on discussing god and religion

imb,

I am sorry for being late. Others threads kept me busy. I will reply tonight.

with love,
sanjay

No problem. I’ve been there myself.

I think that i more or less understood what you are trying to say.

But, it is my humble request not to use too complex or vague language and terms as one can draw any meaning that he wants. Please keep it as straight and simple as possible. That will help both of us.

I do not see that there is much difference in how people cogitates things. They all do that the same way. The actual difference is in the benchmark or thought process/perception/a priori knowledge that they use to examine things. That is all.

No need to get stuck.

imb, the first thing that you need to understand here is that is no isolation available here in this universe for anything, whether physical or metaphysical. Anything, if that exists, is somehow related to other things, more or less. Yes, there will be some difference in the degree to that one thing will affect and got affected by other things.

The same applies to the premise of God and the question of whether anything exists beyond our physical reach or not too. These two inquires are not irrelevant but actually the most important ones, far more important than we can assume.

The answers to these two questions decided/decide the course of the mankind. Science, technology, social premises etc are slaves to these answers as they entirely depend how these two questions are probed and what answers we are able derive from these. The all difference that you see between different societies in the world is only because they derived different answers to these questions. There are no other reasons whatsoever.

The cornerstone of mathematics is philosophical derivation from religious investigations. Both 1 and 0 represent male penis and female vagina respectively. These represent Shiva (1 and male) and Shaki ( 0 and female), and when they come together and make a union, creation happens. And, that does not happen once but it is an eternal process. That is why a penis has to go in and out manytimes from the vagina. In the same way, basic numbers from 1to 9 have go in and out from 0 to create mathematics.

So, let us not underestimate the importance of these questions. It is not merely an academic exercise that will be restricted to books only but it crafts our future too in all verticals.

Yes, i will certainly give examples.

Yes, i can do that, in spite of my limitations of the English language. But, it is not because that i am a very intelligent person. The only and very simple reason is that my knowledge about these issues in not borrowed but earned. I have gone through the process of acquiring the knowledge in person, instead of having readymade lessons. Thus, the basics are clearer in my mind.

imb, if you ever read Upnishads, this is the first thing that they asked; what is reality and how can we know that?
Then, they deduct it further and ask; who is exactly this I/We, that wants to know?

That is what that is the actual purpose of the religions, neither the God, nor the morality. God happened accidently and morality is the use of those small findings they came across during their journey.

It is certainly beyond the reach of the science, but not beyond the reach of mankind for sure. Though, science can easily find the evidence of something beyond physical reach, but unfortunately, it has not made enough attempts in this direction.

Although, your line of questioning is right but not the finding the answers. That confuses you and you are not able to make a call on anything and have to keep every judgment pending. That is why you bring God in everything.

Let me ask you one very simple question. If i ask you what your height is exactly, how would you measure it?
Would you take a measuring tape and measure your height from it or will start questioning the authenticity of the tape itself?

That is precisely the issue with you. When i ask you anything, you start questioning your mind. You must remember here that every level of existence has its own reality. So, do not try to measure any existence of one reality from the benchmark of another reality. You will never able to find the answer, unless you become omniscient, and that is not possible for you or anyone else.

That is exactly that happened to our discussion in the poll thread.

Do not bring the issue of in the head or god, when these are not under the scanner per se. Or, leave all other issue behind and first settle the issue of I/WE. Make up your mind.

I am asking a very simple question. Whether N’s or Kant’s metaphysical premises have any scientific evidence? Can any machine confirm their physical existence? If not, why intellectuals give any importance to these at all?

That explanation is not scientific by any mean. You may not able to realize but you are arguing in the same way how theists do. You are holding WTP the motivating force while they say it is God. What is the difference? Neither you have any physical evidence nor they.

That is an entirely different and complex issue altogether but we will come to that later.

I can answer this easily but for that i have to put forth my complete theory of existence, including the God. It is difficult for me to explain that now. We will take up this issue later.

She does not have any idea whatsoever about it and merely guessing without knowing the basics.

My reasoning is entirely different from them. As i said before, I will show you that something is existing there for sure which is beyond our physical reach. And, i will not use any highly philosophical arguments but very simple and common things and observations around us, which would certainly be out of the head.

You are again conflating two levels of reality. The concept of God serves different purposes to different levels of human reality/existence. One is for this world and that is morality and the second one is for other level of existence, where it leads to immorality and salvation.

The premise of the god is like crude oil. It gives different byproducts at different stages, from tar to Kerosene oil, Diesel, Petrol and lastly ATF (fuel used for aero planes).

That is true today but that was not the case in the past.

I will try to establish that there is certainly something such in all the living creatures that controls and guides those, yet cannot be verified physically. If there can be anything such for sure, there is a possibility that the God may exist somewhere.

imb, you seem to be too much obsessed with the idea of theism/atheism. That is intruding your mind. You need to get out from this and try to see the things from other angles.

No matter whatever were the beliefs of Gandhi Or Mother Teresa about the God, they were not in conflict about social guidelines. Both did not talk much about God in their public life. Gandhi’s first priority was the elevation of the last man standing in the line and Teresa devoted her whole life to serve the ill people. Do we need the any religious doctrine to measure whether they did good or bad?

imb, as i said in the last post, it is useless to argue about the authenticity of such a person, who existed more than 2000 years ago. Anyone can say anything, either for or against. It cannot be settled ever.

But, you did not answer my question that, why the question mark is only behind Jesus, neither Moses nor Buddha?

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I understand your perspective but there is something more besides that too, which you still do not know. You are still struggling with the definition of I/We. As you do have an exact answer to that, thus assuming that there cannot any exact answers to any other thing as well. But, that is not true.

There is certainly an ultimate objectivity of existence. That is precisely what religions postulate as omniscient. One who is aware of and also can correspond to all levels of the reality. When anyone reaches at stage, he becomes truly objective.

Okay, let us leave that.

Whether it could be related to the God or not, is the verification of something exist beyond physical means does not mean anything to you? Is it a small thing?

You are jumping the gun here. You want to settle the issue without going through that because of your presumption.

imb, why are you interested in what other think about this? Let us focus on what we think about this.

No, that is very much changeable and depends how they interact with each other. Like, if you will them safe within your hands, they will remain 1+1=2. But, if you smash them hard with one another, the result would be different from 2.

As i said above, I will answer that later. I am not able to explain in bits and pieces but need to put a complete theory.

So, does that mean that we are nothing but our layers of brainwashing, or there is something else besides it?
Please make it clear because i will argue on that.

I respect your curiosity as it is almost an endangered quality nowdays.

I do mind struggling or sweating in discussion as far as the opponent remains honest with the discussion, no matter what his opinion may be or he agrees with me or not.

As far as the respect is concerned, i respect everyone. Intelligence is not my benchmark for respect anyone.

with love,
sanjay

Yes, words like “God” and “religion” in my view. On the other hand, my understanding of “dasein” and “conflicting goods” is such that in using them in discussions relating to God and religion [or value judgments and identity] there is only so much precision available to us. In fact, that is basically my point here. In other words, I just don’t want whatever precision that is said to exist to revolve basically around definitions and deductions. Words that are said to be true only because other words insist that they are.

cogitate [v]: To think deeply about something; meditate or reflect.

There is [in my view] a considerable distinction to be made between cogitating about abortion as a medical procedure and cogitating about abortion as a moral issue.

Same with cogitating about the existence of the Christian Bible and cogitating about the extent to which the Christian Bible reflects the word of the one true God.

And the extent to which you don’t grasp the manner in which I make this distinction is [perhaps] the extent to which I will not grasp yours. We can only try to grapple with this as best we can.

Yes, but to me there is a considerable distinction to be made between noting this [which, let’s face it, is merely to point out that we exist in the universe] and in suggesting that all of this is related existentially [and then essentially] to a God, the God, your God. Again, if for no other reason that God is invarably linked to immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective moral font. And that brings into focus not only the question of what we are but of how we ought to behave in order to align ourselves with the will of a God, the God, your God.

Sure, and religious investigations are derived from the fact that our brain evolved such that it is able to apprehend and to construct particular continuities out of what it is able perceive and sense regarding the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world”. And, yes, that eventually leads the brain [the conscious mind] to go all the way back to pondering what brought about existence in the first place. And one of the possibilities here is a God, the God, my God.

But how specifically is this related to the penis and the vagina?

In other words, what we can know objectively about human sexuality biologically is one thing, and what we can know about the morality of human sexuality, another thing altogether. Or so it seems to me. The biology largely transcends dasein and conflicting goods. But not the morality. Unless, of course, one is able to establish the actual existence OF a transcending moral font. One able to truly settle the conflicts once and for all.

Again:

You say this. But, still, all I can do is to assume that you believe this to be true. But how does it then earn the right to convince others? To me, it is an entirely abstract set of assumptions that you have "deduced’ into existence based on all of the other assumptions you have made above. And what I am looking for instead is a way to connect the dots between these theoretical/conceptual assumptions and the nuts and the bolts of the lives that we live when they come into conflict with others; and the extent to which they can be made relevant to our fate after we die.

In other words, the actual reasons that the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks do predicate their own faith on.

To wit:

And you respond:

Yes, and somehow “in your head” this reflects an adequate explanation for the points I raise. And, therefore, you can assume that all the “confusion” here stems from my inability to grasp what, instead, I construe to be basically an intellectual/theoretical/conceptual contraption that in my view exist by and large only in your head.

As though when folks in any particular human community struggle to legislate behaviors relating to conflicting sexual behaviors [like homosexuality from the other thread] your speculations here will actually be of crucial importance. How? And I am still a long, long way from grasping how, further, you connect this to a God, the God, your God. All I know with any real certainty is that, somehow, you have in fact been able to accumplish this “in your head”.

No, I am providing you with a statistical snapshot of the world we live in. I am then noting the obvious: that men and women who possess considerable political and economic power have had an enormous input in the creation of this world. And in sustaining it to reflect their own material interests. I am not saying that this power is a manifestation of WTP. WTP is merely one philosopher’s contention regarding how one might look at a world [sans God] in terms of one particular subjective/subjunctive narrative.

Instead, this revolves around the organic, historical evolution of the capitalist political economy. And then [for some] the extent to which they are able to rationalize it in terms of their own particular rendition of God. After all, most of the folks who own and operate the world economy today are Christians. Or call themselves that.

Okay. And I am most curious to see how you accomplish this. On the other hand, to the extent to which you claim this can be done “easily” is the extent to which it reminds me of others here who insist it might be done “simply”. And that to me is but another indication that they will accomplish this largely “in their head”. But that, of course, is the one place I can never go. You know, for confirmation.

Again, just to be clear:

I am not at all impressed with their thinking because, in my view, they ask us to believe that the definitions and the deductions that they provide for us in their “analysis” is what makes their argument true.

And that seems to revolve not only around their God but around human behaviors that come into conflict [morally and politically] over conflicting goods; and then the manner in which we acquire an identity.

And here all I can do is to wait patiently for you to actually connect what I construe to be abstract arguments like this to the lives that we live; and then to what becomes our fate after we stop living [down here]. Either you are able to conflate these two levels of “reality” such that I am able to grasp the existential implications of God and religion [your God and your religion] or you are not. In other words, I keep waiting for what I construe to be more tangible arguments. There are just too many crucial reasons in which, for me, God is not like crude oil at all.

So it seems [to me] that you are hinting at the existence of something analogous to a “soul” – something “spiritual” that “controls and guides” some. And that IF such a thing does exist then there is the POSSIBILITY that God might exist too.

And yet [in all honestly] what most intrigues me is the manner in which you are then able to take a “leap” [as did Kierkegaard?] to the God – to the God that includes Jesus Christ in His narrative. To Christianity. And then from that to the analysis of behaviors such as homosexuality. In other words, which makes me all the more curious the extent to which you are able to say with any certainty [ie deontologically] what our moral obligations must be if we wish to be “saved” by this God of Jesus once we die.

Idea:
1] a thought, plan, or suggestion about what to do
2] an opinion or belief
3] something that you imagine or picture in your mind

So, in regard to the relationship between “I” and God and religion, it is the extent to which any particular ideas that any particular individuals have are able to be encompassed such that they can be shown to be true for all of us. In other words, such that it is not just something they hold to be true “in their mind” – but something that in fact is true objectively.

But show me a community of human beings where the “social guidelines” regarding right and wrong behavior is not linked [often intimately linked in some communities] to their belief in God and religion.

You can have a community where the behavior we call homosexuality is entirely tolerated and permitted…or one in which to engage in it means a certain punishment. Even death. Now, one can either link their own narrative here to the existential reality of this “out in the world” that we live in today or they can’t.

And what we need – or surely what most clearly want – is a frame of mind in which to know with certainty how a virtuous soul is to behave in order to pass muster on Judgment Day. And that is as close to being factual about God and religion “out in the world” as we are ever likely to establish here. If, in the end, it is not intimately aligned with either “sin” or “not a sin” then what is it really but an academic exercise revolving instead around definitions and deductions. Around what our “ideas” are said to “mean”.

And this might well speak volumes regarding the gap between us. Or at least the gap as it exist now.

After all, there are folks who insist that only by embracing their God and their religion and their moral values can this be realized. Or that only capitalism can bring about this better world. Or that only socialism will bring it about. And then there are any number of “liberals” and “conservatives” who will insist [in turn] that their own political agenda is the only sure fire way of ever bringing about a better world.

And what of issues like abortion or gun control or hunting or animal rights or gender roles or homosexuality — what makes a world “better” with respect to these behaviors? And hundreds more like them? And how is one’s answer to this then linked to the question of a God, the God, my God?

And isn’t that an accurate reflection of the world we actually live in?

I did answer it. I directed you to the links of folks who are very much interested to delving into this historically. Me, I am interested more in the extent to which those who claim to establish the existence of “Jesus the man” are then able to link him in turn to the actual existence of the Christian God.

Or the extent to which the moral and political agenda embodied by the historical Christ can be shown [philosophically] to reflect a deontological ethics.

My aim is less to define human identity than to situate it [my own] out in the world existentially as dasein. After all, only actual flesh and blood men or women use the word “I”. And, in some respects, to reflect on things that are true objectively, and, in other respects, to offer up subjective opinions regarding the relationship between things. In particular when, in interacting socially, politically and economically, these relationships come into conflict.

With or without God and religion.

Let’s just say that, as of now, at this juncture in our exchange, it will become considerably more meaningful to me given the extent to which you are able to link it to a God, the God, your God.

Otherwise you are just leading me to a premise – a premise about the relationship bewteen the life that I do live and the mere possibility that it is linked to something that “exist beyond physical means”.

In the interim, as I noted above, I am running out of time. If there be a God, the God, how can I reach Him in time before immortality and salvation really do become [along with everything else pertaining to “I”] nothing at all. You know, for eternity.

In short, I am considerably less concerned with what others “think” here and more with what they are able to demonstrate to me – substantively, substantially – regarding the actual existence of their God and their religion.

Obviously, there are manny, many aspects of the lives we live [of “I”] that have little or nothing to do with brainwashing. And that is because they pertain to those things [and to the relationships between things] that are in fact true objectively. It is only when we contemplate the relationship between “I” and conflicting goods or conflicting Gods or conflicting ontological and teleological speculations, that “I believe” becomes considerably more problematic. And thus considerably more reflective of subjective/subjunctive points of view and personal opinions.

For example, when I speak of living in Baltimore, of being male, of being 5’ 10" tall, of having a daughter, of wearing glasses, of typing these words etc., that is not because I was indoctrinated to believe it.

What you need to understand is that in Iambig’s philosophy, there is no ‘good’ or ‘better’. There is simply no way to evaluate these concepts.

If a decision/action is made and you look at the consequences, then there will be a person A who, because of his experiences, will evaluate it as good and a person B who, because of his experiences, will evaluate it as bad. Nothing can be said that can negate either of these opinions.

That’s why he keeps referring to God. God, if he exists, could come down and break the tie - make the correct judgement.

But sans God …

No, in my view, there is no essential or objective or universal “good” or “better” – at least not with respect to conflicting value judgments that revolve around conflicting goods. Judgments that are understood existentially from the perspective of a mere mortal living out in a particular world and viewing it from a particular point of view. And in a world that revolves around [and evolves from] contingency and chance and change.

And yet even here I am willing to acknowledge that, sure, theoretically, there may well be such a truth – but that no one has yet been able to demonstrate it to me. Just as, in this respect, there may well be an existing God that no one has managed to convince me of.

Yes, this seems to be a reasonable manner in which to frame my point of view. Thus if John is raised in a Christian community to believe in the Christian God and Muhammad is raised in a Moslem community to believe in the Islamic God and Javier is raised in a Cuban or Chinese or North Korean community to believe in No God, they may very well come to believe that the others are wrong in what they believe.

Okay, so how would the philosopher go about establishing which point of view here reflects the objective truth? Not even counting all of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of additional ways in which a particular individual [as dasein] might come to think about God and religion.

And, in particular, with respect to immortality and salvation and divine justice – the attaining of which seems to be predicated not only on believing in a God, but on the God.

Which is then, in turn, intimately intertwined in the conviction by almost all religionists that one must behave in a way not deemed “sinful” by the God.

No, my aim here with Zinnat is to discover the extent to which he can nudge me in the direction of a premise that might lead me down the path to considering the existence of a God, the God, his God.

But more to the point I am interested in the extent to which any religionist is able to convince me that his or her own God is the one true path to immortality, salvation, divine justice and an objective moral font.

And you certainly have not.

Which does not make you wrong, of course. But the whole point of our exchanges here must necessarily revolve around the extent to which we are able to convince others that our own narratives are or are not reasonable.

For example, to the best of my knowledge you believe in the Christian God. You also believe that abortion is objectively moral. Well, there are any number of Christians that I have come across over the years who insist that abortion is objectively immoral. And they will use their Christian faith as their own moral font. The same with, say, homosexuality.

So, just out of curiosity, let me ask you: Given the manner in which you construe the relationship between God and these behaviors, what will be the fate of those who practice them come their own day of judgment?

I have not convinced you? No surprising since I have not tried to convince you. I have written very little about these things.
I avoided God entirely when we had our chat in Rant. Although you might say that ‘reason’ was my God in that discussion.

What should I say about my own God now?
My understanding of God is based on a few simple axioms and the logical consequences which follow.

  • We do not occupy a privileged position in the universe

Therefore, the truth must be available to anyone in any place and at any time. It must be possible to know the truth purely from interactions with the universe. The truth cannot be contained in any particular book.

Our behavior cannot be guided by some inaccessible knowledge. The afterlife is beyond knowing. Therefore, morality cannot be based on attaining some reward or punishment in an afterlife.

So:
Immortality - Unknown. Continuity and permanence is a common feeling. My instinct says that there is immortality. But that could be an illusion. Not particularly important to be right about this.
Salvation - You are ‘saved’ by correct actions in this life. Heaven and hell are created on Earth, both for the individual and others.
Divine Justice - Unclear what this would be. We understand human justice, so divine justice (if there is such a thing) would be similar but applied better and more consistently. Unimportant to living.
Objective morality - Determined by actions of humans within a community on planet Earth.

In the context of what I just wrote, it should be obvious that I don’t know what the fate of these people would be, or even if there is a judgement.

A person is not homosexuality. A person is not an abortion. If there is a judgement, then the entire person and all he has done would be judged. The interaction with others would be judged.

As for the morality of these actions in the here and now, the actions need to be evaluated to determine if they are beneficial to the individual and the community. Again, the interaction with others is judged. Is it constructive, destructive or neutral?

So, you are not a Christian then?

Just out of curiosity, would you say that James is? Over and again I would try to get him to flesh out the relationship between logic, RM, the Real God and objectivity. But I could never get beyond what he thinks that is “in his head”.

In fact, this is ultimately my aim with zinnat as well.

In other words:

[b]It’s the whole point of my being in ILP: to connect the dots between what others construe to be God/Reason and the manner in which any particular “I” reacts to behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments. In other words, is there a way to think about this that is not as bleak as the manner in which I construe these relationships to be in terms of the dilemma that is dasein.[/b]

The rest was just me acting out the polemicist. Or the clown.

Again, I don’t doubt that you believe this. But how could anyone ever possibly know this for sure? Which is just to point out that, aside from the premises out of which you constructed this conclusion, how could you [or, again, anyone] go about actually demonstrating that this is in fact true?

Then it would seem that you are among the very, very few “believers” I have come upon over the years who think like this with respect to religion and God.

To wit: Most folks don’t want to die. They want to believe that “I” [as a “soul”] is immortal. And they want to believe that after they have shuffled off this mortal coil, there is something analogous to Paradise and Salvation awaiting them. And there, at last, they will be with God and all their loved ones. And for all of eternity. They will have access to the justice they felt they were deprived of “down here”.

For example, all of the infidels and sinners will burn in Hell.

But:

Before any of that can happen they know they will be judged. And these judgments will of course revolve around their behaviors as mere mortals. But one cannot be properly [or fairly] judged unless they are first given access to a Scripture that delineates what either is or is not a Sin before God.

And, in that respect, having or performing an abortion or engaging in homosexual acts are certainly near the top of most lists as behaviors to avoid. Or, rather, this would seem to be the case given my own interactions with folks who believe in God.

So, you don’t believe in any of that? Instead, you believe that abortion and homosexuality and all other behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments can be judged using logic and reason alone?

And thus if someone engages in a behavior that others deem to be irrational [immoral] the extent of their reaction would be to pass laws making these behaviors illegal…and then punishing those who break the law? And that this will “for all practical purposes” revolve around any particular political concensus a given community of men and women is able to muster?

Because that’s what I believe. I merely stress the need for moderation, negotiation and compromise in a world [governed by the rule of law] where objective truths here do not exist.

Here though I come back to the manner in which I implicate dasein, conflicting goods and political economy in the social, political and economic interactions of mere mortals.

And in that context I do not see how one can derive an argument that is said to reflect – logically – the “objective truth”.

We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

Personally, I can live with this. It’s a good answer.

It’s just that the older some get, the more they seem to need God. Why? Come on.

On the other hand, to tell us is only to apprise us of what one believes is true. But, again and again, how wide is the gap then between telling us and showing us?

And even this must assume that all of the many, many, many Christian denominations [narratives] can somehow be chiseled down into the one true Christian agenda.

In regard to, say, abortion…or homosexuality.

And, perforce, that is always before we get to, well, all of the other Gods.

imb,

Last some days were very busy as my elder brother died. I will try to reply tonight or tomorrow.

with love,
sanjay

Sorry to hear that, Zinnat.

Take as long as you need. I’m sorry for your loss.

Maybe.

But don’t expect any of this to have any substantial use value or exchange value “out in the world” that we live in.

Still, that rarely stops folks who construct daunting deductions of this sort from insisting that their own moral and political agenda might just as well have been carved into stone by these Gods that they define into existence.

You can’t argue with this right? After all, it only requires of one to either believe or not to believe that it is true.

Which means that God can be [or defined to be] practically anything; and then come to mean practically anything in our lives.

And that is fine until the manner in which we link what we think God is to the manner in which we interact with others.

And here what we think and believe about God can come into conflict with what others think and believe about Him.

The rest is history.

Lots of people do that, don’t they? In fact lots of people die never having given their belief in God much thought at all.

Here of course we bump into the folks that do. Well, more or less.

But my own reaction to them is not all that far removed from my reaction to those who don’t [or won’t] give it much thought at all.

I ask them to examine the extent to which their belief in God is rooted in dasein – in the uniquely individual lives that they have lived existentially. I ask them to note the distinction between what they believe subjectively about God “in their head” and what they are able to demonstrate to others as being true objectively “out in the world”. I ask them to explain the relationship between what they believe is true about God and the manner in which they then translate that into behaviors they construe to be moral or immoral.

And then I ask them to examine these behaviors when they come into conflict with the behaviors of those who have a different set of beliefs “in their heads” about a different God.

So, sure, if you know of anyone who is equally fascinated by these relationships – in the manner in which they fascinate me above – invite them to participate in this exchange.

By contrast, however, let me give you a classic example of a belief in God that [in my view] refuses to touch on any of the points I raised above:

Please: do not send folks like these here, okay?

Think about this…

Here are folks who claim that certain behaviors are Sins before God. That you risk etrernal damnation if you engage in them.

Many are taught to believe this as children. And some will literally go to the grave believing it is true.

But others will have a set of experiences that yank them away from this. Instead, they will come to believe that these behaviors are not Sins before God. They will engage in these behaviors convinced that they do not risk eternal damnation at all.

And yet the bottom line remains: Their God either exists or does not exist. And, if He does, these behaviors either are or are not Sins. And, if you engage in them, you either do or do not risk eternal damnation.

Isn’t that the dilemma we all face? Is there a God? Are there behaviors deemed to be Sins by this God?

But: Which God? Which behaviors? Which rendition of being “forgiven”?

This in fact is what I always come back to. There is so much at stake here but we really have nothing more than a “leap of faith”, a “wager” to make on that profoundly problematic sojourn to the abyss.

In other words, religionists who embrace a more “ecumenical” approach to God, might distance themselves from the “fundamentalist” denominations. But the arguments of the fundamentalists don’t go away. If there be a God, there will be a Judgment Day. And would not this Judgment revolve around all of our behaviors? Thus the fundamentalist arguments might be seen as a more reasonable manner in which to embody a belief in God. At least in so far as this belief is related directly to the lives that we live and the behaviors that we choose.

This is more or less how I think about God and religion as well.

I do not deny that a God [the God, your God] might exist. Who am I to actually know that?

Instead, I simply state what [to me] is objectively true: That I do not personally believe in the existence of a/the/your God.

And that, in discussions of this sort, it is then incumbent upon those who do claim the existence of a/the/my God to demonstrate to me why this is in fact true objectively. And not just something that they believe is true “in their head”.

That’s more honest than a lot of atheists in these discussion. They will often :

  • claim not to know what a god is
  • have a phobia around the word ‘believe’, so they claim to know and never believe
  • play word games and insist that ‘lack of belief’ is critical to their position

Yes, and there are even atheists who seem to be as religiously devoted to No God as theists are to God. And boy can they be arrogant about it.

But the bottom line [mine] remains the same:

How does someone who claims to believe “in their head” in a God, the God, my God, implicate/situate the definition and/or the meaning they ascribe to God “out in the world” of human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments?

And how do they take what they believe “in their head” about God out of their head such that those who do not believe in God can have a more substantive/substantial basis upon which to [perhaps] believe in God themselves?

Me, I don’t want to die and be nothing at all for eternity. So, sure, I’m open to any arguments theists have that might nudge me in the other direction.

It’s just that folks like James refuse to make the connection between how they define God and how this definition is “for all practical purposes” implicated in their own moral and political value judgments.

In the meantime, I am still “stuck” with the dilemma that is dasein. In other words, my own moral and political value judgments are largely existential contraptions competing with the subjective fabrications of other daseins out in a world of conflicting goods.