on discussing god and religion

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.

Ierrellus »

Evidently, there is that need for many. That belief satisfies many ~~ one might say that it satisfies the human psyche ~~they find great spiritual comfort and hopefully growth in it.

We can’t really know, either way, if the God of many is personal and purposeful. Even an impersonal God perhaps might be quite purposeful. I don’t think that evolution has to discount a designing God. (I use the term God here loosely defined).

But you are also correct. There is no need to believe in a God who is not personal and purposeful TO YOU.

As they say, to each his own.

I agree. For me God is evident in the creative evolution of DNA. For me, that is both personal and purposeful. For me evolution seen as blind, random determinism is too bleak to give my life meaning.

Perhaps the leap of faith is the recognition that the bleak nihilistic arguments can’t possibly be correct… In spite of the fact that there is no ‘demonstration’ or argument which all reasonable men and women are obligated to accept.

I agree, Phyllo. But I would suggest that DNA construction of organisms portrays a determinism that could be considered teleological by a number of rational individuals. That might also be seen as “impersonal” purpose as in the notion of God being the designer who creates then abandons the creation.
Questions raised that are more important to me than whether or not I deserve some sort of afterlife are
Is biological determinism purposeful and personal?
What gives my life a sense of meaning?

You.

Yes, but what of her soul? Tell me that God and religion don’t revolve fundamentally around the particular context in which her soul resides here and now on the other side of the grave. Depending of course [for the overwhelming preponderance of religionists down through the ages] on how God judged her behaviors on this side of it.

I created this thread in order to explore that existentially.

But, sure:

Only to the extent we are actually able to probe and to ponder these things at the juncture between reason and faith. That crucial intersection where what we are able to communicate [demonstrate] as a belief gives way to that which we want to believe is true but are unable to communicate [demonstrate] beyond that which it comforts and consoles us to believe.

I treat Christian fundamentalists no different from any others on this thread. I ask them to demonstrate to me that what they believe is that which all reasonable men and women ought to believe in turn. Otherwise it all must come back to faith – to existential leaps and wagers.

Besides, if I understand your own leap of faith, whether someone’s behavior [on this side of the grave] either creates or prevents wars on humans and nature, they are still welcomed into God’s Kingdom.

And this necessitates human interactions here and now as you imagine they ought to be “in your head”. But you never bring this down out of the “general description” clouds and situate the behaviors “out in the world”.

And I keep bringing this up not to belittle you, but to goad you into thinking through your own frame of mind such that you may well be able to reconfigure your argument into something that allows me to reconfigure my own. To, in other words, stave off both my own dilemma and oblivion.

Note to others:

Is this or is this not basically a “general description” frame of mind that comforts him to believe in but which has almost no specificity when “for all practical purposes”, we imagine ourselves acting it out in our social, political and economic interactions with others?

What then does it mean to embody an “ecological morality”?

Sure, I can well understand how/why any particular mere mortal might take a “leap of faith” to this point of view.

It’s something after all.

Better that then to be entangled in my own moral dilemma while gaping down into the abyss that is oblivion.

But, again, with so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – is that enough?

Yes, for some. No, for others.

And all we can do here is to ponder the gaps between what we believe because we want to believe it and what we believe because it can be demonstrated [epistemologically for example] to be true.

Perhaps.

But you need to bring this down to earth. You need to explore actual human interactions in which there are conflicting assessments of behaviors deemed to be either correct or incorrect.

As that relates [on this thread] to God and religion; as that relates [on this thread] to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave.

Also, how reasonable or unreasonable are particular behaviors if it is assumed that No God is the answer?

Meaning here is derived in large part from how we define the actual words used in our arguments. But when the arguments come to revolve around the is/ought world [with or without God] which meaning reflects the optimal [or the only] rational frame of mind.

Is a nihilistic frame of mind [in a No God world] reasonable here?

Let’s discuss it.

I. You. We. Them.

But: to what extent is meaning here embodied either in existential contraptions or in essential truths?

In what particular context seen from what particular point of view?

And, when meaning comes to revolve more around value judgments and conflicting goods [with or without God], do things shift closer to dasein or to VO?

Out in the world of actual human interactions for example.

Read Aldous Huxley’s “Island” for illustration of ecological morality. The concept is that we take care of the business of this planet, here and now, with the business being concern for the ultimate destiny of man. We do not waste our energy on concepts of pie in the sky heavens and eternal tortures in hell. Instead we place our faith in the essential goodness of humans, which is the nature that God will reclaim and which is the solution to problems of war and the wholesale destruction of our planet.
You don’t appear to read my posts. I’ve explained ecological morality as meaning provided by belonging to ecosystems in which one has the ultimate responsibility for holding together the integrity of the systems. This would include taking care of ourselves of others and of the planet. This is about hands on practical considerations, not some “vain philosophy”. The conflicting goods theory underestimates what the Dalai Lama describes as the innate goodness of humans. There would be no conflicting goods without the spurious concept of dearth (ACIM)–belief that there just isn’t enough of necessities to go around.

All I can do here is to point out yet again the enormous gap between this “general description” of human interaction and the actual behaviors that you choose from day to day in order to be in sync with that which you maintain reflects the “essential goodness” of human beings. And how this is grappled with, in turn, in the context of God and religion.

The part that [in my view] you simply refuse to take “out of your head” here. Why? Because as long as it is sustained there is the extent to which you are able to embody some measure of equanimity, equillibrium…comfort, consolation…peace of mind.

And I suppose that [at times] I react as I do – snarkily, snidely – because I want this too. Yet it remains far out of reach. So I take it out on those who are [in my view] able to delude themselves. And some all the way to the grave.

Well, if that is in fact what is really unfolding here. On the other hand, who among us can wholly, fully grasp that which motivates us to think and to feel as we do about these things?

That is all hopelessly entangled in dasein.

Unless of course I’m wrong.

Yes, I get this all the time from the objectivists – God or No God. If I did read their posts, I would finally understand what they are trying to explain to me:

A bit abstract though wouldn’t you say?

As, perhaps, it must be?

When we get right down to it, there are so many complex genetic/memetic variables involved in beliefs of this sort, we can only offer one or another “sheer speculation” like this one.

On the other hand, my own wanting to believe in an afterlife really doesn’t seem all that complex at all.

Simply put, there are pleasures in my life that I dread the thought of losing. And, not the least of which, for all of eterrnity. And as long as the pleasures outweigh the pain oblivion is something that I want to avoid for as long as I possibly can.

All the rest seems to pale in comparison.

In other words, you can focus the beam here on the relationship between nothingness on the other side of the grave and the meaning we give to somethingness on this side of it. Many argue that if death equals oblivion then meaning on this side of the grave can never be understood as anything other than an infinitesimally fleeting existential component of an essentially absurd and meaningless world.

What I focus on instead is the fact that, whatever meaning we might ascribe to somethingness on this side of the grave, it doesn’t make the things that we love to do “here and now” any less fulfilling. From steamy sex and a scrumptious meal to amazing music and a great film, there are so many things that we can pursue on this side of the grave able to fulfil us in extraordinary ways.

It is all of this that death takes away from us.

Or so it certainly seems to me.

There is nothing abstract about faith in the innate goodness of human beings (Albert Schweitzer, Anne Frank, the Dalai Lama, et., al.) or the conviction that an ecosystem does not tolerate a we vs them outlook on life. We humans are all interrelated and therefore interconnected in that we all share a common humanity. Thus each of us needs a hands on commitment for saving the planet, which is our common home. This serious business should take precedence in our thoughts over some selfish worry about afterlife preparations.

No, and there is nothing abstract about the moral and political convictions of all those historical/contemporary figures who embraced/embrace an “ecosystem” entirely at odds with theirs. They all may embrace the idea that The Good can be known/lived. But 5 will get you 10 it’s their take on it.

That you are able to create a moral “vision” “in your head” which transcends “I”, “we” and “them”, doesn’t make the “ecosystems” that are utterly at odds with your own [regarding any particular set of behaviors in any particular context] go away.

In other words, when you bring a “general description” such as this out into the world, it grapples with the ever conflicting religious, political, ideological, and deontological assessments that involve actual flesh and blood human beings grappling with actual existential conflicts that are anything but “in their heads”.

You believe this. Of that I have no doubt. And, to believe this, is comforting and consoling. Of that I have no doubt.

But what on earth does it have to do with the things that we are confronted with each and every day on the news?

Your frame of mind is akin [to me] to Rodney King’s “can we all just get along?”

Sure we can. But, on whose terms?