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.