on discussing god and religion

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.

There are atheists who don’t believe in God and are often contemptible of those that do. Others don’t believe but, over the years, with oblivion staring them in face, they are less dismissive of those that do. In fact, with the abyss looming larger and larger, they actually want to stumble upon an argument that may give them pause. Better yet, actual hard evidence that a God, the God does in fact exist.

In part this will be dependent upon just how much you love your life…and on just how much you have to lose when you die. And, again, on just how close [existentially] you are to The End.

But the second part of this observation seems aimed more at the nature of whatever God it is that someone is able to believe in. In other words, given all of the horrors that exist around the globe, how can any existing God realistically be described as loving just and merciful? The theodicy paradox in other words.

A perfectly legitimate question that [to me] speaks volumes regarding the role that religion plays in our life. Anything…anything at all other than oblivion.

So, given that, what difference does it make which particular God or “spiritual path” you choose?

Well, not that I don’t want to be on one myself. But the stuff I believe “inside my head” just won’t let me.

Here and now as it were.

Again, in my view, the perfect answer. You just “know” intuitively, viscerally that there is a God.

And then you stop there.

You don’t have to delve into the characteristics of this God.
You don’t have delve into behaviors this God construes to be Sins.
You don’t have to speculate about the nature of salvation.
You don’t have to speculate about the nature of eternal damnation.
You don’t have to consider “theological” variables at all.

Instead, it all just emanates from dasein. From, in other words, the life that you lived and how all of the uniquely existential components came together to predispose you [or your gut] to make that leap to God.

This I am able to grasp. His gut, my gut. Two different subjective narratives. And no way [philosophically] for either one of them to be “confirmed” as, in fact, true objectively.

Step #1 , determine whether there is a God.

He did that. In other threads, he writes about the nature of God, as he understands it.

That’s not the distinction I am making here though.

My distinction revolves around the extent to which this determination merely reflects what he [or others] have come to believe “in their head” as dasein, and the extent to which he is able to demonstrate that what he believes in his head is in fact true objectively. In other words, that others, if they wish to be construed as rational human beings, must believe it too.

To wit: that this God he believes in does in fact exist.

Again, it is the difference between being able to determine if Mary had an abortion [if in fact she did have one and this can be established] and being able to determine if this abortion that she did in fact have is moral or immoral.

The actual fact of the abortion transcends dasein and conflicting goods, but the morality of it [in my view] is ever tangled up in dasein and conflicting goods.

The same regarding zinnat13’s views on homosexuality. It is one thing to establish that John is a homosexual. He may simply acknowledge that he is. Thus, that he is a homosexual transcends dasein and conflicting goods. But when mere mortals [sans God] try to establish whether this particular behavior is moral or immoral, I don’t see how it can be done other than as a subjective [existential] narrative rooted in dasein and conflicting goods. And, of course, with respect to the law, political economy.

I honestly don’t see the reason to continue discussing it, there have been threads and threads and threads and threads, and it always arrives at the same thing. Instead of advancing as a species, humanity love to diddle daddle and circle jerk.

Religion is a mental disease because it creates delusional thinking, which delusion is a mental disorder. There is no evidence of a deity because well… there is no evidence. Get some evidence for this thing/deity, not just hear say, interpretation or ego, then people with intellect might consider it.

Only what, 7% of the elite science group believe in a deity? The question is, why.

So? You can say the same thing about many other “big questions” pursued by philosophers: free will, solipsism, dualism, ontology, teleology, the etiology of existence, the nature of time etc. etc.

Me, I’m more or less just passing the time. Waiting for godot as it were. But nothing seems more relevant to me now than those questions that revolve around God: immortality, salvation, divine justice, objective morality.

And the extent to which any of this might bring me a bit closer to answering the question, “how ought one to live?”

If it can be answered at all. You know, objectively.

I wouldn’t go that far. God is one possible explanation for why anything does exist at all. But I do agree that in advancing God as the explanation, I need more than just the stuff that folks believe “in their heads”. Why should I believe it too?

Thus: How can the faithful transcend God as a personal narrative and demonstrate to others who do not believe that not believing in God [a God, the God, their God] is irrational?

He did say that he was not presenting a rational argument, so rational human beings are not required to believe it.

He is saying that this feeling beyond rationality. That it can’t be demonstrated by some sort of verbal argument.

But how can you say that this feeling does not objectively exist? Perhaps it is not a subjective feeling. Perhaps it is similar to the way liars are detected in my linked article. When the test subjects try to consciously identify liars, they are not very successful. Subconsciously they identify liars much more effectively. IOW, they are able observe and analyze signs which they are not consciously aware of.
A gut feeling of God’s existence may be just such a subconscious observation and analysis and may be correct. And the conscious evaluation of evidence may be leading rational people to the wrong conclusions.