on discussing god and religion

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. :wink:

I think that I’ve responded to all the stuff that you rehashed. :techie-offtheair:

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

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.

More to the point [mine] it is hard to determine if wanting to is actually within the reach of autonomous minds. It becomes somewhat surreal when you consider the fact that, when neuroscientists investigate this, they may well only ever be able to investigate it in precisely the manner in which they have to.

And certainly one possible explanation for this is that God willed it. But what does that then mean for all practical purposes with respect to human autonomy? What is “beyond” God’s will there?

To my mind, a “general description” of this sort can precipitate a frame of mind that seems “anchored”. But anchored to what when the beam is focused instead on particular human interactions that come into conflict? That part of most interest to me with respect to God and religion. And with respect to the moral narratives of mere mortals who, instead, embrace deontological reason or political ideology or narratives regarding nature.

By and large I tend to agree. But that just tugs me back to this: With so much at stake – immortality, salvation, divine justice – would not a “loving just and merciful” God [as most construe Him] be considerably more explicit regarding a “righteous path” on this side of the grave?

It is one thing for God to demand that we “struggle” with this, another thing altogether when, however much we do struggle, there is seemingly no definitive way in which to measure our success. I suspect that is why folks like Ierrellus take a leap instead to a God that, in the end, welcomes all into His Kingdom. Otherwise how “on earth” are we to continue that seemingly futile struggle given a belief in Judgment Day.

From my frame of mind, this is basically just a general description of a general description. What interest me is in how such thinking unfolds in a particular mind in a particular context. In other words, in a set of circumstances in which a man or a woman comes to choose a behavior that others deem to be wrong. Either with or without God and religion.

Once we acknowledge that narratives change historically, culturally and experientially, we are back to square one: Judgment Day. The part where, from the perspective of most believers, we go up or we go down.

Or the part where “I” disintegrates into nothing at all.

And that is also the part where I am most intrigued by the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein and conflicting goods. We chose particular behaviors because we were existentially predisposed to given a particular confluence of personal experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.

In fact it is here that the moral objectivists will invariably draw their lines. Then it is just a matter of whether they choose God or Reason or Ideology or Nature as their default.

This part:

“Common agreement” and “intuition” are basically no less existential contraptions to me. They are no less embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. The tricky part here though is that “intuition” is often a complex intertwining of what we can know objectively and how we react subjunctively in particular contexts. The part where reason and emotion and psychology and instinct become entangled in genes/memes; and then a clear demarcation between “true for all of us” and “true for me” is hard to come by. The part where “I” become entangled in my dilemma above. And with no God to comfort and console me.

“For all practical purposes” this may well be the only sensible approach to take if one is drawn to God through a leap of faith, rather than through an adamant belief that He does in fact exist. And that He has provided us with a Scripture, enabling us to properly differentiate between right and wrong behaviors.

I am less trusting in it myself however because my dilemma tends to fracture and to fragment “I” such that I am ever tugged in different directions.

In other words, my own “existential contraption” is considerably more existential than others.

What should the atheist say about God? Really nothing unless he is bound by events in his past that still demand interpretation so as to appease a hurt ego. Thus this thread is a straw man, stuffed with stereotypical straw.
I am dismayed by the same old, same old responses to the question of God’s existence. They tread on my personal beliefs, of which I am entitled. I do not need to prove God’s existence; my life and experiences have already done that. If my testimony falls on deaf ears, so be it.

The “leap of faith” was Kierkegaard’s idea.

Double Post …