on discussing god and religion

Tim Madigan from “The Basis of Morality” in Philosophy Now magazine.

[b]

[/b]

Isn’t that basically what morality comes down to in a No God world? We can frame human interactions in whatever secular/humanist narrative that happens to appeal to us. But “for all practical puropses” it seems to come down to creating social, political and economic interactions that are construed to be the least dysfunctional.

The only other really important factor then being political power. You can think about the “right thing to do” however you wish. But, when push comes to shove, you can either enforce your own narrative existentially or you cannot.

And this seems to be true whether the community is predicated more on might makes right, right makes might or on moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Rewards and punishments. It all evolves into or devolves out of that. Depending on your point of view regarding pleasure and pain.

[b]

[/b]

In fact, any number of religious folks scoff at the idea of discussing morality in the absense of God. Even philosophers like Plato, Descartes and Kant recognized that without a “transcending font” there is “for all practical purposes” no basis upon which to resolve conflicts revolving around “right” and “wrong” behavior. Not on this side of the grave.

And that has certainly been my own argument here in defending “moral nihilism” as a reasonable frame of mind.

No God, no access to a morality in which the behaviors of mere mortals can be judged from both an omniscient and omnipotent point of view.

Then what?

How about this: Human history to date.

From “The Basis of Morality”
Tim Madigan in Philosophy Now magazine

[b]

[/b]

Of course without genes there would be no memes. So, is morality more intimately intertwined in the evolution of life itself? Are memes only manifestions of human biology out in a particular world historically, culturally and experienctially — given a particular context in which particular individuals interact?

My guess: We’ll probably never really know. Not in the sense that we can finally pin down with precision the exact manner in which genes and memes interact in the mind of any one particular individual predisposing him or her toward or away from a God, the God, my God.

Instead, I tend to steer the discussion here more in the general direction of the subjunctive: emotionally and psychologically a belief in God provides the clearest, cleanest, most definitive foundation for “I”.

With God:

1] Sin on this side of the grave when right and wrong behaviors are at stake
2] immortality and salvation on the other side of it if we choose the right behaviors
3] a place to dump all of our pain and suffering
4] a teleology able to provide the ultimate reason/meaning for…everything

Genes or memes, there is simply no getting around that for atheists . Old or new.

From “The Basis of Morality” by Tim Madigan in Philosophy Now magazine.

[b]

[/b]

The idea being that arguing back and forth about whether religion is a good thing or a bad thing, misses the point.

This one: That for all practical purposes it was necessary to invent it. Why? Because as we evolved from those naked apes living in caves to the communities that we are familiar with going back centuries now, without it there was really no capacity to anchor human interactions to anything that might be embraced teleologically.

Indeed, why on earth would one choose to be good if not in order to be in sync with the rules of behaviors that are said [in any particular community] to be in sync with the “meaning of life” itself?

And how else to secure a belief that death is not the end of life at all?

There’s only one possible font for that. And while philosophers eventually came along to explore all of this more “academically”, science was progressing to the point that “the meaning of things” we experienced from day to day became more and more in sync with the discovery of “natural laws” than with supernatural explanations.

But God and religion are still the only way to connect the dots between “here and now” and “there and then”.

Or, rather, they are if teleology is important to you.

From “The Basis of Morality” by Tim Madigan in Philosophy Now magazine.

[b]

[/b]

In fact this can still be what is at sake when you bring God and religion down out of the theological clouds and implicate them in the actual existential interactions of flesh and blood human beings. The part where, among other things, The Bible meets The Communist Manifesto or The Wealth of Nations.

In other words, the part where actual individuals move back and forth between rendering unto God and rendering unto Caesar. That governing body otherwise known as the state.

And while in much of the world today you are not likely to meet Socrates’s fate, there are still any number of places where that is nowhere near out of the question.

And even in places like America where God and religion are particularly well-entrenched, you roll the dice when choosing behaviors deemed to be “unChristian.”

The point being that one way or another, a narrative will be found that rationalizes either rewarding or punishing certain behaviors. It just comes down to how intertwined the interests of sacred and the secular become in any partivular historical or cultural context.

The “politics” of religion.

Which reflects in part just how problematic it can be for the moral nihilists. It’s one thing to argue back and forth about the “transcending source” of morality, another thing altogether to suggest that there may well not be one.

Folks like Nietzsche got around this by eschewing God but then reconfiguring right and wrong into one or another rendition of the “will to power”. In other words, though God is dead, morality can still be manifested in those men who deserve to call the shots. Might makes right meets right makes might.

The crucial thing being that there is still a font that mere mortals can invest “I” in. In becoming one of the Übermensch.

Think Satyr and his clique/claque over at KT.

This is something I often find myself coming back to with respect to either God in the universe or the universe in God. The universe manifested in the world of the very, very large [the surreal multiverse?] and the very, very small [the surreal quantum world?].

Namely this: Does the world of the very, very large and the very small exist as they do because this in the way God created them, or did God create them as He did because this is the only way that they could have been created?

Which [of course] takes the mind [mine] back to the profound mystery that surely must be embedded in the existence of existence itself.

In fact, nowadays that more or less reflects what is still left of my own religious sense. Why something exists rather than nothing, and why it exists as it does and not in some other way, is something I am just not able to wrap my mind around at all. So, sure, from time to time I think, why not God?

But then it all tumbles over into the abyss. Nothing of any real substantial value mamages to “stick”.

What is this however but a suggestion that religion is as much a reflection of what we want to be true as it is what we are able to demonstrate to others [or even to ourselves] is true. And, for some of us, considerably more. It becomes a reflection of what we yearn for in order to make life more bearable on this side of the grave and even possible at all on the other side of it.

The deeper we go psychologically, the more it seems that coherence is just a frame of mind that allows us to square or to reconcile what we see around us [in a frightening world] with a yearning for an explanation that can somehow be squared or reconciled with the “will of God”.

And the human brain is wired such that one only has to believe this in order for it to be true “for all practical purposes”. We behave in accordance with what we think is true. It doesn’t necessarily actually have to be true.

We get this sort of thing from religious folks all the time.

As though others are expected to believe that something like this is true simply because someone believes that it is.

Of course some will argue they don’t believe that this is true so much as that they have faith in it being true.

And that is certainly something that is not an irrational thing to believe. God would seem to be one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself.

And the more you think about how and why this something exists rather than something else or nothing at all, you are right out there at the very end of the metaphysical limb. The deeper you go the “spookier” existence itself can seem.

So, sure, why suppose that God and religion can be ruled out.

Still, the last thing that many who think like the poster above will be willing to concede, is that they believe what they do either because others told them to, or because it just feels a whole lot more conforting to believe it than to not believe it.

Yeah, I’ve seen that nightmare. I’ve also seen what’s there when you ‘overcome’ it and get past the ‘spookiness’ of it.

Okay, describe for us how you have in fact come to embody this “overcoming” in the course of living your life from day to day.

And then connect that to the OP: to the manner in which someone who has “overcome the spookiness” is able entwine this new frame of mind into his behaviors on this side of the grave so as to achieve that which he is after regarding his soul on the other side of the grave.

Obviously, a lot of this revolves around intentions. For those whose faith in God is genuine, religion is their connection to immortality, salvation and divine justice. On the other hand, re folks like Marx, religion is construed to be but the “opiate of the masses”. And then there are those who note how religion can be used as a political tool to control the masses.

On the other hand, fake news as we bandy it about these days may or may not have a religious element. And those who propagate it may or may not be aware of just how fake it actually is. Again, it can be used as a tool to control those unable or unwilling to dig down deep enough to discover the extent to which the news is fake.

Cue, among others, Niccolò Machiavelli.

Or, perhaps, Don Trump?

But in either case it still revolves around the extent to which what you believe is true is something you can demonstrate that other rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn.

And then the part where rationality itself can only go in so far. And can only explain so much.

First of all, both historically and culturally, “guilt and shame” are clearly embedded deep down in the human brain. We all come into this world genetically equipped to feel these things.

So they were actually “invented” by nature itself. Then it comes down to the extent to which “I” have any substantial capacity to choose or not to choose to feel them autonomously in any particular context.

But, historically, religion is hardly the only memetic contraption to “weaponize” them. Political ideologues can do [and have done] the same. Just as those who [philosophically] embrace one or another deonotolgical assesment of human interactions speak of things like “categorical imperatives” and “moral obligation” in judging the behaviors of others.

Or the folks who insist that only those who embrace their own assement of human nature can be admitted as “one of us”.

Like most things embedded in human raltionships, there is that enormously complex and convoluted line to be drawn between genes and memes.

Christians here are just one of hundreds and hundreds of objectivist fonts intent on shaming those who refuse to draw the line where they do.

[i]Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic[/i]

Here and now there does not appear to be an accumulation of evidence that allows folks like me to rationally believe in the existence of one or of many Gods.

But that’s not the same as insisting that there is no accumulation of evidence out there.

Even a belief in No God ultimately comes down to a leap of faith.

And that’s where we are collectively. Existence clearly seems to be all around us. Why? God is the explanation of choice. But “reason” here seems to be embedded as much in human psychology as in cold hard logic. We want God to exist because He becomes the moral font on this side of the grave and the source for immortality and salvation on the other side.

But: making this argument hardly settles it.

It would seem necessary that existence itself was either created or not. But there does not appear to be a way in which to establish that it was created by No God.

So, until there is a “philosophical” or “scientific” explanation for existence, God will always be around.

It’s not that modernism believes in the absolute ONE, but that there are dozens and dozens of hopelessly conflicting and contradictory narratives out there all espousing one or another authoritarian rendition of it.

The “one of us” ONE in other words.

And that’s before we get to all of the various post-modern attempts to deconstruct ONE into an essentially absurd and meaningless world.

And the irony then being that their own intellectual contraption ONEs are but more psychological/secular manifestations of God.

Some believe that the ONE truth revolves around their own understanding of Nature. Figure out how it is “natural” to behave and you won’t need God.

But, of course, they have already figured this out for you.

This sort of thing is always tricky. And that’s because God and religion can be understood in two very different ways.

On the one hand, discussions and debates about God and religion can unfold in places like this. Arguments are made involving conflicting sets of assumptions embedded in conflicting sets of premises resulting in conflicting conclusions. But, by and large, the exchanges are aggregations of intellectual contraptions swatted back and word in a world of words.

But out in the world that we live in combustible beliefs about God and religion can easily become embedded in any number of “for all practical purposes” confrontations. Then we have things like crusades and inquisitions and infidels and fatwas and evangelical bluster about those “left behind”.

And while the faithful concentrate on all the good that can come from religious faith, many in the atheist community point to the at times very real human pain and suffering that can be attributed to conflicts over God and religion.

And then the part where those wealthy folks in power use religion as the “opiate for the people”. All in a more or less calculated effort to sustain economic and political relationships that make God and religion all that more crucial for those focused more on “salvation” in the next life.

This sort of thing speaks volumes regarding a fundamental role that religion plays in the lives of many.

It takes behaviors in which the options might be vast and varied and reduces them down to either this or that. It’s not what you choose to wear but that what you choose to wear is more or less obligatory. That way you don’t really have to choose at all.

And you don’t have to grapple with feminism because the particular religious denomination that you have been brought up in tells you how to be a righteous man and how to be a rigteous woman.

Some things are inherently the same, other things inherently different. But there is always someone there to make those distinctions. To prescribe and to proscribe certain behaviors. To make them a necessary part of your life.

And, as we all know, what you choose to wear can be the least of it.

Still, in the modern world all of this gets more and more complicated. And that is because we have access to so many alternatives. Others have reasons for doing things differently. Why our ways and not theirs?

Also, in the world today, religion is often more an ecumenical hodge-podge of whatever behaviors can be rationalized. So those who choose to wear burkhas [or allowed others to choose that for them] might be seen as a reaction to that. It might even be argued that they take their religion more seriously.

And, with immortality, salvation and devine justice at stake on the other side, why wouldn’t they?

And then the part where historically religion and patriarchy become intertwined in a political narrative in turn.

I thought comparing the Easter bonnet to the burka would be amusing as well as instructive. But when religion and God are taken literally, it has a way of taking all the fun out of it. Oh well. :confusion-shrug:

Well, I did learn about the differences between men and women’s head coverings, the reason for them, in Christianity. So that was instructive. I didn’t realize it was meant to be amusing, I might have just let it go. Everyone is taking something literally, even if it’s the difference between literal and metaphorical and how one determines the difference. Which everyone seems to have a take on.

As a side note, if you remove all literalness from metaphors, they mean nothing.

And why is that? Well, think about it. We can go on and on and on exploring religion analytically as philosophers. But the bottom line is that Gods exists because in a far more visceral and fundamentally important way they need to exist.

On this side of the grave to become Kant’s transcending font able to back up your moral obligations from the cradle to the grave. And on the other side to ensure both immortality, salvation and divine justice.

What else is there that “for all practical purposes” even comes close?

The secular objectivists might secure for you an essential moral and a political agenda. A psychological anchor. But this obligates you “as a rational human being” to share them. To become “one of us”.

But they have nothing with which to confront oblivion.

So, if one takes religion seriously why wouldn’t one take “the word of God” encompassed in one or another scripture seriously?

As for literally, the problem with this is that, as many have shown time and again, there are any number of passages in any number of scriptures that are either 1] open to a broad interpretation or 2] are completely contradictory:

atheists.org/activism/resou … adictions/
ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=contra

It’s the modern “ecumenical” approach to God that turns a belief in Him into a kind of spiritual cafeteria. You pick and choose the behaviors that are the least burdensome. That are the least restrictive in your interactions with others.

Indeed, the behaviors that permit you to have the most “fun” before you die. But that still ensure you all the good stuff after you [as a mere mortal] are dead and gone.

What are we if not primates with hyperactive imaginations and the linguistic ability to communicate some sense of our inner life through language and art? We have an intuition of not being which terrifies us but we can only imagine it in terms of symbols as for example darkness. We spontaneously imagine our deepest desires in dreams and visions and act them out in rituals.

At some point in the development of human society males became dominant. Therefore, most of the recorded expressions of deep fantasy which became the holy texts of the dominant religions are from the male point of view. The female point of view was largely suppressed. Hence the women shaming, head coverings and veils etc. which are so much a part of traditional religions.

The fun part for me is digging into this stuff. It’s as serious as a heart attack. But, for the most part, it can’t be expressed literally without metaphor as far I am aware. Whatever… it’s human all too human, and so am I.

Back again to the profound mystery embedded in matter evolving into life evolving into consciousness evolving into self-consciousness evolving into “a God, the God, my God” creating it all.

How? Why?

And then those who are able to convince themselves that “an answer, the answer, my answer” either explains it all or [so far] comes closest.

And that would seem to be less the providence of God and more the providence of a biology that throughout much of human history favored the bigger and stronger male in a world where only women became pregnant.

The world that folks like Satyr over at KT insist is still the genetic basis for the “natural behaviors” that he and his ilk espouse re gender interaction.

To wit:

AutSider [remember him here?]:

Or think of the reactions we come upon whenever Nancy Pelosi dares to stand up to Don Trump.

Genes and considerably more modern memes hopelessly entangled in all manner of conflicting political narratives.

Further entangled in all manner of conflicting God/No God narratives.

True all too true. But I keep coming around and pointing out that all the digging in the world won’t close the gap between what we think we know is true “in our head” “here and now” and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to know.

And then the part about oblivion.