But: whatever they think “in their heads” regarding the biology of human sexuality and the biology of abortion, the objective facts embedded in both transcend whatever their subjective opinions might be. That is always my own distinction here. What are the objective facts pertaining to the morality of abortion? What are the objective facts pertaining to religion and God?
imb, whether the God actually exists or not and whether his premise serves any purpose or affects the life of a common man or not, are two entirely different issues. And, they have to be addressed differently. Do not conflate the two.
No. In my opinion that is just your own assumption here. If one professes a belief in God [especially a God, the God] not to conflate them seems irrational to me. At least with respect to what draws me into exchanges like this: dasein and conflicting value judgments. And then in understanding them in a world either with or without God.
But, sure, let’s examine the extent to which we really can stick only to the part about a God actually existing.
How can you will be ever able to understand what they are saying unless you do not go in their heads?
Both of their heads and your head should be in synchronization. That can be possible only in two ways, either they come to your head or you go to their head. But, if either party would refuse to do the same, the discussion would not reach anywhere.
One will talk about the east and other one is about west.
I can only note once more that, with respect to God and religion, there are those things that others believe to be true “in their heads” and there are those things that they either can or cannot demonstrate to others as being true objectively for all of us.
I don’t need to be in their head in order to discuss the idea of God and religion. That is rooted instead in the brain’s capacity to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”. God is just one possible explanation for an ultimate understanding of this.
But that is not the same thing as convincing me to believe in the existence of an actual God embedded in an actual religious narrative.
Or, perhaps, you are missing my point altogether.
May be. But, in that case, it is your duty to explain my mistake in the way i explained yours.
And yet my very point is that “mistakes” may not really exist at all pertaining to what is said to be true regarding the existence of God. Instead, we are “right” or “wrong” depending on the subjective [and, culturally/historically, inter-subjective] assumptions that we make “in our heads” about God. But until you grasp this distinction – the one that I make – then, sure, we may well just go around and around in the same circles.
Imb, you need to understand a very simple fact. There is no way in which I can make you understand the existence of the God, in which way you want me to do that. That is simply impossible. The way has to be mine and you do not any intellectual right to question that way either. Yes, you can question but only the conclusion.
In that case, this [for me] becomes more an exercise in curiosity. Sure, I am intrigued by whatever your conclusion might be. But it seems that it will have almost nothing to do with the reason I am myself now interested in discussions of God and religion: in exploring the relationship between mere mortals [this side of death] and immortality and salvation [on the other side of it].
All i wanted to say that one should listen carefully and completely to the other person before making any judgment. Means, i am not an exception and also have a bias/perception just as you have. And, there is nothing wrong in that either. But, as we are having a discussion, which would be certainly influenced by our own bias/perception, thus, there is a fair chance that we may miss/misunderstand each other’s POV. And, to avoid that situation, it is necessary for both of us to put our subjective perceptions aside, when we are listening. Let us use our bias/perception only when we are making other listen.
Back to my own distinction however:
To the objective truths for which there can be no bias, no subjective points of view. Here a clear demonstration that a God does in fact exist. That is always what it comes down to for me: [u][b]Whatever the gap might be between what “I” believe is true and what I can demonstrate to others that all rational men and women must believe is true as well[/u][/b].
I start with the assumption that we can only exchange subjective points of view derived [at least in part] from the limitations of language. And logic. And definitions and deductions] in exploring them
Now, in which definition one can fit that assertion of you! You said that it is your assumption. How is it different from your perception? Are you sure about this or not? And, if you are sure, how are you different from any objectivist?
But I acknowledge right from the start that, with respect to God and religion [and objective morality], I am making certain assumptions rooted subjectively in dasein. All I ask of others then is that they demonstrate to me that their own narrative is able to transcend this and [u][b]establish[/u][/b] things as in fact true objectively as opposed to things that are [u][b]claimed[/u][/b] to be true objectively.
Well, some [myself included] have argued that, historically, in a particular place and time, a particular human community came to believe in the existence of this God. A God, the God of Moses and Abraham. And then, historically, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were derived from different renditions of what it means to believe in and to worship this God. And thus how one reacts to the verses above will be predicated on which particular denominational rendition of this God one subscribes to.
That’s what I make of them. First and foremost anyway. That is how these beliefs are rooted historically, existentially “out in the world”. Out in a particular world at a particular time.
All that was not required. I was merely asking what sense you were getting from those verses about killing the cows. That is all.
On the contrary, all of that is required from my point of view. That is why I was curious to hear how you would respond to the points I make. And to respond in the context of actual religious conflicts “out in the world” regarding an understanding of the one true God and religion. In other vwords, the way these things actually do unfold “down here” existentially. Which, it seems, is the part that you are least interested in exploring in this exchange. If I understand you correctly.
But, remember, I am not saying whether you are right or wrong in your judgment. That is a different issue altogether. I am only pointing out your certainty about anything. When it comes to judge others, you tend to discard your premise of subjectivity and become as objective as any other true objectivist may be. Here, you are forgetting that your so called first and foremost thing is nothing but exists in your head only.
Yes, you make assertions like this about me. As though in merely asserting it to be true that makes it true. As though anyone [including me] who does not necessarily share in these assumption doesn’t really understand me at all. Not as you do.
In other words [it seems], if I do not recognize myself in your assertions, it only demonstates how far I [the student] has to go in order to grasp what you [the master] know to be true.
Really, that [to me] is how, at times, you “come off” here.
Then you will assert something like this:
the fact of the matter is that, very deep down there at the root level, from where the thoughts are originated, subjectivity gives way to objectivity. Forget about the judgment, you cannot even think of anything without being objective. That is just impossible.
The very process of the thinking entails objectivity. How we use to think? We come across to any observation and tend to feel/think something about it. Later, over the time, these feelings/thoughts take the shape of perception. Right?
But what – out in the world – does that mean? From my vantage point, it is just another abstract “analysis” bursting at the seams with the circular logic of words defining and defending other words…
Thus when I note:
I will need a more persuasive argument than the one that you have provided me so far.
You note:
I have not given any yet. We are roaming only in periphery only till now.
Again, two and one half months into this exchange and [apparently] we have barely scratched the surface regarding, “the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not.”
And that [apparently] is a million miles more from establishing the actual existence of God.
You accuse me of discussing the manner in which I construe these relationships as just another manifestation of objectivism rooted in my head. And yet, unlike you, I have absolutely no hestitation in integrating/situating “dasein” and “conflicting goods” and “political economy” out in the world of actual human interactions. Pertaining to or not pertaining to God and religion.
Now, this may not seem fair to you. I may well be seen here as the one who is objectifying you. But I can only react honestly here to what you post.
Now, to what extent are you be able to transcend this yourself in our exhange here? Below you note how you don’t do this sort of thing yourself. How you “hate this kind of philosophy”.
You are forgetting that i gave to examples of my threads where i only discussed about real social issues. Please have a look to those threads before passing any judgment. The links are in my last post. And, you will also recognize that i have not taken the shield of God even once there.
Yes, like James, you have your “God and religion threads” and your “social, political and economic interaction” threads. But my point is precisely that you refuse to connect them. As though a philosophical/theological discussion of God and religion really should be a million miles away from the conflicting value judgments that propel human interactions throughout history. As though that is the only rational manner in which to discuss God and religion “out in the world”. And yet to the overwhelming preponderance of mere mortals these two things could not possibly be more connected.
Instead, it seems, you wish to situate God and religion only in “the whole of philosophy”.
And then, from my point of view, if someone asks, “what in the world does that mean?”, the objectivists put on their “master” garb. In order to teach the “student” how to be as wise about these things as they are.
Make no mistake, i can tell you the ways to verify the empirical existence of the God/supernatural on your own, but odds are in the favor of that you would not be able to do that. You need evidence in the front of your eyes right now but that is not possible.
In other words, only when I finally grasp [as you do] the fundamental philosophical premises regarding “the issue [of] whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not” is there any chance I will understand in turn the difference between a mother loving her child and a pregnant woman aborting the child instead.
I am simply not “ready” for that part yet. The irony again being that, over the years, any number of objectivists embracing any number of Gods and any number of secular ideologies [Reason] have pointed that out to me. And then when I point out there are hundreds and hundreds of conflicting [even contradictory] renditions of this, they still insist that only their own rendition is the one true objective reality.
Either that or only their own intellectual/philosophical/spiritual path is the one that takes us there. And that just brings me back to this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Why can’t/don’t/won’t you at least nudge me in the direction of how you link your existential views on homosexuality and and your views on God and philosophy
See, that is the precisely the problem. You just asked me give my views about homosexuality, philosophy and the God too in a same breath! Then, you complain that i am not focussed enought. Is it practically possible to discuss all those three in a single thread?
imb, choose one subject of your liking and stick to that, if you want to go in the deatils.
And yet on our other thread, you have had plenty of opportunity to do just that. But have you? Instead [to me] it’s basically been more of the same: abstraction, theorizing, defining, deducing — epistemology, the jargon of scholastic intellectuals. The standard objectivist argument: only when, as serious philosophers, we have come to agree on the manner in which serious philosophers must discuss these things conceptually, theoretically, academically, intellectually, etc., can we then bring the world of actual human interactions into it.
And yet again, ironically, my point is to focus instead precisely on the limitations of philosophy [language, logic etc] in examining these relationships.
Please, though, do pick a topic there and let’s do this.
In fact, as I noted above:
You suggest instead that we can focus more on that over at the other thread. Okay, I’ll wait and see what you have to say there. But, again, for me, identity, values, ethics, philosophy, religion, God etc., are either integrated “out in the world” through our arguments here or they are not. It just doesn’t make much sense [to me] to say “first one, than the other”.
But, it makes a perfect sense to me. Why we make so many different books to teach different subjects to our children? Provoding them a thick book containing all would be enough. And, why we appoint different teachers for different subjects?
And yet if moral/political/religious objectivists were in fact able to provide us with the most rational argument [path] in which to examine/resolve the issues in these blooks we could at least differentiate [objectively] those books [teachers] who were educating the children in the most reasonable manner. And thus providing them with the most reasonable manner in which to comport themselves “out in the world” when actual behaviors [and actual consequences] were involved.
For instance, books/sources of information relating to capital punishment. As rational men and women, how should we teach our children to think about that?
But then this:
But that can still only be reflected from [or condensed down into] a particular point of view. Google capital punishment: google.com/search?sourceid= … punishment
Thousands upon thousands of particular sites you can go to dispensing thousands upon thousands of particular points of view rooted in thousands upon thousands of particular historical, cultural and experientiental contexts.
And, in the end, we are still left with conflicting goods that no philosophical argument that I have ever come across is able to resolve. Instead, folks embrace a particular set of assumptions and take their existential/political leaps. Just like you and I do.
And: with or without God.
So: one’s “best option”. How far removed is that from the “objective truth”? And how is this factored into one’s belief in God and religion?
Having different opinion is not a problem. On the contrary, it is good thing because that shows that the society is intellectually still awaken and chopping and churning is going on. Ultimate Objectivity is as much a process as a goal. We do not know how far we are. The more important thing to keep moving in that direction always.
But out in the real world men and women will either be or not be executed depending on which opinions the legal/political authorities subscribe to. What could possibly be more “the problem” if you or someone you love is now sitting on death row? Or if you or someone you love lost a loved one who was killed by someone sitting on death row?
And how is this related then to your own particular belief in your own particular God? And what happens when another man or woman has their own particular belief in their own partiuclar God that is not in sync with yours on this issue?
And, going all the way back to the “iron age”, what constitutes “progress” here? How is that not rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and [with respect to the law] political economy?
But, sure, here too one can insert a “so what?” And then argue that theoretically the one objective truth does exist and some day we will find it. With or without God
Yes.
Yes, theoretically.
But then most moral objectivists are quick to add that when they finally do find it, it will coincide precisely with what they think is true right now.
That may be or not may be true. What anyone think is true or may be proved true one day, is on the table to discuss. Everyone else has the right to question that.
Sure. And everyone has the right to insist that, what they now believe is true “in their head”, is also true objectively for all of us. As long as we all agree on the gap between that and actually proving it objectively.
Just as, when God finally does choose to reveal Himself, it will be their God.
If anyone can prove that in such a way that others can see that too, other would have to concede, whether they like it or not.
I will certainly do that. Would you not?
Sure. But here you have no intention of doing so. Instead, the sole focus of your argument is to demonstrate “whether something exists beyond our limit of physical approach or not.”
And if I then ask “what on earth does that mean?”, I am missing the whole point of this exchange.