on discussing god and religion

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”.

The problem with “demonstrating” something :

You practice tennis. You challenge the number one ranked tennis player in the world and you win in straight sets.

Logically, you must have been a good tennis player before the match otherwise you would not have won.

Therefore, it must be possible to be good at something without demonstrating it.

So there is being good and knowing that you are good and people knowing that you are good and people acknowledging that you are good. There are at least four different ideas there.

That’s the paradox, isn’t it? The more science is able to astonish us by exposing just how extraordinary the world around us really is, the more it seems to make sense [for some] that a mindless “nature” could not have created all of it “on its own”.

So that becomes the “proof” for the existence of at least one or another God.

But even had the Inquisition given way to a partnership between science and religion, neither faction would be able to shelve the parts that most preoccupy me on this thread.

And that is because neither science nor religion have a definitive answer to the question “how ought one to live?”

Instead, the “cults of imagination” still prevail regarding our fate beyond the grave.

And neither religion nor science are able to adequately tackle that other burning question. The one that revolves around theodicy.

Or, as I noted recently in a quote from Charles Darwin…

“It is difficult to believe in the dreadful but quiet war lurking just below the serene facade of nature.”

And our own species in particular has come to embody those truly ghastly battles that pertain precisely to the existence of God.

I started to read what you were saying and then realized: I know this one already, it’s something I said a while back.

oh well. that’s how things turn out some times. the slow kid in the group was paying attention to other things and then winds up saying stuff that’s already been said. Odd phenomenon.

perhaps someone should look into it.

Iambiguous, you continue to be a jerk, because of your ideology that ignores any evidence to the contrary.

I have stated on several occasions that the answer to ethics is to make suicide as easy as possible for all beings and then have nobody do it … It definitionally logically entails!!!

That’s called a SCIENCE of ethics with no conflicting goods!

You know, the same shit your hypocritical ass uses to type posts!!!’ Definitions, logical entailment attempts!!!

The perfect response to your entire world view is to never respond to you, because you define every post of yours as not a post!!!

But people keep taking the bait… Assuming “he can’t be THAT stupid or disingenuous”. And always, they are proven wrong!!

But she is still the one making that assessment! And from my point of view that assessment is then rooted in dasein. In other words, if she was assessing whether or not she was in fact pregnant, old or young, there are ways to determine this objectively. She either is or is not pregnant. But how, as she gets older, is she able to assess objectively whether she has gotten better at identifying whether in the eyes of God aborting the baby is either right or wrong?

How, as we get older pertaining to the world of is/ought, are we not just taking subjective leaps of faith to one point of view or another?

To wit:

Because those who embrace a pro-life frame of mind insist that one only “improves” their assessment/evaluation of abortion when they come to think as they do. The same regarding the pro-choice folks.

But to assess whether one is pregnant and then chooses either to abort the baby or to give birth, is [in most cases] able to be ascertained objectively. We don’t need God to tell is if someone is pregnant, or if someone does choose to give birth to the baby.

It only gets tricky here if someone is pregnant, induces an abortion to kill the baby, but tells no one about it. Here there is an objective truth but sans God it is a truth known only by the woman herself.

So, if abortion is illegal where she lives, she gets away with it. But, with God, there is no such escape, right? Why on earth do you suppose we need to invent Gods here?

Up until the bus hits you, you were either able to demonstrate to others that your skills had improved or you were not. But again this is often rooted in subjective frames of mind. A professional musician may be able to tell if you had improved whereas one with no background or education in music may not.

Then we get into those squabbles about whether it can proven that the music of Philip Glass is better than the music of Justin Bieber. Now, surely, it can be demonstrated that the music of Philip Glass is more sophisticated than the music of Justin Bieber. But how do we then demonstrate definitively that rational folks are obligated to prefer the music of Philip Glass?

It’s that distinction between noting the ingredients of a chocolate milkshake are different from the ingredients of a strawberry shortcake, and making the claim that the chocolate milkshake tastes better than strawberry shortcake.

Says who?

No, I am suggesting that with respect to a belief in God [on this thread] there are conflicting arguments regarding that which constitutes wise behaviors on this side of the grave and that which constitutes a wise assessment of one’s fate on the other side of the grave.

Then I ask folks like you to assess this as it relates to your own behaviors.

Which then brings us back to this:

[b]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”.[/b]

We are “stuck” in other words.

What is the context? If several people are discussing the relationship between abortion and God, how would we go about determining who is biased, who has the correct understanding of it, who is just bullshitting us?

To understand whether someone is just bullshitting us you would need to be privy to his intention and motivation. You would have to either be inside his head at the time or know him well enough to tell that he is just bullshitting us.

Right?

Refresh my memory please. If someone chooses to attack a woman, beat her and steal her purse, he may well be able to rationalize it by insisting that, in a Godless universe, right and wrong revolves entirely around that which he perceives as “self-gratification”. He shifts his concern then from “is it okay to do this” to “how do I make sure I am not caught doing this”.

So, where is the philosophical argument able to demonstrate that this frame of mind is necessarily irrational in a Godless universe. Again, that’s why the gods need to be invented!

God sees all, knows all. God embodies Divine Justice. And, so, the parts before and after the grave are always covered.

Well, I could point out all of the times in the past when I had insisted that others could not talk be out of any number of objectivist frames of mind – and then did – but I’m sure you’d just scoff at it.

Basically, you’re saying that there is no way to analyze somebody’s logic or the way he has presented his argument. You’re saying that a person can’t be wrong in the way that he thinks.

Ignore particular contexts for the moment. You’re saying that there is no way to improve in any sense when it comes to identity and value judgements.

The musician is the one who is in a position to judge your ability. A scientist is able to judge the merit of a scientific theory or experiment and not some dimwit in the street. What’s astonishing about that?

Anyways, you missed the main point … you have the skill even if you don’t demonstrate it. Logically that must be true.

Which brings into question your insistence on demonstration.

No we don’t. You’re just bringing that up to muddy the waters. It’s an entirely different discussion.

I’m talking about the nature of wisdom and you go off on a tangent about God.

What it comes down to is : You’re saying that it’s impossible to be wise. Not it those exact words but you’re meaning is clear.

Again you get lost in details.

No. That’s complete nonsense.

In conflict over what though? In what particular context?

In other words, what particular behaviors do the “struggles” revolve around?

Crucially, objectivists almost always reject democracy precisely because when you are certain that you are right, it would be foolish to allow others the opportunity to vote in that which you know to be wrong.

A crimp however can revolve around those who choose democracy only because they are convinced that once they are voted in democratically, they will be able to persuade everyone that they and they alone are in fact necessarily rational and virtuous. Then the others will choose to become “one of us” too.

Meanwhile the real world revolves instead around the nihilism embedded in those who own and operate the global economy.

The fact is that many in power at the time did believe what Hitler believed about the Jews. And they acted on that belief. The rest as they say is history.

Of course knowing precisely when a belief does become a rationalization entails knowing precisely how “psychological defense mechanisms” function to contain and then to sustain “I” for “the naked ape”.

And I merely note but one possible rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Of course noting this relieves you of all responsibility for actually naming the particular biases that you have ousted with respect to a particular conflicting good. Next no doubt you will just dismiss me altogether and vow not to continue any further exchanges.

Okay, but how does this make my point any less true. Basically, what you are arguing is this:

1] when I was younger I once believed this about that
2] as I got older, however, new experiences prompted me to believe something else instead
3] but what I believe now is such that any further new experiences will not change my mind

So, you “improve” to the point where the “real you” is no longer able to improve further because what you believe now reflects the optimal frame of mind.

Not counting of course the part above where you “don’t know” because “it’s not your decision” and “it’s not under your control”.

What could possibly be of more concern to any mere mortal then his or her fate for the rest of all eternity?!!

If that’s not the fucking forest in the context of “all there is” what is then? Is it the fact that we “don’t know” because “it’s not our decision” and is “beyond our control”?

And it is the objectivists who insist that [with or without God] all rational and virtuous men and women are required – obligated – to climb up into their tree.

No, I’m pointing out the limits of logic when confronted with conflicting goods that are derived by and large from subjective/subjunctive assessments of the world around us. But even here only as this relates to value judgments.

Reasonable arguments can be made to defend abortion. Reasonable arguments can be made to defend the right of the unborn to live.

What then is the logical thing to do here?

And is it possible for men and women to derive conclusions here that entirely obviate the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?

If so, I’d like to hear some. I’d like to hear yours. But – when push comes to shove and the rubber meets the road – you “don’t know”. It’s “beyond your control”. It’s “not your decision to make”.

I’m just trying to grasp how that might play out in your head if you were ever confronted with an actual context in which an abortion was in fact being considered and you were confronted with conflicting value judgments?

As I was above with John and Mary.

Me, I am entangled in my dilemma. How, then, are individual objectivists that I come across not entangled in it. Or less entangled.

All I can do here is to ask, right?

Sure, if you ignore actual existential contexts, actual abortions, you can construct an argument regarding the relationship between identity and value judgments that is, well, flawless. You merely insist that the manner in which you define the meaning of the words in the argument is the starting point for any discussion. And then you make sure that the words are defended only by more words still.

You know, like Satyr does here:

[b]"Judgment is the appreciation of the ideal, in relation to the real, or within the world.
It determines orientation and the path chosen.

Consequences, follow this choice and are the costs/benefits exposing the judgment’s quality.

Consequence is the outcome of the application of a judgment. If survived it forces an adjustment, unless it is protected from its own errors, in which case the costs are postponed, until they accumulate into an unavoidable reckoning." [/b]

And then when I ask him to defend this particular point as it might be applicable to a particular abortion, he…demurs? He merely eschews God altogether by reconfiguring Him into Nature.

Okay, but what musician [or scientist] is able to establish definitively that the music of Philip Glass is better than the music of Justin Bieber. That all rational men and women are obligated to prefer Glass over Bieber.

Or Mozart over Glass?

Objectivists of Ayn Rand’s ilk will actually attempt to establish “intellectually” how folk music or jazz are inferior to the sort of stuff that they listen to.

Again, I’m just trying to suggest that there are limits to logic when the discussion shifts from those things that can be assessed reasonably, to those things that are considerably more a matter of “taste”.

Huh? This thread was created in order to discuss the existential relationship between that which is construed to be “wise behaviors” on this side of the grave, and that which [through one’s belief in one or another God/religion] is construed to be “wise” as this pertains to one’s assessment of immortality and salvation.

How on earth can one believe in God and not make that attempt to connect the dots between before and after one dies?

No, I’m suggesting that with respect to mathematics, the laws of nature, the logical rules of language etc., wisdom seems to be embedded objectively in the world of either/or. That there are things able to be reasonably demonstrated as true for all of us.

Here the only problematic component is the extent to which it can be determined [demonstrated] that a God, the God, my God is behind all of it.

But, regarding the existential nature of identity, values and political power – the relationship between them out in any particular world – what can be determined [demonstrated] to be true objectively for all of us?

Bullshit: “talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.”

How [in any particular context] would this not revolve around the bullshitter’s motivation and intention? And how would we be able to grasp this unless we were privy to his motivation and intention?

Or if we know him well enough to reasonably ascertain that he is just bullshitting us?

You seem to think that by asking questions, you are making an argument. You’re not.

Okay, then this is my argument:

Why do you behave as you do on this side of the grave? Is how you choose to behave embedded in the manner in which existentially you have come to understand the world around you? Do you believe in God? If so, how is your belief in God related to the manner in which you choose particular behaviors here and now? How is this related to the manner in which you construe the meaning of immortality, salvation and divine justice?

Now, your answers – I don’t know, it’s not for me to decide, it’s beyond my control – are really not all that far removed from my own.

So, let’s explore this, okay?

Funny. Your argument consists entirely of questions.

And they say that you don’t have a sense of humor. :smiley:

Is one side of the grave different than the other in terms of how we act? Do we actually have much of a choice in it at certain points? Will this diatribe of a conversation of foolish responses continue forever?

Stay tuned, children, tomorrow is another day and it never comes and today is a long day as yesterday fades. Tune your radios and wrestle your rabbit-ear TV antennas; amateur hour at the philosophy club has begun. Let’s see these philosophers in their natural habitat: cheetoh-fingered and gorged with life and their supposed thoughts of it, what do they do when it throws them a curveball? forces them to the flat of their backs against the metaphorical wall? What do they do when the storms overcome them and they go under? We’ll never have the answers to these questions by asking them and they’re unimportant to the current conversation. Or, are they?

The difference being that I respond this way when asked about the afterlife and certain characteristics and actions of God. You don’t even know and you can’t decide about basic human interactions on Earth.

I think that I can know and I can decide about human interactions in some reasonable sense. And at least some characteristics of God can be determined from the nature of life on Earth.

If the descriptions of the afterlife are vague and contradictory, then why would I spend huge amounts of time thinking and talking and worrying about it? :-k

Why would I organize my life around one particular cherry picked version of the afterlife? :-k

I was merely substantiating your accusation. Mere mortals [with or without God] ask questions. Why then do particular individuals ask the ones that they do? And why do particular individuals answer these questions as they do and not in some other way?

How is that relevant to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

Like you, in the end, I really don’t know. And the answers are almost certainly [in many crucial respects] beyond my control; and involve factors which circumscribe [circumvent] my capacity to decide.

But then, existentially, out in the world with others, I tumble over into my dilemma.

And [again] all I can do in places like this is to probe the extent to which others are able to yank themselves up out of that particular hole; and then are able to come closer to believing “in their head” that there is an objective morality…one that is connected [no less in their head] to religion. And God.

I wonder: How do they accomplish this in such a way that I do not describe as either a political prejudice or as a psychological defense mechanism.

You’re lost in details. If science was as concerned with details as you are, then it would not be possible to discover anything.

I know some things and not others while you don’t seem to know anything. That’s the critical difference.

You like to talk. And talk is mostly in your head. Therefore you make no ‘progress’. :smiley:

More abstract talk in your head. :evilfun:

Basic interactions of course revolve around that which all of us share in common:

1] the capacity to subsist from day to day, i.e. having access to food, water, shelter
2] the capacity to defend ourselves from those who might wish to do us harm

And then as a species we must embody the capacity to reproduce ourselves.

And yet even here there are conflicting moral and political narratives regarding the best way in which to attain [and then to sustain] this.

Right?

And this would seem to be true for both atheists and theists.

Now, if I’m asked how to go about this, I become entangled in my dilemma. And I certainly don’t argue that there is in fact an optimal social, political and economic agenda that those who are in sync with an objective understanding of human morality are able to embody. In other words, by way of one or another deontological contraption.

Yet somehow “in your head” you argue that this objectivity is “out there” somewhere. You can’t pin it down pertaining to any actual conflicting goods, but it’s enough to believe that it does in fact exist. Even though you don’t know what it is, it’s beyond your control and it’s not for you to decide.

Yet somehow or another it will all come together on one or another rendition of Judgment Day and you will either make the cut or you won’t. Again, that’s not for you to decide and it is beyond your control. You just don’t know.

So, when I bring you down to earth and try to intertwine these “general descriptions” of human interaction as they pertain to actual conflicted human behaviors you offer us…

…this:

Is it even possible to be more abstract and ambiguous and vague?!

And the bottom line of course is that every idealist [and objectivist] that has ever come down the historical pike – ecclesiastic or secular – says exactly the very same thing!!

After all, short of actually demonstrating that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel and to behave as “one of us”, what else is there?

They say that the devil is in the details. And it certainly seems reasonable to ponder the extent to which God takes into account the details of our lives. What actually does matter to Him and what doesn’t?

Here, check this out: thequotelab.com/blog/the-ori … he-details

After all, all I can do is keep pointing out the obvious — that the only thing at stake here is our [u][b]immortality[/u][/b] and [u][b]salvation[/u][/b].

What are you arguing, that the broader and vaguer and more ambiguous we are about God, the closer we come to…to what exactly?

As for science, I suspect that the relationship between the very, very big and the very, very small is of fundamental importance. After all, what is knowledge of one without knowledge of the other?

Besides, scientists [most of them] are preoccupied with the world of either/or. They leave that is/ought stuff to, among others, the theologians and the philosophers.

Well, and the politicians of course.