on discussing god and religion

There’s fault to be assigned?

If fault is emotionally loaded for you then consider the word error.

The word “error” doesn’t seem to fit either. In what way is an explanation of a spiritual experience to one who has never had such an experience in error? If you tell a child not to play in the street because he may get hit by a car, does it matter that the child has never been hit by a car?

If you have a rebellious child who refuses to listen, then you are error.

That’s way too simplistic.

Right. There is a way to understand all of these things [including God and religion] and the folks around you [being reasonable] understand them as you do.

They know that there is a God and that morality is objective.

I’m the only one who just doesn’t “get it”.

That seems to be your argument.

Tequila:

Tequila is a regional specific name for a distilled beverage made from the blue agave plant, primarily in the area surrounding the city of Tequila, 65 km northwest of Guadalajara, and in the highlands of the central western Mexican state of Jalisco.

Now, out in the world that we live in, does tequila exist? You know, objectively? And, if John takes a swig from a bottle, is it possible to determine if it was tequila that he drank. Objectively, for example?

God:

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Now, out in the world that we live in, does God exist? You know, objectively? And, if John attends a religious service in a Jewish synagogue, is it possible to determine if the congregation worships and adores the God? Objectively, for example?

That is the distinction that I make. I’m still in the dark regarding the one that you make.

Come on, what does this really have to do with establishing that tequila does in fact exist in a world where tequila does in fact exist?

How is it really the same thing as someone who is a Jew, trying to convince someone who is a Catholic or a Protestant or a Moslem or a Hindu or a Shinto or a Sikh or a Baha’i or a Buddhist etc., that they [and they alone] believe in the one true Creator?

In fact the one thing they all share in common is that they have no capacity [that I have ever come across] to move beyond faith and to demonstrate the actual existence of their God. Not beyond the circularity derived from arguing that God must exists because the Scriptures say so and that the Scriptures must be true because it is the word of God.

Why? Because when we get to the end of any particular religious narrative there is still nothing there but the narrative itself.

And that’s your dead-end, not mine.

After all, my own narrative ends with “I” falling over into the abyss for all eternity.

And, thus, in my opinion, your narrative is bascially just a soothing psychological contraption that allows you to convince yourself that this is not true at all.

It is comforting and consoling in a way that my own grim conjectures can never be.

So, okay, in that really, really crucial respect, you win. Hell, I’ve never denied that.

All this reveals is how little you know me. I have spent many, many years immersed in the exploration of God and religion. And these experiences [over and over and over and over again] encompassed considerably more than just intellectual exercises.

And no matter how many times I acknowledge that the personal experiences of others are no less credible than my own, you refuse to accept this as a starting point regarding my own views on these relationships. The irony being that my entire frame of mind here revolves precisely around the existential parameters of dasein. Our perspectives on God and religion are clearly derived in large part from our own subjective/subjunctive interactions with others – historically, culturally, experientially.

I merely note that in a philosophy venue the focus will invariably be on those things that do transcend that which we merely think or believe or know “in our head”; and, instead, aims to explore that which either can be demonstrated empirically and phenomenally or that which we can encompass logically such that all reasonable men and women are obligated to think and to believe and to know what we do.

And then, on this thread, I am curious as to how all of that is then related to morality on this side of the grave and immortality on the other side of it.

In other words, what, existentially, God and religion are almost always all about.

And, if an atheist subscribes to the immutable laws of matter as applicable to mind, how is that not in turn but “a leap of faith”?

Of course a neuroscientist exploring the mechanics of human choice through fMRI technology might be either a theist or an atheist.

And there have always been ways to rationalize both frames of mind.

It just comes down to whether or not it is finally resolved before each of us one by one falls over into the abyss.

And it’s not like we have a choice there, right?

It is simplistic to expect another to change but it is far from simplistic to change our own approach when we are in error.

From my perspective, this ever and always revolves around the extent to which [regarding God and religion] one is able to demonstrate that another is in error. As opposed to merely pointing out that “in our heads” we think that we know different [or conflicting] things about them.

Bullshit.

There is clearly an important distinction to be made between having a perspetive on God and religion and arguing the only thing that is real about God and religion is what you think about them.

If God and religion are only and always what you think they are “in your head”, what would even be the point of coming into a forum like this and exchanging your views with others? After all, would not the exchanges themselves be just one more manifestation [embodiment] of solipsism?

No, instead it makes considerably more sense to speculate that your own particular perspective on God and religion will come in large part from the life that you have lived — your indoctrination as a child, the cumulative experiences that you had, all of the information and knowledge you happened upon.

And then speculating on how, had all of that been different, your frame of mind would be different in turn.

And then asking yourself to what extent the theologian or the philosopher is able to take all of that into account and then to demonstrate that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

This being a forum for discussing God and religion in a philosophy venue.

This is the idea that a person is a blank slate that is (almost) entirely written by his experiences. He is born without any predisposition or innate characteristics.

Yet scientific studies show that young children show an interest and belief in god even when they have never been exposed to ideas about god.

Other studies show that even very young children have a concept of fairness.

So the ‘blank slate’ theory seems to be incorrect.

Exactly true; “Your reality”, My reality, …" … Relativity.

That is why Faust stated that All Atheists Should Shut Up.

That applies to literally ALL thoughts that you have concerning anything … even that thought that you have of there being a difference.

The notion of God came from children to begin with … as did everything else.

Freud believed the concept of God came from children because they had parents. The concept of fairness seems to have evolutionary origins, i.e., it is beneficial for a family of organisms. In any event “One must become as a child” to comprehend these concepts and interpret them in spiritual ways.

What I grapple with here is the extent to which these particular variables play an important role in assessing why we either do or do not believe in God; and, if we do, why we believe in one particular God rather than another; and, if one rather than another, the existential implications of this pertaining to the behaviors that we choose; and, if one rather than another, the manner in which we connect the dots between those behaviors on this side of the grave and our imagined fate on the other side.

In other words, the parts that you basically refuse to explore substantively at all.

Or so it seems to me.

And, then: the extent to which history, culture and personal experiences inform our frame of mind here.

And, finally: the extent to which philosophers and theologians are then able to take that into account in offering assessments that others can react to as more or less rational.

I suspect this: that, sooner or later, most of us will reach a point in our life when we begin to ponder why anything exists at all; and why it exists as it does and not in some other way; and what our fate might possibly be after we now longer exists on this side of the grave at all.

Sure, God is one possible explanation.

As for a “concept of fairness”, yes, we do seem to be hard-wired by the evolution of life on earth to take that into account in our interactions with others.

All I am suggesting is that with respect to behaviors that come into conflict over value judgments, we explore that concept existentially as it pertains to what may or may not be “fair” with regard to issues like abortion or capital punishment or animal rights or social and economic justice.

As this either does or does not relate to our views on God and religion.

Again, you choose the issue and we can explore this more in depth.

Faust’s point revolves around solipsism? But what if the solipsists are wrong? What if our thoughts and our feelings about God and religion precipitate actual behaviors that precipitate actual consequences that have an actual impact on other flesh and blood human beings out in a particular world construed by each of us from a particular point of view?

What then, James?

Come on, there are thoughts that we have about, say, the Catholic faith that either are or are not in sync with that which can be demonstrated to be true.

Facts about it that are true for all of us.

But to the extent that we believe “in our head” that the Catholic faith reflects what is in fact in sync with whatever the essential reality of a God/the God is…well, this is the part that clearly seems more in sync with the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

Would you care to go there, James? Or, yet again, will you just “pop out” of the thread as you have in the past?

Indeed, is there even a single solitary theologian, philosopher or scientist around who can answer this question?

This is surely one of those queries that revolves fundamentally around this:

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

I mean, who would have ever thunk it that Donald Rumsfeld would capture our “predicament” here so succinctly?

And I suspect those who “swear to God” the answer that they give comes closest are really just intent [content] to come up with something [anything] in which to anchor “I” too.

Probably you, right? :wink:

As opposed to…

1] prove that something exists beyond the physical
2] prove that that which does exist beyond the physical is a manifestation of God
3] prove that this God is the creator of souls
4] prove that souls exist
5] prove that your soul is a manifestation of the one true God

Or [for some] is all of this more or less reduced down to how you define God into “existence”?

In other words, if this appears to be rational to you then “to you” it is rational. It is what you believe. And, in believing that this is true, you will act it out in choosing particular behaviors.

In other words: blah blah blah blah.

And, sure, there was once a time when I was more or less able to embrace this rationalization myself. I assumed that what I believed about religion and God “in my head” was as far as it need go.

And, even in a philosophy venue, this may well be as far as you need to go if, in any particular exchange, it is just understood that you don’t have to actually demonstrate that your assumptions about God and religion are in sync with your assumptions about the existential nature of actual flesh and blood human interactions out in any particular world.

As for “conspiring” with people who understand God and religion as you do, that’s the part where you make that distinction between “one of us” and “one of them”.

And you do all of this “up in the clouds” of “analysis”. And, up there, you can only ever be wrong “technically”.

In other words, “techically” your God does exist. If only by definition. If only tautologically.

If only “in your head”.

Well said. Really well said in my opinion.

And isn’t this basically where we all get…stuck? The more we try to grapple with “All There Is” using the tools of either science or philosophy the more entangled in the imponderable we seem to become.

Who knows, perhaps the human brain is simply not sophisticated enough to actually figure this out.

We just can’t seem to come up with a language able to encompass the part where some argue that the Big Bang came out of nothing at all. And perhaps we will never have the language [the logic] able to encompass the “somethingness” that came after.

And that’s before we get to the part about the multi-verse. An alleged infinite number of universes co-existing in an infinite number of dimensions?

That’s why most religious denominations steer clear of these seemingly imponderable “metaphysical” questions. Instead, they tend to zero in on the stuff that I seek to explore here on this thread:

How ought we to live on this side of the grave in order that we might maximize our chances of attaining immortality and salvation on the other side of it?

On the other hand, is this more or less comprehendible?