But, for all practical purposes, what on earth does this mean pertaining to actual human interactions in which rules of behavior must be established in order to sustain the least dysfunctional relationships. And then the extent to which most religious folks insist that this is intimately intertwined in/with our fate on the other side of the grave.
That is true. It’s a good point.
As with “global warming”, these are issues in which the very existence of the human race itself may well come into play.
But there are still those more intent on sustaining what they construe to be in their own best interest here and now — the bees and the human species “down the road” be damned.
In a Godless universe all behaviors can be rationalized.
On the other hand, an omniscient and omnipotent God can or will see that this is not our fate.
Or He won’t.
Either way, if I understand you correctly, those who embrace ecological morality and those who disdain it are all welcome into God’s Kingdom. I’m just not sure exactly what that means. As, for example, it relates to my own behaviors. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of religion throughout human history: do the right thing or [among other things] burn.
Yes, and there are facts that can be accumulated relating to any number of human behaviors that come into conflict. Hundreds and hundreds of them. But who is to say which sets of facts are more in sync with ecological morality?
I don’t know about solipsism, but once you are able to think/talk yourself into believing in No God, it seems entirely reasonable that, sans a transcending font, mere mortals, embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are able to rationalize any behavior.
And that’s not even counting all of the nihilists who construe morality as revolving around “what’s in it for me?” or “show me the money” or “I’ve got mine Jack”.
With No God to “catch them” and with No God to “punish them”, we are basically on our own to prescribe and to proscribe any particular behaviors in any particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
How is that not reasonable, unless you are able to demonstrate the actual existence of a God, the God, your God?