Either as noun or as a verb, one is willing to situate their own sense of God and religion out in the particular world that they live in or they are not.
How do you imagine that Chopra would react to the points that I raise here?
How does he connect the dots between behaviors that he chooses here and now, his understanding of God and his imagined fate on the other side of the grave?
Or would he too just bring the discussion back up into the stratosphere of, among other things, psychologisms?
In other words, this sort of thing:
Okay, you think this. Sincerely, genuinely. And in thinking this it evokes a subjunctive frame of mind [a mental dispostion] in which you can embed “I” so as to anchor your sense of reality in something that effectively obviates the manner in which folks like me construe an essentially absurd and meaningless world that culminates [for each particular “I”] in oblivion.
This works for you. It does not work for me. Though, sure, maybe that might change.
Again, this is wholly abstract. Just one more “general description” of human interaction that you are able to believe is true “in your head”. Thus your own objectivist font of choice here is a God that brings salvation to all.
I won’t ask you what this means pertaining to the thrust of this thread because you obviously have no intention of going there.
It’s all about what you are able to convince yourself is true about God because in believing this it gives you considerably more peace of mind than anything that I am able to [here and now] fathom.
Unless of course you’re right.