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.