on discussing god and religion

It’s a “problem” only to the extent you ignore the distinction I make between those things that you do believe “in your head” and those things that you either are or are not able to demonstrate to others are, in fact, reasonable to believe.

What is it reasonable to believe about your own spiritual narrative? Insofar as the discussion revolves around the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave and that which you anticipate your fate to be on the other side of it.

But you won’t go there will you?

Or even risk an exchange with me that explores the reasons why.

And I’ve been there believe me. I know what is at stake in the way of comfort and consolation.

It seems you are missing the point that rational people will espouse both your religious narrative and mine. I do not have to go anywhere to have reasonable people agree with my take on the matter. Anything either of us attempts to demonstrate to some other rational person comes from our separate subjective selves. Objectivity among the myriad personal viewpoints amounts to consensus of agreement. Subjectivity is the hard problem, not only for those who would attempt to define consciousness, but for whoever would attempt to describe any metaphysical concept.

No, my point is that espousing [believing] a narrative is one thing, demonstrating how/why it is a frame of mind that all reasonable men and women are obligated to espouse [believe] another thing altogether.

For example, one can provide a narrative encompassing the history of Christianity. There are historical facts about it that one is more or less able to demonstrate as true. All reasonable men and women would seem obligated to believe this or that about it. Why? Because there are events that can be more or less established.

Instead, I shift the discussion [on this thread] to examining the narratives of those who do accept the Christian faith. And I ask them to embody that belief in/by/through connecting the dots between their behaviors on this side of the grave and their perceived fate on the other side. What here can be established such that reasonable men and women are obligated to concur?

Yes, but, again, look what is at stake here!!!

Your take [here and now] on God and religion has to eventually come to grips with the reality of death. Something will happen to us after we die. And the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks insist that all revolves around one or another rendition of Judgment Day.

You don’t believe that. But you offer absolutely no substantive reasons why others ought not to believe that too.

You merely point out that you have managed to “think” your way into believing this. And, in having done so, you are able to sustain a measure of psychological comfort and consolation.

Basically you are arguing that whatever your particular “subjective self” has manged to come up with is all that matters. If it “works” to bring you some measure of equanimity, you’re clearly better off.

And you won’t get any argument about that from me.

All I can do is to note this:

That until you are willing to intertwine a “general description” argument of this sort into an examination of actual human behaviors “out in the world” – a world where there are countless conflicting religious and secular narratives – you are content to just accept that what you believe “in your head” need be as far as you go.

That works for you. For all practical purposes.

Okay, but in a philosophy venue?

On this thread however the focus would be more on closing the gap between what you believe about the soul and that which you are actually able to demonstrate to others is something that they ought to believe about it as well.

As for Judgment Day, here the aim is to discuss the changes in your life experientially. As more or less existential contraptions. As they prompt you to behave one way rather than another.

And then the extent to which the behaviors that you do choose are intertwined in a soul that either does attain immortality and salvation or does not.

I see nothing in your OP that could compel belief from a majority of rational individuals. I see instead self-centered, fear-based notions that may be considered religious, but not spiritual.
So, this is a philosophy forum. It is listed as religion and spirituality, both of which entail subjective responses. Objectivity in this arena best amounts to pragmatic considerations of the effects ones personal beliefs will have for the prospect of the amelioration of the human condition.

The OP revolved around an exchange I was having with zinnat. He had his own rendition of God. And he was intent on showing me that a belief in God was within the reach of the philosopher.

And, after he was able to establish that, then we would explore the parts that most interested me.

But: He has his rendition of this, I have mine.

And my aim is always to explore the limitations of rational thought in examining these interactions. In other words, with respect to either religion or morality, I always focus an exchange on the extent to which we may well be afforded only leaps of faith.

But one thing that seems clearly reasonable to me is that religious narratives revolve first and foremost around the manner in which any particular one of us connects the dots in our head between the behaviors that we choose here and now, a particular belief in God and religion and how the two together precipitate a frame of mind regarding our imagined fate “beyond the grave”.

And then [this being a philosophy venue] the extent to which we are able to translate that which we believe into an argument [with evidence] that will allow others to share what we believe.

As opposed to, say, a discussion of these things in church or around the campfire or in a bar or at the family dinner table.

To which you note:

Another “general description” prescription. And yet the bottom line remains the same: that there are any number of conflicting and contradictory “personal beliefs” rooted in any number of conflicting and contradictory moral/political narratives aimed at ameliorating the human condition…

…but only if everyone goes about doing this in the right way.

Your way. Or his way or her way or our way or their way.

And with or without God.

But that’s where I come in. My aim is to explore these conflicting value judgments from the perspective of dasein.

Again, with or without God.

It’s just that, with you, things could not possibly be rosier. Why? Because no matter what we do on this side of the grave God will embrace us on the other side of it.

And this is true because you believe that this is true.

And that comforts and consoles you.

End of story. Your story.

And that’s always the bottom line.

But only here and only now.

What we can discuss intersubjectively, with the prospect of mutual understanding, are synonymous qualia at the roots of shared, personal experience. My concepts of God may not be to your liking. Are anyone’s? While claiming to search for rational concepts discussing god, you seem to align with the irrational notions of an omnipotent deity who loses human souls to a powerful adversary. Of course a philosopher can have a belief in God. Spinoza comes to mind.

If one cannot see human evolution as personal and purposeful. a god that is compassionate and empathetic would appear as a “rosy” myth. Centuries of saints would be liars. There would be no cause for ecological morality beyond admitting to the threat of possible human extinction.

I have been trying to explain the problem of how to communicate the felt reality of personal experience to those who have not had that experience and admit to no prospect of having it. It is difficult to communicate with anyone who thinks there is some objective shade of truth in a belief shared by a number of rational individuals, who believes an experience is all in the head and holds that these experiences are isolate, customized-- hence invalid;
I claim that belief held by a majority of rational individuals is not necessarily validated by numbers;
that anyone who tries can have similar personal experiences to those I have had;
and that God is greater in personal and purposeful power than the God of rewards and punishments.

All I can do here is to note yet again the distinction between what a Catholic might claim to believe about the existence of the Catholic Church, and what she might claim to believe about the existence of the Catholic God.

There are aspects of religion able to be confirmed as “true objectively for all of us”. And there are aspects embedded only in a subjective/subjunctive frame of mind embedded existentially in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.

On this thread though, I point out the obvious: that subjective beliefs prompt folks to behave in conflicting ways. And that the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks insist that God will judge these behaviors. In other words, that immortality and salvation itself are at stake. With or without the Devil.

Existentially, you have managed to believe in something that consoles and comforts you. And that’s the part that is at stake if you begin to doubt it.

Trust me: I’ve been there.

You claim this frame of mind is rooted in personal experiences, but you have been unable to make this clear to me.

And Spinoza managed much the same.

But: What does Spinoza manage today?

If anything at all?

Okay, translate that into a point of view that is relevant to the thrust of this thread.

Personal and purposeful evolutions precipitate behaviors that have collided mightily over and over and over and over again throughout the entire length and breadth of human history.

And all of these folks are dead. As will all of us be.

Still, “in your head”, “here and now” all of that almost unimaginably horrific human pain and suffering is somehow compatible with a compassionate and empathetic God. And your “ecological morality” is still no less embedded existentially [historically] in actual flesh and blood human beings who by and large were hell bent on yanking all the rest of them in the general direction of their own narrative, their own moral and political agenda.

Not much “rosy” in all that.

Or, rather, not for me.

Again, I am still no closer to really understanding the manner in which you were able to reconfigure your own personal experiences into your own personal rendition of God. If only “in your head”.

Nor in how you reconcile that with all of the other folks whose own personal experiences were reconfigured into very – sometimes very, very, very – different renditions of God.

I am fairly certain of this though:

1] we all die
2] there either is or there is not a God
3] if there be this God, He either will or will not be compatible with any particular rendition of the God, my God
4] if there be the God, my God, He either will or will not judge the behaviors that I chose on this side of the grave

And that “here and now” I have no way in which to determine the extent to which there may or may not be a teleological component embedded in human existence…in my existence.

Other then by way of taking a “leap of faith”, or by placing a “wager”.

Thus all I can do is to explore the narratives of folks like you in places like this.

See if something or other might actually “stick” this time.

If you doubt the teleology embedded in your personal evolution, you will have no reference to a God without or within. Still, it troubles me that you would demand some sort of proof from those whose beliefs you would not respect in the first place. I will not present, again, the prime reasons for my religious convictions and have them flippantly dismissed as “in my head”. You are not likely to get the responses you want from any spiritual person here. Neither Kierkegaard nor Pascal seem to have impressed anything on you except for existential doubt with its unending denials.

Think about that…

How would any one particular teleology embodied in any one particular human being be measured against a universe that is vast beyond the capacity of any of us to even grasp? And in what may well be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of additional universes.

Really, what does it mean for you and I to discuss the “soul”, the “spiritual” substance of any one particular “I” given the mind-boggling enormity of “all there is”?

Sure, your own rendition of God and religion here may well encompass the actual [b]Reality[/b] of it.

Let’s just say that I am considerably less convinced of that. Or, in turn, regarding my very own narrative “here and now”. It’s a “wild ass guess” to say the least.

Instead, I focus on the extent to which a belief like yours is considerably more compatible with that which one might want to believe [emotionally, psychologically] about their fate. Either before or after the grave.

Bottom line: Only you know just how wide the gap is between what you believe about all this and what you are able even to convince yourself is in fact the way it actually is.

Again, I don’t doubt either your honesty or your sincerity. And I respect the extent to which you make an effort to probe this beyond the surficial arguments we get from so many other believers here.

But: Psychological defense mechanisms are by definition constructed [and not just consciously] so as to minimize the discomfort that we feel in contemplating “what it all means”.

God and religion are by far the narrative of choice here. One that I once embraced wholeheartedly myself.

How could one not respect actual proof that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist? There are, after all, any number of folks like me, folks getting closer and closer to the abyss, who long for nothing more than to be shown such proof.

If God does exist then my moral dilemma is thumped. If God does exist I may well be able to convince Him to let me in.

Without God, I’m stuck with living in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningless world, hopelessly embedded in an agonizing dilemma morally and politically and eyeball to eyeball with oblivion.

Trust me: Convince me and I will respect it.

Look, until your reasons are seen by me as reasons that I should embrace myself, you are asking me, well, what exactly are you asking me – to accept that what you believe “in your head” is as far as we need take this exchange in a philosophy venue?

And I am far more concerned with what folks like Kierkegaard and Pascal may or may not be able to convey to me when I too am on the other side of the grave.

And I would be most curious indeed if those here who do respect either one of them might be willing to speculate on the manner in which either man would have discussed the whole point behind this thread.

You know the one.

You just won’t go there.

At least not in the manner in which I construe the meaning of that.

There is no need to believe in a God who is not personal and purposeful.
Now for Pascal–
He presents an either/or wager.
That is not freedom of choice which excludes–
Neither/nor, or excludes
The freedom not to chose, or is without
Freedom from coercion from the option of hell thought of as eternal torture i.e. what fool would not choose belief in God if hell is the only other available option. It’s a silly wager based on fear.
Oblivion is preferable.

More to the point [mine] there seems to be no need at all here other than to believe that this is true. You do believe that it is true. So [for you] that makes it true.

It comforts and consoles you.

As for the rest of us, well, we’re on our own.

Sure, that need be all there is to it. You behave in accordance with what you believe. Others behave in conflicting ways for the same reason. Clashes occur and throughout human history pain and suffering abounds.

So be it.

After all, in the end, you believe that God offers immortality and salvation for all. And for whatever reason He may choose.

And, again, in believing it, that makes it true.

For you.

Not quite solipsistic, but, for all practical purposes, with respect to your soul, it might just as well be.

Also, I have nothing in the way of a belief to comfort and console me.

First of all, if God is omniscient, any wager made by any one of us would have already been known by God. Why? Because according to most accounts of Him, He is all-knowing.

Is He omniscient? Well, from your frame of mind [as I understand it], it depends solely on what you are able to convince yourself to believe is true about this.

If it comforts and consoles you to believe 1] that God is omniscient and 2] that we still have free will, then it’s true.

For you.

And you can bring what you believe is true in your head about these things and exchange it with others who believe that different things are true in their head.

And nothing really has to be demonstrated as true in any substantive and substantial manner. Empirically, for example.

And Pascal is now either at one with the Kingdom of Heaven or he is not. Depending on what you believe is true.

And that’s all that counts according to you.

You know, if I understand you.

You appear to be playing mind games. All we can offer each other are our own ideas, our personal takes on any matter. Your doubt is no less personal than is my certainty. Being personal does not make an idea wrong. As for offering proof of spiritual concepts, I think Kierkegaard got it right. Reason, which is the stuff of proof, balks before an abyss of unknowing. It takes a leap of faith to acquire spiritual certainty.
Pascal was going to heaven when he made his wager. He did not have to wait until after death to go anywhere.
"Instead of going to heaven at last,
I’m going all along.-- " Emily Dickenson

We are both human. Neither of us is an isolated or totally separated entity. If, in some sense we two are one, we can exchange ideas.
I have only one way of judging ideas. I ask whether or not an idea can lead to expressions of compassion and empathy, especially if the ideas are about religion. The ideas should be about our kinship and what we owe to each other. Ideas of reward or punishment in some afterlife have not prevented man’s inhumanity to man.

That’s, well, absurd. Do you honestly believe that the technology we use to exchange these ideas came into existence as a result of the “personal takes” of particular individuals regarding an understanding of the laws of nature necessary to bring this technology into existence?

There are any number of things embedded in human interactions that occur only because all of us must be in sync with the objective reality of the world around us.

The only time this is questioned is when the discussion shifts to solipsism or sim worlds or demonic dreams or undertstandings of the world that go all the way out to the very end/edge of our ontological understanding of “existence” itself.

Either we all agree that what counts here is the extent to which our beliefs about God and religion can be shared by all rational men and women or, sure, anything goes.

If what you believe comforts and consoles you, then that need be as far as defending it to others goes.

And that clearly works for you. As it once clearly worked for me.

So you have attained [and sustained] considerably more peace of mind than I have.

Just stop there then. Assume that, with respect to keeping your eye on the prise, you have.

But that’s my point. To the extent that what we believe is embedded largely in our personal experiences, our personal relationships, our personal encounters with particular sources of information and knolwedge, is the extent to which others may well have entirely different narratives.

Then all I can do is to go back to this:

Pointing out that with so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – it is beyond my understanding how or why a loving, just and merciful God – the God, my God – would not make it entirely clear which behaviors are and are not Sins on this side of the grave.

What you believe of course is that none of that really matters at all anyway because God will welcome all into His Kingdom.

So that, again, the rest of us are on our own.

If you actually equate a “leap of faith” with “certainty”, there’s not much I can say to change your mind. From my frame of mind that sort of thing is embedded more in the mysteries of mind, in our emotional and psychological reactions to things that we cannot pin down with reason. And I’ll be the first to acknowledge just how profoundly enigmatic it all is. Sure, maybe even spiritual.

So, what are you equating now? Are you suggesting that Pascal “in the moment of the wager itself” is on par with Pascal for all of eternity to come?

But isn’t this basically my aim here in turn. To suggest that to the extent that you can comfort and console yourself “in the moment” “here and now” is the whole point of these leaps and wagers.

I’m still far, far, far, far more interested in knowing if she thinks that now.

Rather than in wishing with all my heart that I could think it now too.

Emily Dickenson is dead. Unless you buy some anecdotal folklore, you’d realize the dead do not speak to us.
Anyway, there seems to be no way of steering your thought away from Christian fundamentalist ideas;
Which is a shame since good minds are needed to help prevent the wars on humans and on Nature that fundamentalism supports.
Ecological morality is not based on rosy, ephemeral, self-centered ideas; it is here and now concern for the future of the planet, for the possibility of survival for our children and grandchildren.
Methinks your thoughts are wedged between the me of the fundies and the we of the spiritual. Or at least this thread tends to go that way. You have not said what your real values are.