Sigh…
Let’s bring this down to…earth?
Playing the stock market.
There’s the part where the folks who have the right answers invest in particular corporations and as a result make money. Right and wrong here are easily measured. By bank accounts for example.
But then the right/wrong dichotomy shifts from playing the stock market, to justifying it as a virtuous pursuit. Investment, in other words, in sync with capitalism, said to be in sync with the most or the only rational human interactions in the economic sphere.
But some argue that, on the contrary, capitalism is the immoral pursuit of selfish gain and exploitation. A mode of production [rooted historically] that is heavily invested in the “alienation of labor” and in “commodity fetishism”.
Now, I do not argue that there is “never a right answer”. I make the distinction between answers that are embedded objectively in the either/or world and answers that are embedded subjectively/subjunctively in the is/ought world.
And, per the OP, there are facts [right and wrong answers] regarding God and religion that either are as well in sync with the either/or world, or are instead embodied existentially in dasein and in conflicting goods.
Thus I am not only willing to acknowledge the existence of any number of “indeterminant” things, I point out time and again how my being entangled in 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.
…is entirely predicated on “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”.
Then it becomes a matter of folks like James and Mr. Reasonable noting the extent to which they are not in turn entangled in it. Relating precisely to those human interactions deeply embedded in contingency, chance and change.
Let’s see if James and Mr. Reasonable are willing to pursue this out in the world of actual human interactions that do come into conflict over things like God and religion and value judgments. And political prejudices.
How about starting a new thread, Smears?