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.