on discussing god and religion

Sure, given the vast and the varied circumstantial contexts in which mere mortals can find themselves in, and given the enormous complexity of human psychological states, any particular behavior chosen by any particular individual will be bursting at the seams with all manner of problematic components. And that includes our own reaction to those behaviors.

But that is basically my point. What the philosopher Simone de Beauvoir called “the ethics of ambiguity”.

In my view, the function of God and religion is to efface that ambiguity. It is to provide a subjunctive anchor — a “spiritual” foundation — so that “in our head” there is [b]something[/b] that we can aim for in order to make that crucial distinction between an essentially meaningless world that topples over into the abyss, and a righteous path that brings us closer and closer to immortality, salvation and divine justice.

And, on this thread, folks are either willing to connect these dots as that pertains to their own behaviors and their own religious faith or they’re not.

And, as well, they are willing to at least make the attempt to demonstrate why reasonable men and women are obligated to emulate the same behaviors and share the same faith, or they’re not.

However one acquires their faith in God, it seems abundantly straightforward [to me] that God [if there is a God] either judges our behaviors on this side of the grave or He does not.

And that with immortality, salvation and divine justice at stake, those of faith are surely going to grapple with the behaviors that they choose “here and now”.

This is just a thread that allows them to describe how, for all practical purposes, this “works” for them “out in the world with others”. To the best of their ability. And, given the profoundly existential nature of such attempts, it is quite the opposite of “shoehorning” the faithful into a one size fits all “stereotype”.

My own frame of mind here merely focuses on instances when, in choosing behaviors, they come into conflict with others. Conflicting religious narratives precipitating conflicting religious agendas out in a particular world where there are any number of additional secular narratives in turn.

Of course, on this side of the grave, I am entangled in my dilemma. So, how are others not entangled in it?

And, as for the other side of it, in whatever manner I behave “here and now”, I have nothing at all to comfort and console me with regard to “there and then”.

Again : any attempt to connect the dots (or however you want to describe this thread), is dismissed as “general”, “abstract”, “in your head” or “comforting and consoling”.

I don’t think that you’re giving a fair hearing and consideration to the people who do post. I think you are jumping straight to the dismissal.

But we have already agreed to disagree so no point in rehashing it.

Well, when the arguments revolve around identity and value judgments as construed by conflicted individuals out in a particular world, yes, my point is aimed in the general direction of noting the extent to which my own understanding of dasein and conflicting goods and political economy [here and now] render such exchanges “existential contraptions”.

All I can then do is to acknowledge in turn that this argument is no less an existential contraption.

Then it’s up to folks like you reacting to that and insisting it is actually something else instead. And certainly not, what, serious philosophy?

Then I react to that by pointing out the very intent of this thread is to nudge folks who do take both God and philosophy seriously into a discussion/description of their behaviors on this side of the grave such that [to the best of their ability] God and philosophy become intertwined in a particular moral narrative.

All we can do here is to react to arguments from others not in sync with our own. Of course the objectivists among us will always insist that only to the extent that you move in their own direction are you ever sincerely making any effort to move at all. Meanwhile throughout the entire course of my own life I have “moved” a bewildering number of times. Just not of late.

Still, given the nature of these exchanges [most of them], it will always come down to others deciding what my motivation and intention here really are.

Well, to the extent that most religious folks do believe in an objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality, salvation and divine justice on the other side, that is clearly something that they can lose. I know for a fact that I did.

But, okay, you are one of the exceptions. But all I can think to note then is this: that from my own ungodly bleak perspective this must be particularly comforting and consoling.

In confronting assertions [almost retorts] of this sort, I can only marvel at the mind able to make them. As though this is actually something that can be known by “mere mortals”.

That is how the universe works. That is how God works. That is how religion works. That is how morality works.

Period.

Exclamation point?

If there was an interaction between our universe and another universe, then that interaction would just be a part of our universe and anything we saw as part of that interaction would be part of our universe. That’s what “universe” means FFS. It has nothing to do with “mere mortals”.

As for determinism … I have to make exactly the same decisions based on the same information whether everything is determined or I have free will. Determinism changes nothing in the actions that I must take. It plays no role … none.

You’re right. There are clearly frames of mind about God and religion that provoke ambivalence. And, in any event, each individual reaction embodies an enormous number of profoundly problematic reactions over the years.

Again, any particular combination of historical, cultural and experiential components/variables embodied in any one particular life can precipitate an unimaginably vast number of clearly existential reactions.

Reactions that, in all likelihood, we are not able to effectively communicate to others. In other words, to those who have virtually no access to our own experiences.

Still, to the extent that someone does believe in Kant’s “transcending font” [which most call God], there is a fountainhead available to them to ultimately adjudicate conflicting goods “down here”.

And there is some measure of hope that, once toppling over into the abyss, this is not all there is for “I”. That immortality, salvation and divine justice are not beyond all hope.

And, in turn, I will readily acknowledge that, while this seems reasonable to me “here and now”, there may well be others who do not find it reasonable at all.

But then that’s what I’m here for: to be nudged back in that direction.

If I can be.

Nope, apparently not.

I think that I’ve responded to all the stuff that you rehashed.

No, my point is that my opinions about God and abortion [like your opinions about God and religion, like Kant’s and Plato’s opinions about God and abortion] are largely “existential contraptions”.

Which in the world of conflicting goods, exposes a gap between what we claim to believe about these things, and that which we are able to demonstrate to others that all reasonable [and for some virtuous] men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

From my frame of mind then, that’s what makes a discussion of God and religion in a philosophy forum distinct from a discussion that takes place around the campfire, around the dinner table, in a bar or at Bible study.

Also, for both Kant and Plato, the “transcending font” is a vital component of their moral narrative. It just comes down to the extent to which this can be differentiated from what most folks call “God” in the world today.

How do you differentiate it?

It seems that your own understanding of God is by far the one most appealing of them all. Why? Because to the extent that I understand your own understanding of Him, everyone is entitled to enter His Kingdom.

All that is necessary is that you exist.

And, over and over again, I suggest that until “mere mortals” on this infinitesimally tiny planet in this staggeringly vast universe are able to grasp the very ontological meaning/nature of Existence itself, none of us have access to “objective certainty”.

Perhaps not even God.

But: God is of fundamental importance here because without Him how do we even begin to imagine the possibility of a teleological font?

Analytic philosophy cannot fathom the ontological roots of ideas. Consequently, the veracity of ideas is a matter of their practical applications, a pragmatic approach, if you will, to truth.
It appears a bit crafty, at least, to proclaim a stereotypical set of religious beliefs as the only ones worthy of being weighed against concepts of conflicting goods, etc. But you have heard this before and can only respond that my belief in eternal salvation, which was believed by certain early Christian church fathers (Origen, for one), is not a legitimate view of God which can be accepted by many rational people.
The 21st century Christian yearns for a God who exemplifies empathy and compassion. The age is ripe for ideas of Man’s reconciliation with God. The idea of a God who rewards and punishes in some afterlife is being done away with because of the atheistic questions about the morality of God., questions worthy of anyone’s consideration.

That’s one of Iambig’s points … that God is molded to suit the desires of the people of a particular time and place. IOW, God does not transcend time and place nor does His message … He’s the product of the desire for “comfort and consolation”. People find comfort and consolation in different ways so there are many different ideas about God. For example, people concerned about ecology will see an ecological God and they will find supporting passages in the scriptures.

Of course God does not change, but ideas of what God is like have evolved. We have come a long way from believing in the tribal God who zaps our enemies. Of the “many different” concepts of what God is like, which would you say that most reasonable people will believe? I can say that God is the teleological driver of memes and genes. Would reasonable people believe that?
What humans desire is pursuit of happiness without suffering. I just opine that the stakes are a lot higher than the selfish notion of reward and punishment. They involve the future of life on this planet.

Ecological morality is not just an idea for personal consolation. As it pertains to the future of mankind and can include either theist or atheist it is a belief system that specifically can predict what happens after a person dies. The world will go on for better or for worse.
For many Buddhists heaven and hell form a dualistic belief which has no place in religious philosophies of wholes.
And, once again a god who excludes one soul from the kingdom is a loser.

Ierrellus wrote:

How can we possibly know this - since we cannot actually KNOW about God.
This is what you would call a sentiment.

Prove to me, Ierrellus, that this God does not change.

I describe God as the teleological driver behind evolving genes and memes. That does nor change. Human beliefs do as a matter of evolution.

Human beings say all kinds of things about God purely on the basis of what they think or believe is true
No one in the entire history of civilisation however has actually demonstrated the existence of this God
And so the goalposts start moving very quickly when you ask anyone for evidence of this apparent deity
The only place that he or she or it definitely resides is in the minds of believers but not any where else

Genes and memes can function perfectly well without God and evolution does not need teleology either
You are simply providing yourself with a reason for God to make sense to you in relation to the Universe

Do you believe in God and love this God, Ierrellus?

Ah, a man after my own heart.

Don’t worry. I’m kidding. I agree with you though.
But being agnostic I am not capable of saying but not anywhere else but I do in a sense agree even with that as I do not intuit there there is an actual place where this their God resides.
Bottom line, we haven’t even began a little scratch on the surface of how it all began or where it began.

But as I believe it was Kant who said it, we cannot live in a vacuum so faith has to enter in to fill that gap. (paraphrasing).

That may have been true in his day but it is perfectly possible not to have a belief in anything at all nowadays
As my own mind will simply not entertain the notion of anything at all existing without some type of evidence
God has precisely none so I refuse to contemplate his existence as that would for me be very irrational indeed

To be more precise … some people think that the existence of God has been adequately demonstrated and some people think that the existence of God has not been adequately demonstrated.

You are in the latter category.