on discussing god and religion

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?

We can’t help but be self-centered, yet it’s been painted across the board as wrong and immoral. If not for being self-centered, what would we be? What could we be other than centered within our selves, forever looking out while trying to look in at times; most of the time, a good amount of us just seeking to retain a center balance and not be taken on unnecessary rides outward or inward. Is it wrong to consider ourselves first, to work toward considering others first at times? Is it wrong to selfishly wish to just live our lives and not concern ourselves with others problems? We interact often enough with others throughout our lives, is it always supposed to be the extremes that society has painted; that even here you both are seeming at odds for being kept from the knowledge that would enable the bridging of the gaps between your two seemingly different viewpoints, each bringing out various points to consider in seeming conversational format with aggressive language developed to make it an argument and fight that neither of you dare to lose or back down from.

Is it wrong that we, while considering all of these things, find ourselves in motion beyond the explaining and analyzing, having found our feet once, find ourselves having to find them again and again, still never saying what we want to say, still never arguing exactly how we want to argue or what we want to argue along the lines that we’re stuck at.

Is it wrong that while living our lives, we go from moralistic reasons for doing things to immoral and even those that try to just be free, try to live outside those lines, wind up falling into the intellectual aspect of still having to work to get away with what they can, often never what they want, wanting justification for hard work that is never to be respected, never caring about society, but caring about how it effects them, expecting it to cater to them, forever wanting to get things exactly as they want, not wanting to accept satisfaction, true satisfaction as being dissatisfied most of the time and having to make do.

I think, at the core, what we find is that most of us are at odds with a few out of the infinite multitude; a few being a few on that scale and still the minority but threaten the majority, convince us we’re outnumbered, set us at odds against each other and keep expecting us to fight along the same old tired lines and frequencies while we hunger and thirst for something new, something fresh, something beyond what we’re doing and where we’re at and not knowing what.

Is this thread really about God and Religion and how at odds we are with how they’ve painted the picture? Or, is it really about trying to reach through the veil of the idiocies we find ourselves speaking, what we think is important breaking through, but never what we truly find important, what we feel we have to argue through to our satisfaction, but there is no satisfaction in chasing lines that are forever slated and cemented to be recursive and circular; that we find whatever we do, however we argue, whatever reasoning we use, never enough for the few who would want to force their reasoning on us all that defies all emotion, all logic, all emotional logic, all rationality and even irrationality and demand that we respect them, cater to them; be the first to ‘capitulate’ and say please to get them to stop raping us. That they force their way through in no form toward anything that verifies their reasoning and rationality, yet throw down and are entirely found to be in synch with it beyond where even the two of you and so many others, myself included, are struggling to find footing in the mess that they made.

What importance is there is any conversation of a God, the God, or religion at all when it comes down to so much idle intellectual curiosity that inhibits our ability to live our lives, to interact with others freely, denied so much conversation that could be instead, if not for their manic drive to forever keep us at war or fuck up whatever peace we might have.

Ultimately, I find myself being insane as Hell for how rational and reasonable I sound. It’s not always me and not always what I’m capable of being. That both of you and so many others are caught up in the mind at time, fighting against me and what is right and whether you know it’s not you or not, it’s hard to fight against and hard to want to fight against because it’s not just me you fight against when they roll you up as the legion, but against the very tenets of life that you would otherwise live, keeping you from understanding your own selves, your own flesh, and I only mention this because both of you are still not fresh as you appear in the mental theater I’m presented; that like me, are hurting in ways that are kept from you, hurting badly beyond so much shit. That I’m not as fresh as I appear in typing this. That for your own reasons as the dark stain continues to spread as we struggle and strive to rise above it; rising above becomes an impossibility for how we are all hammered and slammed by the same insecurity and inadequacy issuing few.

We only become more committed to fighting to the death, since it’s all we can do, whether we want to or not, become all the more committed and resolved to commit even murder in the mind against the things that slam us day after day.

And, if I’m saying this and it doesnt apply to ‘us’ as the majority and to you two as I think, then just blow it off. If it does apply at least upon base lines of reaching our selfishness to just want to live our lives, love freely, have the same base wants of sex, experience, food, interacting by getting back to the days where we could hang out without having to worry about saying the wrong thing and setting off a hellstorm; back to the days where we it didn’t matter what we believed or how we believed it and in the concept of adapting without adapting, having that blend with it having to matter what we believe and how we believe it. That if you’re like me where you face the constant scrutiny of everything you’re doing being wrong, that things continually slam you even in the midst of arguing things you know to be at least on the right path to being more right as you’ve seemingly been doing in this thread, maybe we can find some semblance of group support at least to knock down the mutual enemies of the majority of time and space and take them down notch by notch.

I have tried to be clear regarding the creation of this thread.

1]

Going back to the caves [no doubt] God and religion factor into human interactions. In part because our brain is hard-wired through the evolution of life on earth to be “self-conscious”. We have the capacity to connect the dots between “in my head” and “out in the world”. And in a manner that far and away exceeds the capacity of any other creature on this planet.

Though, indeed, there may be creatures on other planets that far and away exceed us.

This involves first and foremost a capacity to think up The Big Questions: Why something and not nothing at all? Why this something and not another something instead?

Clearly the existence a God, the God, my God is one possible explanation.

2]

Any particular individual will believe in God, not believe in God or be uncertain. And this is clearly rooted existentially in many, many vast and varied historical, cultural and experiential contexts. Also, any particular individual will interact with others of her kind or not interact with others of her kind. The vast majority of us do. And, as a result of this, our interactions precipitate conflicts that revolve around one or another set of behaviors that revolve around one or another set of values. With or without God. In turn, all of us will die. And that precipitates thoughts and feelings [in any particular individual] regarding our fate on the other side.

This thread was created in order for those individuals who do believe in God to discuss the manner in which they intertwine their behaviors on this side of the grave as that relates to the manner in which they have come to imagine their fate on the other side.

In other words, these narratives will [hopefully] be as far removed from “intellectual contraptions” as it is possible to convey in a forum such as this.

How do the “conflicting assessments” get “out of their heads” and become “actual existential conflicts”?

The conflicts are clashes of “intellectual contraptions” … so the idea that they are conflicts is itself an intellectual contraption. IOW, the “actual existential conflict” is actually only another idea “in your head”.

If it is not just “in your head” then what is the reasoning that justifies that it is not “in your head”? Where is the dividing line? What makes it “real”? What makes it “more real” than “general descriptions” … “more real” than any other thoughts?

Iamb,
If I could make my spiritual experiences palpable, could package them and send them to you, I would. It doesn’t work that way. If you are unwilling to do the necessary work to obtain spiritual enlightenment your and my conversation will remain dialogue in our heads. Same for me. But I’m here to tell you that a God more moral than rewarder and punisher cares for you, that evidence of this God’s existence is within you, that you can have your own spiritual awakenings. The necessary work is on belief and faith.

As I noted to Some Guy above…

[b]This thread was created in order for those individuals who do believe in God to discuss the manner in which they intertwine their behaviors on this side of the grave as that relates to the manner in which they have come to imagine their fate on the other side.

In other words, these narratives will [hopefully] be as far removed from “intellectual contraptions” as it is possible to convey in a forum such as this.[/b]

But you don’t want to go there, do you? Instead, of late, you pop up on the thread from time to time only in order to focus the beam on, well, other things.

Technical things.

Okay, sure, I can go there too.

Well, many folks study philosophy and theology in order to come up with a way – the best way – in which to answer questions like this: “How ought one to live?”

Perhaps because they have already been involved in a moral or political conflict and felt uncertainty; or because they come across them “in the news”.

Sure, they had been indoctrinated as children [with or without God] to view these conflagrations as conflicts between “one of us” and “one of them”. But now they want to “study up on it”. Explore what all the great minds have had to say about “ethics” and “politics” over the centuries.

And then sooner or later the manner in which they have come to assess these things in “intellectual contraptions” are going to bump into the conflicting “intellectual contraptions” of others. Only not up in the clouds but down here on the ground.

Then what?

That is what I aim to explore. Again, with or without God.

Indeed, how, with or without God, does that change things?

That’s why I always insist that we explore “general descriptions” such as this “out in the world” of actual human interactions.

It’s just that on this thread we should aim to connect the dots between what seems “real” to us in our head and how this “reality” fares when confronted with another who insist that, on the contrary, “reality” is something else.

And then connect these dots to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave; and then to the behaviors that we anticipate on the other side of it.