I’m not argung that they are intellectual constraptions, only that from my frame of mind that is how they are construed by me.
And, based on my experience with those who do tend toward intellectual contraptions in discussions like this, when I am pressed to dig deeper into them, it generally means that only when I have come to share their own point of view have I finally succeeded in digging deep enough.
Whereas, from my own point of view, arguments that revolve around either the is/ought world, or fundamental inquiries into an understanding of Existence/Reality itself, are beyond the reach of mere mortals. At least insofar as that crucial gap between what we think we know about them and all that would need to be known about them still exist.
But even here I am only arguing that you have not convinced me that, with respect to the impossibility of an extant God, you have closed the gap.
Sure, maybe you have. And, sure, maybe others here believe that you have. Or, sure, maybe others insist that you have not because your own ontological/teleological TOE is not sync with their own ontological/teleological TOE.
And, with respect to things like God and Existence, there have been hundreds of intellectual fabrications embraced thoughout the course of human history.
And what of all the other possible intellectual contraptions [relating to God] being batted about throughout the entire multiverse?
Do you really imagine that yours actually does resolve the God/No God debate?!
I believe the whole conversation is reduced to the above, i.e. the turbulence of reality within the self.
You believe this, yes. But how have you actually demonstrated that with respect to the existence of God that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe the same? Each individual will react to this from a point of view embedded in a particular turbulence embedded in a particular world embedded in a particular self that, relating to questions of this sort, is embodied in dasein.
Thus when you note that…
What I am proposing is a general view to a self and the above works only when the conditions are met which is not likely at present but rather in the future [>75, >100 >200 years]. Note I am only discussing the problem in general and not offering anyone an immediate solution.
…my reaction is always the same: how on earth can something like this “here and now” be either verified or falsified? Thus, from my frame of mind, it is an especially vague “general description” of human interactions.
Unless it is possible for you or anyone in your position [in tatters] to instantly acquire those required competence, the general proposals I made will not resolve your problem effectively. It takes time for one to rewire one’s brain to change one’s beliefs for the better.
For the better?
And that’s the crux of it. You are convinced that in a No God world, mere mortals are in fact able to “progress” morally: >75, >100 >200 years from now.
And that may well be true. But “here and now” what would such an argument actually sound like pertaining to a conflicted good like abortion? What constitutes “better” here? And how is your own narrative not embedded in something like this:
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
This is the manner in which I encompass my own value judgments here: Clearly embedded in an “existential contraption” embedded further in a No God world. And then to the objectivists — God or No God – I ask: how are your own values not embedded in the same? How, philosophically, can an ethics be devised that transcends this?
Well, with God it seems obvious. But No God? How does it work then?
As for this…
It is the turbulence [inherited from our ancestors from millions of years ago] within our brain that enable the ‘zombie parasite’ to emerge. This is a very powerful force that is embedded deep in the brain and psyche which cannot be rid of but can only be inhibited by the specific rational neurons.
There is a percentile of humans who has sufficient rational neurons to suppress the theistic impulse via inhibition of the relevant neurons. There are other reasons why some are non-theists. But …
Note the once very notable world famous atheist, Anthony Flew, turned to God [deistic] during the later part of his life when the neurons supporting his rational faculties in this respect failed him.
…how on earth is it applicable to the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
Take these points and note how “for all practical purposes” they can be useful in resolving, say, the considerably turbulent reaction of conservatives to liberals and liberals to conservatives.
I do not intend to discuss personal methods but what I am proposing is a master blueprint for humanity as a whole to move forward toward sustainable Perpetual Peace.
From my frame of mind, this frame of mind speaks volumes: it is objectivism on steroids. A “master blueprint” for “Perpetual Peace”?!
As I see it, it is that you believe this that counts far more than whatever the blueprint actually is. After all, there have been countless such blueprints down through the ages.
So, you will either come to recognize it as a psychological defense mechanism [a source of comfort and consolation] or you won’t.
Instead, what I come back to here is the manner in which you embrace a wholistic frame of mind that is really not all that far removed from the ones that you critique among the theists.
It’s just that, in their head, when they die there is immortality, salvation and divine justice. But when you die there is none of that. All you’ve got is the comfort and the consolation of knowing that when the world finally does come around to embracing your master blueprint the world will finally experience Perpetual Peace.
Even if you – as “I” – are only on the long grind back to beoming star stuff.