on discussing god and religion

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.

“Reasonable to ponder”??
There is no reliable information about that. You might as well ponder Star Wars.

“Immortality and salvation” is your obsession. It might not be at stake.

For all your talk of nihilism, you sound more like an American fundie than anything else.

I’m arguing that some things can be known and some things can’t be known, at least at this time.

You can’t seem to make that distinction. You lump all things ‘God’ into the fabricated intellectual contraption category.

But you don’t know anything about science, even on a basic level. It’s all Discovery Channel stuff for you - pretty pictures signifying nothing.

You accept the assumptions of science without question and therefore it appears to be objective. If you did not accept them, then you would be enveloped in the dasein of science. Everything would depend on context and it would not be understandable by analysis. You would have the same sort of dilemma that you have with respect to identity and value judgements.

One set of assumptions moves you forward and another set holds you back. :-k

Again, from my frame of mind, you are missing the whole point of religion.

Think about it:

Is it “reasonable to ponder” what happens to us after we die? Is it “reasonable to ponder” the fate of “I” for all of eternity?

Clearly it would seem to be. And then folks have come along over the course of human history and created any number of Gods in order to answer those questions.

Isn’t that the fundamental truth about the rise of religion?

And once God becomes a part of the narrative [on this side of the grave], it seems entirely reasonable to me that the dots must be connected between the behaviors that we choose here and now and our fate there and then.

And with so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – how on earth could a loving, just and merciful God [as most are described] put us in the position such that we “don’t know” how to behave in the world here and now; a world in which, in any event, such things are beyond our control and are not even really for us to decide. Huh?

Also, whatever that means “for all practical purposes” as it relates to a moral agenda from day to day to day.

Why on earth do you suppose that most Scriptures become quite detailed in differentiating between vice and virtue, between the saint and the sinner?

And while you speculate that “immortality and salvation” may well not be at stake here, I suspect that, among religionists, you are surely in the distinct minority.

Actually, the Discovery Channel is now the Car Channel. You mean the Science Channel.

And, yes, my technical understanding of science more or less revolves around it. I don’t deny it.

So, all I can do then is to invite folks who are much more sophisticated in grappling with the world of either/or here; to bring their facts and figures into a thread like this one and to speculate in turn on the manner in which science and religion are compatible.
The science of morality? The science of God?

What say you about that?

Well, after consulting with James S. Saint of course. :wink:

No, I recognize that with respect to the really, really big questions – why something and not nothing? why this something and not some other something? what is the nature of “mind”? do we have free will? how do we explain the part before the Big Bang? etc. – the assumptions of scientists are just more sophisticated speculations. But is science really just around the corner from explaining – ontologically, teleologically – the very nature of Existence, of Reality itself?

Of factoring in “the whole truth” about God here?

And what scientist has ever really satisfactorily grappled with Hume’s speculation about correlation and cause and effect?

Again, all I can do here is to note the distinction I make between believing that something is true “in your head” and demonstrating that it is the obligation of all rational men and women to believe it too.

Science begets engineers, engineers beget technology and technology begets trips to the moon and computers and the internet. All apparently ensconced in the interactions of an either/or world.

Well, assuming of course that all of this is not just a dream some Cartesean demon is having; or we are all not just interacting in a simulated world far, far, far beyond our comprehension.

Or, sure, it’s all the will of God.

Perhaps even your God, right?

You can ponder it the same way that you can ponder ‘Star Wars’. I involves recognizing that ‘Star Wars’ is a work of fiction. Pondering what happens after you die based on what is written in the Bible requires recognizing that there are no other confirmations of that particular story and it may well be fiction.

On the other hand, there are parts of the Bible which are testable. You can’t know if Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine, but you can try his recommendation that you forgive your brother. Does it work for you personally and does it work for society as a whole?
That’s not fiction. That’s workable or not workable, right or wrong stuff.

And if Jesus was right about it, then he had a better understanding or people and the world (God’s creations) than those around him.

On the one hand, you treat all religion as fiction.

And on the other hand, you treat this discussion/pondering as the most important discussion in the world. #-o

If you separated the testable/verifiable part of religion from the un-testable/un-verifiable, then you could have a productive and entertaining discussions. There would be one discussion about suggested behaviors and another discussion about the mythology.

Sure, you have details of vice/virtue and saint/sinner … which are then buried in alleged rewards and punishments in a mythical afterlife.
Even Jesus was not clear about what happens in the afterlife. What he is clear about, is that a follower of Jesus (a Christian) is happy in this life. The ‘reward’ comes before you die.

If you look at surveys of religious opinions, you don’t see that kind of emphasis. If you look at small communities and congregations, you don’t see that kind of emphasis.

Admittedly ‘dasein’ may be skewing my opinions since I come into contact with more Catholics and other religions than Protestants. I did live next door to two fundie families. O:)

In the Great White North, we have the Discovery Channel and Discovery Science. I guess they rebranded it in the USA.

And people try to do that until you turn it into a discussion of immortality and salvation. :imp:

Another try .
Christian religion say that God created an ordered universe which humans can understand and are allowed to use. That prompts scientists to try to understand and describe the physical laws that God has created. That understanding is then used to created technology which alters our society for the better … presumably in sync with the morality proposed by Jesus.

It doesn’t seem incompatible at all. :-k

That’s some kind of analysis of ethics founded in psychology and sociology. Right?

That’s physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc … the study of the physical world as God has created it.

Why would I have to consult with James?

Some of those questions are being studied.
Some of those questions are unanswerable at this time, some may never be answerable and some are irrelevant for all practical purposes.

I think the question of ‘free will’ is completely irrelevant. :evilfun:

Okay, you will never have THE WHOLE TRUTH. People are limited. Live with it.

It seems that it’s possible to pursue science in spite of Hume. :smiley: