on discussing god and religion

Sure, we can turn it into a Tonight Show comedy monologue, but there really are some rather serious implications to God coming out of the closet.

Right?

For example, I can check with Him about you and you can check with Him about me.

And [of late] I’ve become increasingly more curious about the part after the grave.

On the other hand [admittedly] do I really want to know? :wink:

Yeah, I said there were “serious implications” to God letting you know that He’s there watching you 24/7. All of them basically negative.

From His point of view or from mine?

You’re the expert on your own point of view and I don’t pretend to speak for God.

But my point of view relating to God and religion is rooted in dasein. And I don’t pretend to be an expert on that. I merely situate the manner in which I have come to understand this relationship between them out in the particular world that I have lived in.

Just like you do.

Only we think about the implications of it in different ways.

And while I don’t expect you to speak for God, I shall encourage you to note the manner in which you choose the behaviors that you do on this side of the grave as this pertains to what you imagine your fate to be on the other side of the grave.

As this pertains to your own perception/conception of God and religion.

And here is where we are so far:

Me:

What “here and now” do you believe your own fate to be “beyond”? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind – the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true “in your head”? What is to be their own fate?

You:

I don’t know how many times I’m supposed to say “I don’t know”, “It’s not my decision”, “It’s not under my control” .

Fair enough. But if and when that ever changes please let me know. After all, it might precipitate the changes that I am searching for to reconfigure my own grim perspective.

:laughing: You’re hilarious.

Dude, you don’t want to change. You want to talk about your life. You want to talk about your ideas about “philosophy”. You want to rationalize the decisions that you made during your life. You want to kill some time.

Well, it is almost certainly true that, from time to time, even I don’t know when I am being ironic. But, no doubt, you would be the expert on that.

You are, aren’t you? :wink:

This might be true, but I doubt it. On the other hand, with the Grim Reaper more or less right around the corner, one is often propelled [even compelled] to take these things sertiously.

Still, I’m not inside your head and you’re not inside mine.

And that’s about as stuck as two people can get.

I don’t have to be inside your head … I evaluate based on your posts. You avoid any sort of resolution or movement from your basic position. Even if you had a very strong position, arguments/circumstances would necessitate at least micro movements around/away from it. But you do not move. That’s why you keep posting the same cut-and-paste … you don’t want to change a word or even a comma.

Yeah, I know that “30 years ago you believed something completely different” so you claim that “you are ready change at any moment” if only you hear the “perfect” argument.

I don’t think that’s true any longer. But whatever… :smiley:

Making me the argument. I get that part.

So, here is where we now stand as it pertains to the actual reason that I created the thread:

Me:

What “here and now” do you believe your own fate to be “beyond”? How is this related to your current belief in God? And what of those who reject your frame of mind – the stuff that you claim to believe or know to be true “in your head”? What is to be their own fate?

You:

I don’t know how many times I’m supposed to say “I don’t know”, “It’s not my decision”, “It’s not under my control”.

Now, if that should ever change, please consider bringing the new revelations here.

Is that going to be your answer to Gib? In his latest post, he also said that you are not open to change. :wink:

What’s wrong with saying that I don’t know what is beyond? What’s wrong with saying that I don’t know what a judgement by God would be like? Or if there even is a judgement?
It seems more honest than claiming that I know all about God and the afterlife, as some people do.

If I don’t know my fate in “the beyond”, how can I possibly claim to know the fate of the people who disagree with me?

Revelations? I have learned a few things over the years. There are productive behaviors and destructive behaviors in the here and now. People are damaging their own lives. I can try to bring that to their attention but I can’t make them do anything. I’m not living their lives for them.

I’m not preaching.

What can I say…

I point out all of the many times in the past that I have changed my mind regarding God and religion. And regarding most other things relating to the world of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. But not only does this not impress you, you scoff at it.

And then I note how it is also true that for many years now, I have been entangled in my dilemma above. As this relates to the manner in which I construe the relationship between God/No God, as this relates to the relationship between morality on this side of the grave and our fate on the other side of it.

I can’t just change my mind about this because it bothers folks like you that of late I haven’t.

But here I am in places like this searching for other narratives.

Or maybe you just get hung up on my polemical bent. Or the part where I use these exchanges to entertain myself while waiting patiently for godot.

But:

Because you are not “inside my head” and really know nothing at all about my motivations and intentions here [let alone a life lived leading up to them] how would I really even begin to effectively narrow the gap between us?

Again, fair enough.

It just fascinates me how those who embody both a belief in God and a belief in objective morality, are able to describe the manner in which this all unfolds “in their head” when they reach those existential junctures where their values do come into conflict with others.

How does God and religion play a part for them “out in the world” of competing wants and needs? Of competing means and ends?

What does it mean to encompass a particular moral agenda here regarding an issue like abortion? Such that one is convinced that The Right Thing To Do is within reach, and one believes that God and religion are a factor in this.

How is this all intertwined in their head?

I always come back to this:

With so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – how could a loving, just and merciful God really leave any room for doubt?

Well, at least you have this. For me “productive” and “destructive” bahaviors are still largely embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. They are largely just “existential contraptions” rooted subjectively in the lives that we live out in a particular world viewed from a particular point of view. Out in a world where [from my frame of mind] there is no transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to place their wagers on the right God.

Or the right Reason.

All I know is the stuff you have posted here over approximately 6 years and a few of your posts at KTS.

I’m sure you have changed in past … you did not think the same things as a 5-year-old or 20-year-old, etc. I scoff at it because it’s so obviously true.

A person who learns is changing. But that person is getting better at something. He/she knows more right stuff. He/she is better able to distinguish right and wrong. He/she is better able to evaluate.
That doesn’t happen within your dasein philosophy. Your “daseiner” just changes from one intellectual contraption to another. He/she never improves.

How is that possible? Why is it only applicable to identity and value judgements? In every other human endeavor, a person who studies and practices… improves. Tennis, music, reading comprehension, etc …

It’s not the fact that you don’t change that bothers me … it’s the fact that you claim that you want help with your dilemma, but you dismiss all suggestions without much thought or effort. You don’t consider them. You don’t even temporarily go down some hypothetical path.

Yeah, that’s part of it. But think about this … maybe you don’t really want a solution to your dilemma, maybe you only want entertainment and distraction while you wait.

Maybe your dilemma is useful to you and you really want to hang on to it.

Could that be it? It would explain a lot. :-k

You have control over what you think and what you decide to do. You don’t have control over what others think and what they do.

Conflict over values is a fight to promote your values over others.

Yeah, the Nazis want to inflict their world view on me and I want to inflict my world view on them. If they succeed then I’m a slave or dead or I have to accept their view and live within it.

This is the thing… even in a very anti-Semitic society, the number of people willing to build concentration camps and extermination camps is very small.

It goes against objective morality. To make it palatable requires that some humans are dehumanized. Even after decades of propaganda, secrecy and doubt has to be maintained.

Sure, God and religion are the authority that can be used to prop up wants and needs.

Are they your own wants and needs or have they been “given” to you by some overlord? You gotta know yourself.

I think you can know yourself at least well enough to get rid of some biases.

You can’t escape your Protestant Christian roots. :smiley:

Yes, we certainly disagree about this.

The transcending font seems to be human biology produced by evolution. That would be the source of objective morality (if there is any objective morality).

One might as well demand of mathematics that it would be more ethical if 2+2=5.

The child looks upon his father with scorn, “Thou art SO immature!”.

Is one being stubborn? Or is there something missing in the foundation of one’s reasoning?
[list][size=85]aka. Does one know one’s ass from a hole in the ground?[/size][/list:u]

Perhaps, but many will go from the cradle to the grave and never once change their minds [significantly] about God. All I can do then is to note why that has not been the case with me.

I lost God in Vietnam. Existentially as it were. And for those who still believe in God, all I can do [realistically] is to ask them to speculate as to why this is a belief that all reasonable men and women might be inclined to embrace.

And then [on this thread] to probe how that belief plays a part in the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave.

Indeed, so one might surmise [from this] that as the believer gets older, she is getting better at justifying her belief in God. She is getting better at determining [evaluating] whether a behavior like aborting a human baby is [in the eyes of God] right or wrong.

And my argument is that the moral and political objectivist, embedded in one or another [religious] rendition of this…

[b]1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.
[/b]
…embraces a word like “improve” in order to solidify their conviction that their own value judgments are the right ones. This comforts and consoles them psychologically.

My point though is then this:

What happens when they bump into another who subscribes to the same argument that they use above in choosing particular values/behaviors, only to embrace values and behaviors that are entirely in conflict?

Which of their “improved” frames of mind is now more in sync with what is actually right thing to do? And how do they note the manner in which I probe these conflicts – re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – reflects a less reasonable set of assumptions?

In other words, my point of view revolves around the assumption that, with respect to playing tennis or musical accomplishment and reading comprehension, there are ways to actually test a word like “improvement”.

Similarly, a doctor is able to learn how to improve her skills when it comes to performing an abortion. But how is the ethicist evaluated in turn regarding her skills in judging the morality of doing so?

Now, if the doctor is a devout Christian, she might argue that abortion is a sin against God. She might choose not to abort on this side of the grave because she believes that such a behavior will result in her being sent to Hell on the other side of the grave.

And all she need do of course is to believe this. But what I suspect she is unable to do is to demonstrate why all other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe the same.

Again, that’s you making the assumption that this assertion is true because this is what you have come to believe is true about me.

I don’t believe it is true at all. But then we are both “stuck”.

That’s certainly true.

And please note an example of how you imagine that I might go down some hypothetical path here. I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Well, if you understood the manner in which I construe the extent to which I – “I” – can actually accomplish something like this, you might be considerably less persuaded.

With respect to the relationship between my identity, my values and my capacity to effectuate change pertaining to the political economy that we know today as Trumpworld, it is hard for me to imagine myself any more fractured and fragmented.

But [I suspect] you don’t really get that part at all.

And [in part] because you don’t want to.

Well, assuming that some measure of autonomy is a factor in human interactions, we have some control here.

But my point revolves around the extent to which as dasein there may well be any number of variables embedded in our past that clearly circumscribe [or situate] this control.

The part pertaining to historical and cultural junctures, the part pertaining to the actual sequence of experiences and relationships and points of view that we come to embody over the decades. The part entangled in nature and libido and instinct and id. That part entangled in the subconscious and the unconscious mind.

Now, with respect to the world of either/or, that matters considerably less, doesn’t it? But with respect to the world of is/ought, [as this is then manifested in the interaction of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy] we’ll just have to agree to disagree about our level of control here.

Yes, but the Nazis reject democracy [moderation, negotiation, compromise] precisely because as moral and political objectivists they have come [historically] to embody right makes might.

As such, they are able to rationalize total control over the citizenry. And that [of course] included convincing enough of them to go along with the building of concentration and extermination camps.

Now, to the extent that God and religion played a factor here, that’s still being debated. But then it can be argued [perhaps] that fascism is a kind of religion. That way they can justify what they do without having to crudely fall back on might makes right instead.

Again, you make the assumption that any particular individual can get to the bottom of this by coming up with a frame of mind that somehow transcends [obviates] the manner in which I contrue the role that dasein, conflicting goods and political economy play here.

Okay, with respect to your own value judgments as they pertain to a moral conflict we will all likely be familiar with, what particular biases have you gotten rid of?

And what happens when how you know yourself here becomes entangled in important new experiences, relationships, sources of knowledge/information. Won’t you basically just rationalize any change of mind by assuming it is necessarily an “improvement” on what you once believed before?

How is this then an adequate response to the point I raise?

Sure, some people are more “stable” than others. LOL

That’s one way to look at it. Another way is that the believer gets better at identifying his/her erroneous thinking.

But why is improvement only impossible when it comes to identity and value judgements while it remains possible for everything else?

You practice playing a musical instrument but you get hit by a bus on the way to the concert where you will demonstrate your skill. Does that mean that you never improved?

People say that there is such a thing as wisdom. That’s some kind of ability to judge/evaluate effectively. People seem to be able to detect wisdom. But you say that there is no such thing.

If you present a situation to several people and ask them to evaluate it … it seems possible to tell when some of them are biased, some of them are bullshitting and some have an understanding of it. But you’re saying that even the outright bullshitters are not wrong in any way. How can that be the case?

Well, I’m not the only one who sees it that way. You might give that some consideration.

If someone proposes discussing a “real world” example, you flood them with questions about details - "which context? which point of view? "
I tried to discuss a violent purse-snatching with you … immediately you hid in superfluous details.

You’re saying that you (the "I’ in question) can’t accomplish this task. Yet you keep asking.
What are you saying other than “you guys can’t talk me out of this, but let’s waste some time talking about it”?

I’m sure this is somehow relevant to the points being raised on this the thread, James.

Unless of course I’m wrong. :wink:

Even in a democracy, I’m in conflict with the mob - the votes make might and that makes right. I’m still involved in a struggle whether it’s against fascism or against democracy. I’ve got a better chance of effecting changes within democracy without being seriously damaged or killed.

I don’t think that “rationalizing” is it. After the concentration camps were exposed after the war, ordinary Germans did not rationalize them, they most denied their reality. Even Neo-nazis deny the holocaust instead of rationalizing it.

I think it’s possible to to make progress and improve - another thing we disagree on.

No matter what I say, you will respond by saying that I have exchanged one set of intellectual contractions for another set.

This just states that there is no possibility of improving by experience and there is no learning by experience. Again we disagree.

This “concern” for immortality, salvation, divine justice, a loving God, a merciful God … is very narrow and limited. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

What can one say that will shift you from that narrow view?

Nothing.

You won’t take your eyes off the tree.

There is “no adequate response to the point you raise”.