on discussing god and religion

This is one reason that I have lost interest in talking to you.

You dismiss my posts. You insult me. And you act as if I’m wronging you in some way.

Same in the other thread about objectivity. You suggest that I’m doing something wrong but you base it on no reasoning.

Okay, fair enough. You know, if it is fair enough.

Let’s just agree to disagree and move on to others. You know, if that’s possible. :wink:

Wer will, der kann.

I think that is stretching the idea of faith. This would mean that my taking golf lessons from a particular golf pro would entail my having faith. Which, if we keep the definition of faith very, very open, would be true, but I think it’s a trivial truth. To me faith has to do with believing despite the absence of any reason and even in the face of what seems like counterevidence - like your 12 year old daughter dies of leukemia and you still think God exists, is Good and there was a good reasons for this death. I know Hinduism fairly well, or one little portion of it. Here is why local and Westerner visitors might find themselves meditating at an asharm outside Mumbai. Good friends of theirs suggested it and they had interesting experiences and a sense of peace. It is part of a family or village tradition that they have not questioned. They met the guru and were stunned by the apparant peace and equanimity of this person. They asked how they achieved this and the gurus said ‘meditation is central’ So they gave it a try, had experiences that they liked and appreciated or that they were supposed to or were ‘supposed to’, so they keep going. Or they read about it and became curious and thought,what the heck,then experiences kept them coming back. Their intuition says it sounds like a good idea. So they give it a try. Their family or friends pressure them to go to the arsham and despite their skepticism during darshan they have a religious experience of oneness. They like this. They want more. They are told to meditate. They participated in the religion as kids, left it for a while as a young adult, went back because they missed it or hoped they would find something they feel they are missing.

These are all reasons encountered. And in most cases what people talked about were states of consciousness, sense of well being, sense of purpose, loss of anxiety, epiphenies, love of the guru and not faith. IOW they justified their continued participation on experiences and practical consequences.

Now I would like to make clear, I decided I didn’t like that tradition, though I experienced thing not considered possible in current mainstream Western science and sometimes liked what I was experiencing. But in the end I felt it was not what I want or like. I am not selling Hinduism or gurus. If asked by a friend I would say it is not for me and go into detail why.

My point is simply that the tradition talks rarely about faith. Of course any outsider can question their interpretations and their experiences do not prove the metaphysical positions of the gurus. But those are other issues.

Similar things have been presented to me by people in shamanic traditions - traditions I feel much more kinship with.

Even Christians will talk like this, especially if they have returned to the religion in some kind of crisis. IOW they are not simply going through the motions. And, again, I am no Christian. I think there are Christian communities much more focused on experience and results. They would say it is working for them in some way or other and would refer to psychological, mental state, relational, meaning changes in their lives that they attritube to the religion and that they work on to improve via the practices.

Of course Chritianity vs. Atheist type talks often present this as a gap over faith, and proofs and skepticisms around beliefs and epistemologies are the focus. And the war between the epistemologies gets center stage. Iambiguous is a good example of this. He wants people to prove to him he should believe. He has no interest in seeing if the experience of any tradition might address the pain he sometimes refers to. He wants a word-based argument that will change his mind. I think Hindus or Buddhists would be more likely to find this an odd approach than a Christian would. Unfortunately Christians are often more than willing to present arguments, call him names, bring up the issue of faith and keep the discussion in this heady non-experiential realm.

There are few things that are learned and certainly very few learned well via argument. Imagine trying to prove to someone that riding a bike is possible over the internet and they won’t go out and try. I mean, to prove that they can ride a bike or meet someone they love or feel more relaxed in nature than they do at home. And, of course, his lack of interest may well preclude learning to ride a bike or finding a tiny bit of solace in nature or meeting someone he loves. Or his hopelessness and skepticism might be well founded. Still, it’s an odd way to go about learning. Of course our educations systems wildly overestimate the value of babbling on and writing essays about stuff. Poor Dewey must be rolling over in his grave.

A wonderful critique of the education system from an economist…
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money Hardcover – January 30, 2018
Shows how little use most education is and argues that children should play more and apprentice more and even higher education should be more apprentice based or learning by working. And he mounts a great case from that hard assed analytical anal side that I tend to be weak on, so it was a pleasant read for me since I draw similar conclusions in a different way.

The West often has this individual rationally deciding what to believe illusion myth noble image. It’s not accurate as a description of how we come to believe most of what we believe. It is non-participatory. It sees us as islands, rather than the relational social beings we are. And it’s pretty much an Ayn Rand position. And despite the fact that liberals, for example, detest Ayn Rand, they live by similar myths around learning and the monad, solipsistic individual.

Both in the Christian bible and the Buddhist canons, we are asked to question all things.

Most religions have internal contradictions, and while questioning all things can be a good start, some things need more questioning than others. So you have a general heuristic to question, fitting in with Christianity a whole lot of other stuff that can be quite (self) abusive and in Buddhism with a very effiencient system of self-control and disengagement.

Note to others:

Is it in any important way realistic to make this comparison? What point of his am I missing?

In any historical, cultural or experiential context, a particular apple either exist on a particular table in a particular context or it does not. This is able to be demonstrated to others or it is not.

But, of far more importance [to me], whether this apple exists on this table in this context matters not in grounding your moral values in a font applicable to all of us. And matters not regarding the fate of “I” upon dying.

Only the existence of God seems pertinent here.

And, in the absence of a God who reveals His existence to mere mortals in such a way that no rational man or woman could doubt His existence, it’s just a leap of faith to a God you believe exists in your head and I believe does not exist in mine.

We’re both stuck here in that respect. But I’m not the one making the claim that He does in fact exist.

Just as the existence of God is either demonstrated to others or it is not demonstrated to others.

There is the crux of it. It’s not the actual existence or demonstration of existence which is different. It’s what people do with it later which troubles you.

Once you realize that, then you can go on to identifying which behaviors bother you and what can be done about them, if anything.

Sure, that will always be the case. If someone succeeds in convincing you that she has in fact demonstrated the existence of a God, the God, her God, then that need be as far as it goes. You now believe this God exists and will behave accordingly on this side of the grave in order to behave accordingly on the other side of the grave.

And then you may or may not be able to convince me and others of it.

But out in the world that we live in today, there are dozens and dozens and dozens of different Gods that folks claim in their own way to have demonstrated the existence of.

Then all the resulting conflicts regarding what to do on this side of the grave in order in order to attain one or another rendition of immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Then it’s all about “one of us” vs. “one of them”. Unless you are ecumenical in your outlook. Then you are in God’s cafeteria picking out the behaviors that are the least problematic for you.

But: where is the demonstration that clearly pins down a God, the God, my God?

Well, for those who have faith in one or another denomination, it is accepted that the existence of their God has been demonstrated just enough for them to embody the comfort and consolation that faith/belief in God brings about.

Okay, but what can you do when an apple has been demonstrated to exist? What behaviors of yours will be impacted? Again, if the existence of the apple and the existence of God are somehow equated in your mind, and it is important to you here that they are, then that serves its purpose: to anchor your own particular “I” to a font able to guide your behaviors on this side of the grave and sustain “I” on the other side.

On the other hand, I still have no clear idea of how that actually “works” for you when confronting conflicting goods.

Nor do you need to.

Your solution to behaviors that you find problematic, is to undermine people’s confidence in their beliefs by calling them “cultural, historical, existential contraptions”.

Instead, perhaps you ought to confront your own feelings and expectations about those behaviors. IOW, maybe you ought to work on yourself instead of working on others. That’s much more under your control.

Posted in Wrong thread.

Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.

That was the whole point of creating this thread. But I don’t need others to do this so much as being curious as to how they do it. Maybe how they do it might manage to reconfigure the fact that here and now I am unable to do it myself.

That is what a set of value judgments is to me. An existential contraption. Rooted out in a particular world. But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.

Sure, it can be what others have to lose. But I have to weigh that against all that I have got to gain.

Come on, how do we “work on ourselves” other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.

You don’t believe in God and you don’t have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.

A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.

Therefore, another person’s confidence can’t be something that ought to produce a change in you.

All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don’t try anything that they are doing. At least you haven’t done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don’t appear to be working on yourself at all.

It seems like we’re the animals in the zoo kind of entertainment/distraction for you. “Don’t those monkeys act funny”. :obscene-moneypiss:

No, not with any measure of precision. But we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the “human condition”.

What is there but the attempts themselves?

I can explore what her confidence is based on. I can note the manner in which our lives and our experiences overlap such that I am [perhaps] able to come closer to understanding how she thinks about these relationships.

After all, this sort of thing happens all the time. We meet new people and we exchange narratives. Sometimes nothing changes in our life as a result of this, and sometimes a lot changes.

The crucial thing [for me] is the extent to which another is able to demonstrate why their confidence is justified. In other words, given the existential relationship between their values here and now and their imagined fate there and then — beyond the grave.

Anyway, no one here [to the best of my knowledge] is forced to pursue these avenues of communication.

And around and around we go. I’m the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.

And how comforting and consoling that must be.

Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?

I wonder who started the mind reading?

I am glad to see that your epistemology now includes being persuaded by the confidence of others as they tell you their stories.

You’ll be a Bible thumper soon. I mean, I think Phyllo is probobly not the apex confidence believer out there. There are religious forums…

Things are looking up.

Well, different.

Or not.

No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:

[b]…we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the “human condition”.

What is there but the attempts themselves?[/b]

In particular given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

These attempts can be and will be only so successful. But: What else is there?

Still, it certainly seems to me that given his belief in objective morality on this side of the grave, and the manner in which this is connected to his understanding of God and religion on the other side of it, how can he not be considerably more comforted and consoled than “I” am down in my hole inching ever so closely to oblivion?

My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.

What on earth does this mean?

I’ll tell you what…

In the spirit of the OP, why don’t you connect the dots between the manner in which you construe your value judgments on this side of the grave and the manner in which you imagine the fate of “I” – your “I” – on the other side of it.

In fact, the discussion I would be most curious about regarding this is the one between you and Phyllo.

Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people’s arguments?

I don’t think that existence is insignificant. I don’t think that ‘infinitesimal’ is equal to ‘none’ or ‘nothing’. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.

Those are important differences between us.

Maybe there are no dots to connect. Maybe what you do here and now has nothing to do with what happens after death. For example, the Stoics did not pursue virtue in this life in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment in an afterlife.

Over and over and over again I note the distinction between things we share in common in the either/or world and things we may or may not share in common regarding our reaction to these things in the is/ought world. With regard to human sexuality, pregnancy and abortion there are genetic and memetic factors able to be established as true for all of us. I am this, I am not that. You are this, you are not that.

Dasein, as “I” understand it, revolves around discussions of abortion as a moral issue. What can we say is in fact true or false about the ethics of aborting the unborn?

[b]Note to KT:

Kindly explain my point to him or his point to me.[/b]

What you think about these relationships is not the same as being able to demonstrate that all rational men and women ought to think about them in the same way. I readily acknowledge my own inability to accomplish this.

Given the gap between what I think I know and all that can be known about existence itself.

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

That’s the important difference between us.

But clearly you were not talking about the either/or world because the post was about motivation, intention and psychology.
Here : “No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:”

If psychology is in the either/or world then value judgments would be in the either/or world as well.

What does mean if I can’t demonstrate it to all rational people?

It doesn’t mean that I don’t have knowledge, although it could mean that. I might just not be convincing. I might not appear trustworthy. I might not have sufficient teaching skill. I might not be able to present it in a clear manner. I might not sufficient resources to back up what I say. I might be less willing to lie and manipulate than a competing snake oil salesman. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I can accept my limitations and the limitations of humans in general. I can move on. Can you?

Call it comfort and consolation if you want.

There is some knowledge that cannot be put into words or presented in the form of an argument.

Some things cannot be demonstrated to other people. They have to demonstrate it to themselves … they have to discover it themselves.

Having followers, believers and disciples does not show knowledge. It’s possible to be obscure, unknown and ignored and still to be knowledgeable and wise.