Yes, we are all ensconced existentially in a particular set of circumstances “here and now” pertaining to the manner in which we pursue philosophy. Or to the manner in which we have or have not had experiences with God and religion.
But if we come into a philosophy venue and argue that, in fact, we have had an experience that led us to believe in the existence of a God, the God, My God, we are still able either to demonstrate that this experience provides evidence that would obligate others to believe in the existence of this God [and His “scriptured” morality], or we are not.
Nothing changes there, right?
No, I keep asking people to connect the dots between the “world of words” that they subscribe to “in their heads”, and the world that we actually live in; such that the words they use in discussing their belief in God can be connected to something empirical, material, phenomenal, “out in the world” that we live in.
As an experience.
A world in which behaviors often come into conflict precisely because the words we use to embrace one particular God [or moral/political narrative/agenda] come into conflict with the words [and then deeds] of others.
Thus words here are always going to be only more or less “adequate” in performing this particular task, aren’t they?
Sure, if this is the way in which you construe our exchange. But an argument “in your head” regarding God and religion is either wholly in sync with the way in which the world is “in reality”, or it’s not. And you are either able to demonstrate that it is or you are not.
And then the next time you come upon a context in which your own moral values are at odds with the values of others, you can either successfully intertwine your belief about God – the one “in your head” – in the conflict to resolve it or you can’t.
And I agree that may well be the case. In fact, over and over again I note that my arguments here are just existential contraptions. No less so than others. In other words that, subjectively/subjunctively, I have manage to talk myself into believing that this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…is true. That it is reasonable to think this.
As this pertains to the manner in which I explore the question “how ought one to live?” as this pertains in turn to delving into the relationship between the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave and [re God and religion] the matter of immortality and salvation on the other side of it.
But then when I point out how this is also applicable to you, we are back to this:
[b]
Then we are back again to square one. Or, rather, to my square one.
This one: The gap between that which you have come existentially to believe is true in your head [here and now] regarding God and religion, and the ability to actually demonstrate why essentially all reasonable/rational men and women ought to believe the same.
Let alone how you would then connect that frame of mind to the frame of mind that revolves around particular moral and political issues you opine about in the government and society forum.[/b]
But now once again you are “moving on”.