on discussing god and religion

Again, happy or rational about what?

In what particular context involving what particular interactions embedded in what particular facts?

What can in fact be established [either philosophically, scientifically or theologically] as in sync with “ecological morality”?

Whose “viable future”? On whose terms?

As long as you can integrate God into general descriptions of this sort, you are able to imagine a future as you would hope for it to be.

And this works for you. And isn’t that always the bottom line? You are anchored, I am not. “I” am fractured and fragmented into any number of conflicted frames of mind.

As the abyss creeps ever so closer to my oblivion.

Still, wouldn’t it be fascinating if Arthur Clarke were around today and was able to flesh out his own understanding of what a sane and happy world would look like.

Ecological morality is practical (pragmatic philosophy), affords predictionin real time (science of evolution) and displays purpose (theological teleology). Only those who prefer to be concerned entirely with my future as contrasted with our future can fail to see the validity of ecosystems as they speak for our basic interconnectivity. In other words these thoughts will have no meaning for anyone trapped in mental self-isolation.

Okay, note for us some actual examples of interactions with others where this was made manifest to you. In particular, interactions in which your value judgments came into conflict with theirs. How was it practical? What predictions did it afford? Which purpose was decided upon?

And how did God and religion factor into it?

From my point of view, this is but one more “general description” of what you imagine such a world could be if…if what?..if only everyone comes to embrace your own rendition of “ecological morality”…“for all practical purposes”?

And what [for me] becomes particularly unfathomable is how you seem to argue that whether folks embrace your vision of the future or fight like hell to tear it down, God will still welcome all into His Kingdom.

It’s like someone here in America arguing that, fiercely embracing either a liberal or a conservative political agenda, God means Salvation.

It’s a warm and fuzzy rendition of God. One where the sinners and the saints all come together [in the end and for all of eternity] to embrace “ecological morality” in Heaven. Only everyone now sync with God’s own ontological/teleological understanding of Divine Justice.

What I wouldn’t give to be inside your head for a couple of hours in order to understand more clearly how this works for you?

And in this world no less!

Ecological morality is not concerned with distant or afterlife heavens. Its concern is what we owe each other here and now that would offer a better future for all of mankind.
Biology has not excluded you from having your place among its here and now interconnected constituents of ecosystems. You are here and now an integral part of all life forms.
Biology does not produce organic entities that evolve into isolation; we evolve as ecosystems. Kill off bees and plants will die; when plants die, animals will die. We are not only interconnected, we are interdependent.
These are facts, not “ideas in the head”.
It amazes me that humans who experience being, becoming and belonging can embrace nihilism or solipsism. Maybe this world is the only one we can ever know. Wouldn’t that realization and that we are all in this life together suggest a morality of our dealings with each other.

But, for all practical purposes, what on earth does this mean pertaining to actual human interactions in which rules of behavior must be established in order to sustain the least dysfunctional relationships. And then the extent to which most religious folks insist that this is intimately intertwined in/with our fate on the other side of the grave.

That is true. It’s a good point.

As with “global warming”, these are issues in which the very existence of the human race itself may well come into play.

But there are still those more intent on sustaining what they construe to be in their own best interest here and now — the bees and the human species “down the road” be damned.

In a Godless universe all behaviors can be rationalized.

On the other hand, an omniscient and omnipotent God can or will see that this is not our fate.

Or He won’t.

Either way, if I understand you correctly, those who embrace ecological morality and those who disdain it are all welcome into God’s Kingdom. I’m just not sure exactly what that means. As, for example, it relates to my own behaviors. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of religion throughout human history: do the right thing or [among other things] burn.

Yes, and there are facts that can be accumulated relating to any number of human behaviors that come into conflict. Hundreds and hundreds of them. But who is to say which sets of facts are more in sync with ecological morality?

I don’t know about solipsism, but once you are able to think/talk yourself into believing in No God, it seems entirely reasonable that, sans a transcending font, mere mortals, embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are able to rationalize any behavior.

And that’s not even counting all of the nihilists who construe morality as revolving around “what’s in it for me?” or “show me the money” or “I’ve got mine Jack”.

With No God to “catch them” and with No God to “punish them”, we are basically on our own to prescribe and to proscribe any particular behaviors in any particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

How is that not reasonable, unless you are able to demonstrate the actual existence of a God, the God, your God?

In an ecosystem, karma is the Golden Rule–no need for some sky daddy to reward and punish. The Auden quote below is about this. Those who destroy an ecosystem will be destroying themselves in the process.

The age of rugged individualism as I got mine, you get yours, spawned by the protestant and industrial revolutions, is now faced with decline due to overpopulation, inequality of distribution of resources and considerable waste. The reconciliation of humans with each other out of concern for the future of our planet seems now to be a pipe dream. What conflicting ideals offer us-for a future may be junk heap societies sort of like those depicted in the Mad Max movies.

Okay, but that just takes me straight back to the whole point of creating this thread: in exploring what “on earth” something like this means.

Particularly when your own rendition of a morality in sync with an ecosystem comes into conflict with another’s.

But you won’t go there.

And to the extent that I understand the part where you are willing to explore our fate beyond the grave, you seem to suggest that God – sky daddy or not – embraces any and all folks. In other words, however much their conflicting moralities and ecosystems might have precipitated and then perpetuated all manner of ghastly pain and suffering on this side of the grave.

Still, you will either attempt to flesh that out existentially or you won’t.

Hell, even the living creatures that we call “human beings” may well be but one more “mechanical” manifestation of the immutable laws of matter.

We just pile word upon word into arguments in which it is all made applicable to God in turn. Did God create the immutable laws of matter more or less than the immutable laws of matter created God?

And can we really “define” God into existence, predicated entirely on the internal logic of our own alleged meaning? The tautological God? God, the Word?

All manner of Gods exist in all manner of minds. And that may well be the point: to keep Him there.

To make oblivion go away. To embody [whatever that means] divine justice. To act as the umpire on Judgment Day.

God the psychological defense mechanism. God to suckle on from the cradle to the grave.

Unless of course He is the real deal.

But: Why should I believe that?

It continues to amaze me–how down to earth, practical beliefs can be somehow be seen as trumped by abstract philosophy. Dasein, conflicting goods, etc. will amount to nothing if the majority of people accept self-destruction as a way of life.
And God has proved to really exist over and over again in my personal life. Why should I believe otherwise?
Even if oblivion is my final outcome, all of my physical parts will be recycled in Nature. It all points to reconciliation, to the fact that in the dance between energy and matter, no energy is ever lost.

Down to earth practical beliefs about what though? And to pretend that so much in the way of destruction [human pain and suffering] has not revolved precisely around what “for all practical purposes” different folks have come to insist the faithful are obligated to embrace in the way of connecting the dots between behaviors chosen here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, is merely to posit that God and religion as you construe them to be in your head is “for all practical purposes” all you feel obligated to provide us in the of embracing your very own rendition of “ecological morality”.

Thus some folks are able to rationalize their belief that abortion is incompatible with a God, the God, my God, while others are able to rationalize their belief that denying a woman the right to choose abortion is incompatible with their own rendition of a God, the God, my God.

Meanwhile when I ask you to encompass abortion given the manner in which you have come to grasp the meaning of “ecological morality” what do we get?

Only this: that whether you condemn abortion or embrace it, protest the procedure or have one or perform one, God welcomes you into His Kingdom.

Whatever that actually means.

I would never ask you to believe otherwise. After all, what do I know of your own experiences? I can only ask you to describe them in detail and then to ponder the extent to which I might be able to experience something similar myself.

But here, in a philosophy venue, you are either able to translate what you believe into that which others are able [or even obligated] to believe, or you are not. And over and again I make it perfectly clear that to the extent that your beliefs comfort and console you, that need be as far as you go.

But, again, with so much at stake here, it’s not for nothing that the overwhelming preponderance of religious folks are very, very clear about one thing: Judgment Day.

And I am still at a loss to understand how exactly you make that part go away. How have your own personal experiences been able to convince you that, from God’s frame of mind, one size fits all regarding the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave? Whether you embrace an ecological morality in the manner in which you prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behavior, or are a brutish sociopath wreaking havoc on anyone who crosses your path, you’re in with God.

Sure, this works for some. And, to the extent that it works for you, it seems an acknowledgment that yours is but one more existential leap of faith.

One that, here and now, I am not able to make myself.

Is it true that Nero fiddled while Rome burned? In the face of wholesale destruction of the Earth, talk of abortion seems petty. If philosophy is your fiddle,
at least you’ll have something to think about while the world self-destructs as overpopulation and tremendous waste predict.

Well, according to WHO, “every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”

Now, if you construe an abortion as the killing of a human baby [and many religious folks do] that seems about as far removed from petty as one can get.

Now, the question then is this: given your own understanding of “ecological morality” where does something like this fit into it?

How is God and religion relevant here?

And do you honestly believe that those on both sides of the issue have equal access to God on the other side?

Finally, based on your own personal experiences, how would you go about demonstrating to others that this is a reasonable frame of mind?

Apparently, you are too locked into your own mindset to be able to give credence to any other point of view. You are welcome to your bleak outlook on the nature of God and humans. I’m tired of talking to a brick wall. I can only pray that sometime in your life you may think on what’s really important–you and God.

Note to others:

Why do you suppose he entirely avoids actually responding to the points that I raised above regarding the relationship between abortion and his own reflections on “ecological morality”?

As this relates to his own personal experiences with a God, the God.

Why, instead, does he make me the issue?

Yes, my own frame of mind is brutal, bleak. But that is only because the points that I raise here and now seem reasonable to me. Yet to argue that I am not open to other points of view is merely to sweep under the rug all of the many, many times over the years that others actually have managed to nudge me in entirely new directions.

Just not of late.

Again, my hope is always that I will come upon arguments able to yank be up out of the abyss that is oblivion in an essentially absurd and meaningless world.

If you know some folks who have them, by all means, bring them on board. And I can promise you [and them] that I am willing to explore their own experiences in a sincere and civil manner.

All I ask is that the discussion eventually gets around to connecting the dots between behaviors chosen on this side of the grave, and one’s imagined fate on the other side.

As this pertains to God and religion.

God the word.

Go ahead define it. Then argue with others regarding which definition comes closest to the Gods that either are or are not conceived here. Then note all of your personal experiences with a God, the God in order that we might determine which one comes closest to what either is or is not conceived or defined most reasonably.

And then we can connect the dots between that and the main focus of this thread.

The irony here is that any number of religious folks will remind us that without God, it is not possible to wholly differentiate good from evil.

That, in other words, without a transcending [omniscient and omnipotent] point of view, there can be no teleological component available to mere mortals in a universe construed to be but a “brute facticity”.

Instead, one or another individual subscribing to one or another “Humanist” philosophy, will concoct one or another moral narrative that is said to reflect the most rational and virtuous frame of mind.

Just pick a context and a set of conflicting value judgments. And then with the right ideological/deontological assessment it can be determined which behaviors all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.

Just ask them.

And then in any particular community ensconced in any particular historical/cultural context a consensus can form around a set of prescribed and proscribed behaviors. Predicated on the assumption that right makes might.

On the other hand, the entire trajectory of human interactions over thousands of years puts the lie to this again and again and again. Instead, we have the same conflicting arguments regarding the same conflicting goods. Nothing ever really ever gets resolved.

And even regarding extreme behaviors like child abuse, rape, murder, slavery and genocide, there appear to be arguments available to those able to rationalize them. And what arguments are available able to obviate the motivation of the sociopaths/narcissists; those who see morality as revolving entirely around what sustains their own wants and needs.

That’s why some folks abandon moral narratives per se in order to insist that right and wrong can be understood “naturally”. Once you have grasped that the human species is just a natural extension of the evolution of life on earth, you need merely grasp that there are certain “biological imperatives” that underlie all human behaviors. And that, in turn, undermine all attempts by those who suggest that historical and cultural memes have a role to play as well.

In other words, anything [in a Godless universe] that allows them to insist that there is in fact a certainty to be found when values come into conflict. And they know this because, in fact, they have already found it.

Well put.

But, Leibnizian philosophy aside, how does God fit into something like this?

How can seemingly mindless organic chemicals reconfigure into a consciousness [mindful matter] able to contemplate the relationship between chemistry and “I” and God?

And that mysterious part where inorganic chemistry is able to “become” “life”.

Yes, in the minds of some, God may well be the shortest distance between these two points. But it doesn’t make the mind-boggling mystery of it all go away sans God.

And I always come around to a world [with God] in which we try to comprehend the extent to which God is either in sync with the immutable laws of matter more or less than the immutable laws of matter are in sync with God.

In other words, even the supposed “either/or” world is still far, far beyond our grasp when we shift gears from “how?” to “why?”

At least give me credit for my above statement.