considerable sense of it in terms of their own lives. And, if so, tell us about it.

felix_dakat · October 12, 2020, 7:08pm

iambiguous:

Religion & Evil
Raymond Tallis has some inconclusive thoughts.

The argument remains unresolved – and unresolvable – and for this reason alone is ultimately unrewarding. But there are other reasons for not dismissing religion simply as a collective act of self-harm. We need to preserve the vast, rich cultural legacy owing to, or inspired by, religious belief. We cannot forget or actively reject this without losing something irreplaceably precious in ourselves.

Of course this is the part where the focus shifts from religion examined, assessed and judged by theologians, philosophers, scientists, politicians, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, etc., to the fact that all of us as individuals come to embody it in all manner of conflicting and contradictory ways. Given all of the very different lives that we live.

We start with the part where the evolution of life on earth has culminated in a species able “think up” God and religion as one possible explanation for existence itself. The source one can go to for all things ontological and teleological. And given all of the profoundly complex and problematic contexts in which any particular individual might take this, sure, there are going to be any number of examples of what are deemed by most to be “good things” coming from the “vast, rich cultural legacy owing to, or inspired by, religious belief”.

On the other hand…

The legacy is not simply out there in the public realm as a collective heritage of art, literature, architecture, and music. It is in the very fibre of our individual and social being. The atheist, existentialist, Marxist, Maoist, Jean-Paul Sartre highlighted this in L’Idiot de la Famille, cited and translated by Robert Cumming in Starting Point:

“we are all Christians, even today; the most radical disbelief is still Christian atheism. In other words, it retains, in spite of its destructive power, schemata which are controlling – very slightly for our thinking, more for our imagination, above all for our sensibility. And the origins of these schemata are to be sought in centuries of Christianity of which we are the heirs whether we like it or not.”

Of course: Assessments that only intellectuals are prone to dispensing. I try to to grasp it in terms of my own life but nothing really clicks. Yes, given the role that Christianity has played historically in the shaping of “Western culture”, there’s no getting around the manner in which it sinks into any number of relationships. But how on earth am I to connect the dots here between Christianity as a “schemata” and the manner in which my own unique experiences led me to abandon it in favor of moral and spiritual nihilism?

As soon as I make the attempt to translate this particularly abstruse “intellectual contraption” into something more substantive – existentially substantive – and make it more pertinent to the life that I live, it all just vanishes into thin air.

Though, sure, others might read it, and make considerable sense of it in terms of their own lives. And, if so, tell us about it.

I agree with Tallis. Religion is at the origin of every culture that becomes a civilization. Nihilism is a symptom of declining Western Civilization. Skepticism and cynicism are filters that keep people from transcending their egos.

iambiguous · October 12, 2020, 7:31pm

We’ll need a context of course.

And, again, religion is at the origin of every human culture because every human culture, given the evolution of biological life on Earth, consist of men and women with brains able to think up Gods/God/religion as one possible explanation for existence itself.

Assuming of course we interact in a universe that is not wholly determined. And assuming of course those who embrace the idea of an omniscient God can square that with mere mortals in possession of free will.

And my own understanding of moral nihilism isn’t a “symptom” at all. It’s a philosophical argument that I make given the assumption that we live in a No God world. An argument containing in the points I raise in my signature threads.

As for, “Skepticism and cynicism are filters that keep people from transcending their egos”, I’ll ask you to note an actual context in which you explain this in considerable more detail.

Please?

felix_dakat · October 13, 2020, 3:43pm

iambiguous:

felix dakat:

I agree with Tallis. Religion is at the origin of every culture that becomes a civilization. Nihilism is a symptom of declining Western Civilization. Skepticism and cynicism are filters that keep people from transcending their egos.

We’ll need a context of course.

And, again, religion is at the origin of every human culture because every human culture, given the evolution of biological life on Earth, consist of men and women with brains able to think up Gods/God/religion as one possible explanation for existence itself.

Assuming of course we interact in a universe that is not wholly determined. And assuming of course those who embrace the idea of an omniscient God can square that with mere mortals in possession of free will.

And my own understanding of moral nihilism isn’t a “symptom” at all. It’s a philosophical argument that I make given the assumption that we live in a No God world. An argument containing in the points I raise in my signature threads.

As for, “Skepticism and cynicism are filters that keep people from transcending their egos”, I’ll ask you to note an actual context in which you explain this in considerable more detail.

Please?

Previous attempts at dialogue with you have repeatedly broken down over your habit of dismissing other’s concepts as “contraptions” rather than showing that you made good faith efforts to understand what others mean. I’m not interested in proffering ideas only to have them summarily shot down as contraptions. Without a demonstration that you at least attempt to comprehend a proposition and your reasons for rejecting it, “dialogue” is a waste of time.

I don’t view gods as possible explanations. I view them as archetypal representations of being which is fundamentally unexplainable.

I don’t accept your three assumptions above as conditions for dialogue. The antimony of free will versus determinism is an open question. “Omniscience” is incomprehensible. “No God world” explains nothing.

A context for my statement about skepticism and cynicism is your thread and your use of the contraption dismissal. Whether or not I will supply more details depends on you convincing me that you see what you have been doing and demonstrating that you can change your habit.

iambiguous · October 13, 2020, 7:01pm

Over and over again:

Note a set of circumstances in which we exchange our current thinking about God and religion as this relates to our current thinking about morality here and now and immorality there and then

Then in this exchange you can note these accusations you level against me.

That’s the dialogue that I wish to pursue. God and religion as it relates to the behaviors we choose in regard to conflicting goods as that pertains to our thinking about “I” on the other side of the grave. That is the whole point of this thread.

Okay, so how do you view god and religion in regard to the behaviors you choose when confronted with a context in which others challenge those behaviors?

Instead, it’s ever and always up in the clouds with you:

Then explain the assumptions that you have accumulated in regard to free will, omniscience and the distinction you make between a God and a No God world.

Given a context that most of us are likely to be familiar with. Instead, we get this “context”:

Note to others:

What point is he making here that I am apparently unable or unwilling to grasp?

felix_dakat · October 14, 2020, 3:08pm

I was just asking you to commit to reasoned arguments against propositions you disagree with rather than merely dismissing them as contraptions. That shouldn’t be hard to understand.

iambiguous · October 14, 2020, 4:15pm

And how hard is it to understand that my preference is to take intellectual contraptions like this and explore them more substantively in regard to human interactions that come into conflict as a result of different assessments of God and religion. And, then, insofar as these assessments lead one to choose a moral narrative here and now in preparation for one’s fate there and then.

Arguments I make in that discussion you can defend as either reasonable or attack as unreasonable.

Or, from my frame of mind, at least be more honest with yourself and ask why you seem so reluctant to go there.

Note to others:

Would anyone else be willing to exchange points of view regarding the main intention of this thread: to connect the dots between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave as that is intertwined existentially with their belief about the fate of their soul/self on the other side of the grave.

That way Felix can level his accusations against me as they pertain to a set of circumstances we are all likely to be familiar with.

felix_dakat · October 14, 2020, 5:29pm

Iambiguous, since you refuse to commit to a fair and reasonable method of dialogue, it isn’t worth my while to engage in further discussion with you.

iambiguous · October 14, 2020, 5:33pm

Note to others:

Well, never mind. =D>

felix_dakat · October 20, 2020, 5:30pm

Yours is a predictable response of a man who is critical of others but uncritical of himself. Of course you being a moral nihilist, the value of self-criticism has no value. But by the same lack of a standard, your criticisms of other’s thinking have no value either. By your standard, which has no value, wasting time is all that is possible. As soon as you admit the possibility of value, you refute the basis of moral nihilism. But there’s a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking “a contraption!” Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others “what on Earth is he talking about?” The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.

felix_dakat · October 20, 2020, 5:45pm

What shall we conclude about a man who asks for an objective definition of religion and then dismisses anyone who attempts to supply such religion as an objectivist. That’s known as a double bind trap. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. You’ve been playing that game on this forum for years. That’s why I don’t play with you.

zinnat · October 20, 2020, 6:10pm

Wrong thread.

zinnat · October 20, 2020, 6:19pm

Wrong thread.

iambiguous · October 20, 2020, 6:21pm

Again, choose a set of circumstances that revolve around the reason I created this thread – morality here and now, immortality there and then – and, as the exchange unfolds, you can note to others how uncritical I am in regard to myself.

That’s absurd. My point is that self-criticism in regard to the relationship between goals and behaviors out in the either/or world can be measured with a fair degree of precision. Jane is burdened with an unwanted pregnancy. Her goal is to abort it. She either does so successfully or she doesn’t.

Or: Jane successfully aborts her fetus. John, a devout Catholic, criticizes her decision as a sin against God. But: How might “self-criticism” be different here? Does this God exist? Is abortion a sin to this God? Will He punish Jane for having the abortion? How are arguments/criticisms here judged with a fair degree of precision?

It’s not a “lack of standards” in this context, but the extent to which any one particular standard can be defended such that criticism of it is always effectively rebutted.

And I challenge you to note how your own standards in regard in abortion and religion and God are not rooted in the manner in which I deem my own are on this thread: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=194382

I don’t refute the “possibility of value”. I only suggest that the standards of “I” here are rooted more in dasein than in any particular rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Your own for example. Again, what exactly is it in regard to abortion? How did you come to acquire it? How was this acquisition more or less the embodiment of dasein?

Instead, you invariably reconfigure into stooge mode:

Moe:

But there's a way out. Stop your ears! Without an argument or evidence, call such thinking "a contraption!" Or make no attempt to comprehend and ask others "what on Earth is he talking about?" The consolation of denial is ever only a dismissal away for you.

What on Earth are you talking about here?

Join me in a discussion of human interactions revolving around conflicting value judgments revolving around either a God or a No God world, and we can explore your own rendition of my rendition of a “contraption” more substantively.