Figuring out the extent to which any particular investigation is or is not an actual autonomous undertaking. Until we can know for certain that this very exchange that we are having is not only as it ever could have been, it might just be.
Then what?
Yes, but how is that limitation embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein pertinent to conflicting goods/value judgments? How do we ascertain when the data that we accumulate encompasses all of the data that would need to be accumlated in order to transend the existential parameters of “I” out in the is/ought world? The world that generates the overwhelming preponderance of human conflicts.
Here we have the historical data, the cultural data and the experiential data that any particular individuals back then accumulted in the course of living his or her personal life. How then is this integrated into the most reasonable point of view? Either with respect to a God or a No God world?
Imagine for example the “struggle” being endured right now by Christians in Puerto Rico. They may read the Bible from cover to cover, but who among them are saved and who among them will perish. Or, perhaps, wish that they had. To actual flesh and blood human beings this sort of “general description” of “projection” only takes them so far. But most Scriptures won’t really take them much further. So they take their own particular “leap of faith” to a narrative most likely to comfort and console them. While at the same time convincing themselves that their faith is not just about comfort and consolation.
My aim on this thread is to reconfigure “general description” conjectures of this sort into accounts of particular behaviors chosen in particular contexts in which God and religion figured into the calculations.
In other words, to what extent can we grapple with these individual experiences so as to intertwine them into a more measured, a more sophisticated conjecture regarding “what really happens”.
And [in my way of thinking] this always revolves around knowledge/beliefs that we either are or are not able to take “out of our heads” and convince others to share in turn. And then the extent to which together we can demonstrate substantively to more still that it is a reasonable way in which to assess “reality”.
After all, what else is there with respect to these particular relationships?
1] there is a God or there is not a God
2] if there is a God, He either judges our behaviors on this side of the grave or He does not
3] if He does judge our behaviors on this side of the grave, we either take that into account in choosing our behaviors or we do not
All this thread does is to allow those who do believe in God to describe the manner in which their faith and/or understanding of Him can possibly be translated into descriptive words that encompass the existential parameters of these relationships.
As they go about the business of living their lives from day to day in a world in which they are likely to bump or thump into others who embody conflicting religious convictions.
And the only way in which I could construe this as futile is to insist that anyone who does factor God and religion into their value judgments and behaviors on this side of the grave are necessarily wrong because my own assessment here is necessarily right.
And not, in other words, just another existential contraption like theirs.
Sure, you can define the Real God into existence and insist that all logical discourse must then revolve around the assumption that logical discourse revolves around your definition of the Real God.
Again, with respect to what really motivates me here [subjunctively], I’m still convinced it more or less revolves around whatever this means:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles
Human psychology [I suspect] will always be more than I can handle. And not just my own.
On the other hand, I have engaged in discussions with folks like Bob here, in which the “judgements” are kept to a minimum.
All it really takes is a respect for each other’s intelligence. And a willingness [on my part] to forgo polemics.
Unless of course by “judgement” you mean something else?
Where is there to go? There is no ‘there’ other than an imaginary place in a deluded mind.
I’d contend that this is the game we’re playing here; pretending there’s somewhere to go, some place to get to.
For me the direct experience was like an electric shock in one instance and like a calm ripple of a stream in another. God does not come to me and speak to me in English, yet I’m aware of God’s presence when he does make it known. I know all this seems rather vague to a diehard nonbeliever such as Iamb. He still wants to be persuaded by those who believe that this life merits an afterlife of reward or punishment. For me, that’s infantile religiosity. Buddhism has moved far beyond that in basic religious psychology. For me a combination of Christianity and Buddhism is the best possible religion for the 21st century.
I once had an epiphany (not a God one) that almost seemed to be like a calm ripple of realization flowing over me. It was unexpected - but I wouldn’t call it an electric shock.
How did the electric shock part came in - did it actually feel like an electric shock?
Oh, I certainly that God would not speak in English to you. You might doubt in that instant, don’t you think?
He? What He? Why can we not strip off this paternal aspect?
What are you usually doing when the Presence comes to you?
We all seek the holy grail in one way or the other. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a symbol for what is holy - though holy simply means whole, in harmony.
I suppose that one can say at-one-ment - as some say.
I’m a die-hard agnostic. lol
He’s a philosopher. Wouldn’t that be a legitimate challenge?
…
But there are many people who do believe that.
Why do you think that is?
As far as the infantile religiosity goes, Ierrelus, you called God a He. I might say that that is infantile religiosity. Wouldn’t you? :-"
Life after death. Buddhists believe in a cycle of death and rebirth called samsara. Through karma and eventual enlightenment, they hope to escape samsara and achieve nirvana, an end to suffering.
So couldn’t you say that Buddhism is somewhat the same? How far removed is it?
But isn’t Christianity also somewhat the same? The powers that be preach that there shall either be a reward or punishment after death.
Arc,
I did not intend to use the word “he” in reference to God in a paternalistic fashion. It’s only because there are so few words that describe an entity that is a force. As I have often said before in these threads, I believe God is he, she, it, father, son, mother, daughter—all possible personal relationships.
I will no longer attempt to describe my God experiences,
Buddhism is not into dualism as in afterlife reward or punishment.
Now, in the context of God and religion, one can’t help but wonder why on earth a God, the God, your God would require – choose? – that it all to unfold in precisely this [ghastly?] manner.
It is almost as though God may well be constrained Himself by the immutable laws of matter.
And how does a mere mortal even begin to wrap his or her mind around that?
When the house is empty, it begins to decay. According to Plato, the soul that was in that house is “freed from prison”. But that was just an idea in Plato’s mind, even though billions of rational people have believed it is true.
Umm, what is “autonomous”? Autonomous or independent from what? If it is science, then it seeks an objective answer rather than a subjective one. If you question such an investigation outright, you will never be satisfied.
Those are a lot of words, but do they mean anything in the end? How will anyone quieten your insecurity and requirement of absolute certainty? I can’t and I doubt that anyone on earth can . it’s called the human dilemma!
Who is “demanding”? We make assumptions from our own experience or that of others, and have to live with that. The best “God experiences” fail to give a maintenance guide for life, but they give assurance much like the comforting hand of a mother, or insight into something that has been mystifying us. Inspiration helps us proceed, but it doesn’t complete the journey for us, and judgement day is probably a confrontation with what we fear. But who knows?
I can’t begin to imagine the “struggle” of those people in Puerto Rico. I know that in my own small “struggles”, inspiration came when I needed it most. However, do I have a right to assure others that this will happen? How can I be sure?
Well, good luck with your reconfiguration then … sadly you don’t just have one operating system to reconfigure, but probably 7.442 billion
Yes, Plato believed this of the soul “in his head”. And, sure, many, many folks deemed rational since have believed in one or another rendition of it.
Some from within particular religious denominations, some in embracing a more ecumenical ideal, some rooted in one or another Spinozan/deistic narrative, and others in embracing one of the countless “New Age” agendas.
The “soul” certainly seems to engender lots and lots and lots of converts.
And why wouldn’t it? It is, after all, a belief in the soul that allows one to believe in turn that it is as a soul that we attain immortality, salvation and divine justice.
And very, very few things comfort and console mere mortals as much as believing that does.
On the other hand, there are also many, many folks deemed rational who do not believe in the existence of a soul.
And, “here and now”, “I” happen to be one of them. And, really, all that folks like me can do is to engage in discussions in places like this with those who do.
I just happen to be someone who draws that crucial distinction between what we claim to believe is true “in our head” and that which we are able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Sure, I’ll be the first to admit that you are making a point here I am just not able to grasp correctly. But it would seem that scientists exploring the extent to which human beings have “free will” either do or do not have it themselves in going about the task. If human consciousness [mindful matter] is not independent of the “immutable laws of matter” then it would seem that “all there is” is encompassed in this one objective [and wholly determined] cosmological truth.
But a belief in God is one way in which to reconfigure that into…what exactly?
What they mean “in the end” to me has come to revolve around this:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
As this revolves in turn around the many, many conflicting goods that we are all familiar with.
Then all I can do is to elicit reactions to this from others. To what extent are they not entangled in it? To what extent are they able instead to convince themselves that there is a frame of mind able to precipitate behaviors that they are convinced reflect the optimal or the only rational choice in any particular context.
And then take their “words” out “into the world” and describe [to the best of their ability] how this all unfolds ''for all practical purposes" when their behaviors do come into conflict with others.
Yes, this seems reasonable to me. I merely intertwine [existentially] any particular individual’s “lived life” into the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy – out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
Then wonder if philosophically arguments can be devised able to reduce conflicting value judgments down to one or another set of moral obligations.
Philosophers like Plato and Descartes and Kant and Spinoza constructed them. But they were all basically predicated on one or another rendition of God. That crucial “transcending font”.
From my frame of mind “here and now”, No God = no way up out of my dilemma. Thus when you note that, “I know that in my own small ‘struggles’, inspiration came when I needed it most”, I can’t help but wonder what “on earth” you mean by that. Inspiration from God? And how is whatever measure of comfort this brings you able to be conveyed to others such that they might be comforted in turn?
And if it can’t be…if it is largely entangled in your own personal experiences…what of those who never have them? And that just brings me around to the aim of this thread: describing the choices that religious folks make on this side of the grave in order that they attain what they construe “I” to be on the other side of it.
With – [b]again[/b] – immortality, salvation and divine justice at stake.
On the other hand, as you note in turn, “However, do I have a right to assure others that this will happen? How can I be sure?”
I don’t see how having a “free will” has any bearing on the investigation of whether a free will is at all possible.
Is human consciousness “mindful matter”? Your use of the word “matter” intrigues me most. On the internet I only found “Mindfulness matters” or “mindful matters”. I anticipate that this stems from an assumption you have made along the way, but where did you get the idea from? I also searched the Wiki-Article and found nothing.
Perhaps we just can’t …
Yes, we have been here numerous times before. We can only judge on what we know, or believe to know, or what we have experienced, or believe to have experienced. That means it is always impure and prone to failure, which is why we can only have humility in all our dealings with others. There is nothing else.
Yes, they were children of their time. We have profited by their insights but there is no conclusion to be reached until its all over.
I see such inspiration not as an eternal truth that has eternal value, but a timely truth that helps us proceed. Where does inspiration come from? Did I always “know” but couldn’t access the truth? Did I create a touching story that helped me over a gap? Is a blockade dissolved in that instance? I’d love to tell you, but it could be all of them.
The same obviously applies to others, when we comfort them. Normally, non-pious people won’t accept the comfort of believers and vice-versa, unless they care for each other. Caring can help overcome this bias and, yes there is some interpreting done, but love is what matters more than the validity of the advice.
Most religious folks of course are not convinced. Without an omniscient and omnipotent “transcending font”, human morality devolves into either…
1] might makes right — it’s moral because we say so and we have the power to enforce what we say is so
2] right makes might — it’s moral because it is in sync with one or another renditon of the philosopher king, nature, humanism, or ideology
3] the rule of law — it’s moral because “here and now” we have the political power to compel a particular set of legal prescriptions and proscriptions
Only God makes all of the ambiguity, uncertainty and potential for tyranny go away. Why? Because with God there is a guarentee.
This one:
1] something either is a sin or it is not
2] the sinner is always known by God
3] the sinner is always punished by God
And if you are not a sinner then God [and only God] can assure your immortality, salvation and understanding of His divine justice.
On the other hand…
1] Perhaps science will at last provide us with the hard evidence needed to support the one and only empirical distinction between ethical and unethical behavior
2] we live in a wholly determined universe and all of this is subsumed in the only way it ever could have been
