Okay, but please note:
This exchange that we are having exist objectively in my view. In other words, anyone in the world [irrespective of their views about God and religion and identity and morality] who has access to a computer and the internet can read these words. Everyone will agree that it in fact does exist. It doesn’t make any difference whatsoever how different their experiences, relationships and sources of information are. And that’s what I construe to be “objective reality”. Again, insofar as mere mortals can ever really grasp that given the staggering mystery that is existence itself.
But then we can ask: which of our arguments is more reasonable? Here our particular experiences, relationships, sources of information etc. will have far more relevance. And then we can ask any philosopher to demonstrate which of our subjective narratives here reflects the most rational and objective manner in which to grasp the “reality” of God and religion.
That, in my view, is a very important distinction to make. And this is where we seem to go in different directions. You will acknowledge that there is “some subjectivity” here whereas I see dasein as considerably more relevant in discussions like this.
To wit: The gap “I” see between any premises we might agree on here and demonstrating the actual existence of a God, the God, your God.
…it is not the case that i cannot or hesitating to tell you how i derived my conclusions from my experiences, but the problem with that is, there is no way that you can check the validity of those experiences. So, either you would have to accept that in toto or reject completely. Yes, you can question my conclusions. If that is your intention, i will take this discussion to slightly different route. But, if that is not what you want, let us forget about hard physical evidences of the God and use philosophy only.
This is basically my point though. We live in a world where [through televison, film, the internet etc] we are able to note just how different lives can be for others in different cultures, in different parts of the world, from different historical ages.
That is why I always aim the philosophical beam at those things we all seem to share in common – objective truths that in fact transcend dasein. One being that God is everywhere. Hundreds and hundreds of denominations. And we can explore the reasons for this. But how much closer does that get us to the actual existing God? If He exists at all.
If there is nothing without physical reach, there is no possibility of the god either. If there is no arthmatics, there cannot be any algebra either. It is as simple as that. Secondly, it is an easier thing to discuss and conclude than god.
And here I always get “stuck”: how is this relevant to the lives that we live? In particular when they come into conflict? We discover the laws of nature [and the role that mathematics plays] and we able historically to create the modern, industrial world. But the different perspectives we have on God and religion is irrelevant here. And that is because the laws of physics and mathematics always revolve around either/or. Or do until we enter the domain of QM. There is no question of merely having faith in this. Let alone of worshipping and adoring it. These laws and equations have nothing to do with Sin or Salvation or Immotality or Divine Justice. Unless, of course, they do. But then it is incumbent upon the believer to show us how they do.
Yet this, to me, just takes us back into exchanging what we claim to believe is true and reasonable “in our heads” – based largely on our personal experiences and on how we define the words we use in our argument and the extent to which we can just assume that our deductions are rational. Which, to me, is what folks like Saint and Phyllo always do.
I will certianly take you beyond in our heads. There are some ways which it can be done philosophically, without needing the compulsion of in the backyard.
Again – for all practical purposes – I don’t know what you mean here. You will have to give me examples of this pertaining to the lives we live. Lives that over and again come into conflict.
But we don’t need to have new experiences, relationships or sources of information in order to demonstrate that which is in fact true is in fact true. 1 + 1 will always equal 2. This exchange we are having at ILP does exist. A bachelor will always be an unmarried man. The earth does go around the sun. There ARE things that ARE objectively true
You are getting it slightly wrong here. Actually, it is far more complicated issue than how you presented.
[b]Objective truth does not entail easy availability too.
Secondly, there are many layers of reality, thus objectivty depends on which level of reality/subjectivity one belongs. At some point, objectivity and relativity tend to lose their meaning and the real issue becomes which layer of reality the observer belongs and subjectivity becomes the ultimate objectivity.[/b]
Let me explain.
Say that there is a person. What is his reality to you? Obviously a walking, talking and thinking and normal person with some memories and emotions. But, if you put that person in a scientific machine, machine will you that person has some percentages of carbon, oxygen, iron etc. Then, some more advanced machine would tell you that person is nothing but made of many electrons and protons. After that, perhaps some CERN scientist will tell you that all you know till now is not the objective reality, and this person is nothing but merely the clump of enumerable Higgs-Boson.
So, the question is what should be considered as an objective reality? If you go by scientific deduction, you will certainly get smaller and smaller constituents, but in that case, what will happen to collectivity of that person that is represented by his experinces, memories, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc?
Yes, I can agree with this basically. You articulated it well. But what this encompasses [for me] is that profound mystery still beyond the reach of science: the mystery that is mind. In other words, matter that is like no other. Ever. Mindful matter. Matter able to explore itself as matter…as mind. And here the question of autonomy itself is deconstructed. Could it possibly be that we both embody merely the illusion of choosing our words “freely” here? Yeah, sure, mind may well be the second biggest mystery of all. Behind only the mystery of existence itself. Why something and not nothing? Why this something and not another something?
But how does one then make the profound leap from mind to soul…and from soul to God… and from God to my God…and from my God to the only God?
In other words, beyond the definitions and the deductions that are held to be true “in my head”?
We live in a world where we want things. Where we need things. And clearly the historical record shows us that being able to enforce a particular social, political and economic order enables some to get a hell of a lot more of what they want and what they need. And if that does not revolve around what we have come to construe to be “power” what does it revolve around? Around God?
And these behaviors are surely part and parcel of the evolution of life on earth culminating [in terms of complexity] in the human brain. The reality of power is everywhere. That some have coined the expression “the will to power” is just one of the ways in which to situate it out in the world of actual, existential human interactions.
imb, all these arguments are assumptions. There is no physical evidence to support this. Medical science says that emotions are nothing but merely the result of some chemicals. So, does that mean that WTP is a chemical substance like any hormone?
Again, I am not really certain what you are trying to say here. This is the world that we live in: globalissues.org/article/26/ … -and-stats
And it is a world that clearly revolves around political and economic power. And, yes, there are folks who will justify this philosophically by positing things like WTP: Survival of the fittest, might makes right, the masses are sheep etc.
Now, science may not [yet] be able to fully explain our emotional and psychological reactions to these statistics, but it seems rather obscure [to me] to suggest anything other than the brute facticity of power in both creating and then sustaining this world. And if there be an omniscient and omnipotent God, He certainly seems intent on letting it stay this way.
Most religionists posit the existence of the God. Most religionists insist that this is their God. Most religionists argue that a belief in their God is of fundamental importance if one wants to attain immortality and salvation.
That is true because they have faith. I also have faith but my reasons of having faith are slightly different. Their faith is borrowed but mine is earned. But, i am not saying that they are doing something wrong. My purpose is also the same; immorality and salvation.
This, of course, is the aspect of our discussion that piques my own interest. Different folks have faith in – believe in – different Gods. And part and parcel to this is the belief that in worshipping their own God, they will achieve immortality and salvation. But only in worshipping their God. And with immoratality and salvation itself at stake, what could be more crucial than believing in the “right God”? Why yours and not all the others? What substantive arguments can they provide us here.
In fact, this is when arguments like Carl Sagan’s seem most relevant:
Ann Druyan suggests an experiment: Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn’t strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?
Your God, on the other hand, seems [to me] a million miles away from this. Instead, His existence seems tethered only to the premises you are aiming to examine here. You say that you will make this premise more substantial by taking it “out of your head”. But sometimes it seems that you are suggesting just the opposite: that no actual physical evidence need be relevant at all.
And I do look forward to exploring whatever it is you are trying to explain to me. But right now, admittedly, I can’t imagine how this can be done other then in the way in which folks like James and Phyllo and Wizard do it: through circular definitions and deductions said to be true because they insist that the definition [and the meaning] of the words they provide are true. And that the arguments of atheists must be wrong because they do not correspond with their own “objective” arguments.
I do not pursue these things myself as a “scholar”. On the contrary, as I note over and over again, I am interested in philosophy only to the extent that philosophers are able to implicate and situate their “premises” existentially. In particular with respect to “how ought one to live?”
For me, God and religion are important only to the extent to which I might pursue this “beyond the grave”.
So, sure, maybe we are not after the same thing at all here.
That is an easier part. But, in that case, why are you interested in finding physical proof of the god and not focus merely on the issue whether it serves any purpose or not? And, why you are not comfortable with merely in the head and want everything in the backyard?
If a theist argues that his God does exist but He has nothing to do with attaining immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective morality…I’d naturally be curious as to what purpose He does serve in our lives. But you yourself noted above that, “[m]y purpose is also the same; immorality and salvation.”
And I would venture to say that very, very, very, very few believers are interested in God only as an academic exercise aimed at discovering whether He does in fact merely exist.
And I am still a long way from understanding how “something exist beyond physical means” is related to the existence of a God, the God, your God – whatever the purpose of believing in Him might be.
A moral narrative is reasonable or not reasonable from a point of view. How is a follower of Jesus able to demonstrate that His narrative is deontologically sound other than in insisting that He is the Son of God…or the embodiment of God on earth? What would Jesus tell us about the morality of abortion, capital punishment, the role of government, capitalism, gender norms, homosexuality. Would whatever He tells us then become the “objective truth”?
You are not getting what i was trying to say. What do you think of Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Mandella or MLK? Were they philosophers? Did they address every issue? And, on that grond, should we consider them fools?
Yes, we both seem to be on a very different trajectory here. These folks had their own narratives relating to particular Gods and particular religious denominations. But sooner or later they have to address the flock regarding behaviors that will be rewarded or punished. As in on that day of reckoning – Judgment Day. Now, unless one is arguing that whatever any of them tell their followers to do [in order to be righteous before God], is the right thing to do, what is someone concerned with doing the right thing before God to do?
Really, if any of them [or their followers today] would not be forthright with me regarding the reality of “conflicting goods” out in the world of actual interacting men and women, how seriously could I take them?! If a belief in God is not intimately related to “how ought I to behave?” on the sojourn from birth to death, it would seem entirely sterile to me.
And what does it mean for someone to respect Jesus as a “human being” [as a “social worker”] if they genuinely and sincerely believe that the values he embodied back then are not in accordance with their own regarding issues like abortion or capital punishment or gender roles or economic justice or homosexuality.
What kind of historical evidence? Why do you think that the existence of all these all persons, which happened to be there some centuries back that of Jesus, are not in doubt but Jesus’s is? Give me reasons.
I directed you [and others] to links that explore this. But the link from wiki approaches it from both sides: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
But the extent to which it can be shown that Jesus did in fact exist as a man back then is of little interest to me in this exchange. It is only the extent to which whatever the historical facts might be can be used to link him to the God of Moses and Abraham – to the God – that matters to me.
Just think of all the thousands upon thousands of existential variables in your life you either had no control over or are able to understand only from an existential point of view. Do you actually imagine that if you were born hundreds of years ago or were raised in an entirely different culture or had a completely different set of experiences, relationships and sources of information, you would still think the way you do now about so many different things? Things like God and religion and identity and morality?
I am very well understsanding what you are trying to say. That phase of my life has been passed as far as some subjects are concerned. There was a time when i came across to the same question, but with further effort and experiences over the time, i became able to understand the realation of observation/perception with the reality.
Here we will just have to agree to disagree that you either understand the point I am raising about the profoundly problematic nature of dasein [identity] or that you address it. In my view, we think about these things as we do based on the differing experiences, relationships and sources of information we have encountered. There is no objective truth here…only an exchange of subjective/subjunctive vantage points.
For me, instead, the more intriguing question revolves around those things that we can demonstrate to be true for all of us – and those things that become merely the subjective embodiment of a particular point of view. One that is always [potentially] subject to reconfiguration in a world OF contingency and chance and change. God and religion are just two more aspects of this. Or so it seems to me. And though they may start “from oneself” [in the mind of a particular dasein/individual] there either is or is not an actual God on the other end.
As i said above, there are two ways to settle this issue.
One is that i explain you my process and you question my derived cogitations. But, in that case, you have to assume that i am telling the truth.
This is simply too abstract for me to sink my teeth into. Either what you believe about God can be translated into the existental lives that we live [lives that come into conflict over value judgments – judgements pertaining to or not pertaining to God] or it will always be [for me] something that you [now] believe “in your head” that I do not [now] believe “in my head” is true.
The second way is to try to establish whether something exist beyond physical means or not. In this case, mere discussion is enough. If that can be established, then we can think how that can be related to the god. No physical evidence is required.
Same here. With immortality, salvation, divine justice and objective morality literally at stake, you want me to agree that maybe there is a god if I can agree with you that “something exist beyond physical means”. Again: what on earth does that mean pertaining TO “how ought I to live my life” in the here and now in order that I might be embraced by a God, the God, your God after I am dead and gone?
I am willing to explore further your “premise” but I have to honest and note that this seems to be a far cry from the reason most folks believe in God. This really does seem to be just an exercise in scholasticism. Or it does so far to me.
In my own way, this is also the point I am making. 1 + 1 = 2
But, did you ever think that 1into 1 can be 1 too! How are you sure that they will add everytime, whenever they interact, and in the way you are assuming? Means, why they cannnot multiply or devide each other? Why 1 and 1are supposed to be 2 everytime and not 1, 0 or 11? In the case, objectivity will lose its meaning and subjectivity becomes the only reality.
I hold an orange in my left hand and an orange in my right hand. The one orange plus the other orange equals two oranges. That will never change. Or I can hold an orange in my left hand and an apple in my right hand. One orange plus one apple equals two fruit. And that will never change. But if Joe believes in God A and Joan believes in God B…does that make two Gods? If there is a God, the God, then one of them doesn’t really exist at all.
And, again, given what is at stake here when the Grim Reaper comes around, I damn sure want to know which God is the one true God. And if there be a God at all.
Now, scholars and philosophers and theologians may argue that this sort of thinking is “for the masses” but there is a reason for that, right? Because this is really what faith in God comes down to! Pertaining to the lives that we live. And what happens to us after we die.
That different folks have different [and often profoundly conflicting] views about God and religion is also true objectively. Or seems to be given the extent to which mere mortals are able to demonstrate something as being true objectively.
But the actual existence of a God, the God, our God?
No, it’s not all brainwashing, of course. More like an existential nudge – or push. But it is a long, long, long way from having been demonstrated to be true objectively.
That depends upon what this I/ME is in actual terms. If it is nothing but mere brainwashing and ever changeable too, there is no objectivity in this universe whatsoever. But, if something in this I/ME is constant/eternal, there will be an ultimate objectivity for sure.
Yes, and to me, “I” and “me” are the embodiment of dasein. In other words, the existential layers that we accummulate revolving first around our genetic/biological predispositions, then around our historical and cultural context, and then around the experiences, relationships and sources of information that any one particular individual encounters en route from the cradle to the grave.
Now, what I am curious to know is how you embody what you deem to be “constant/eternal” relating to your own I/ME – insofar as it can be implicated/situated/integrated into your interactions with others when they come into conflict over value judgments.
And here I am more than willing to acknowledge that we may well be after different things. And also to note that what I am after is not necessarily more important than what you are after. So, sure, we can just agree to disagree and move on to others more inclined to approach God and religion as we do.
Or, instead, we can struggle to bridge the gaps between us. Either way, I believe that we both do respect each other’s intelligence.