Theism: “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”
I must be missing your point.
Let’s just assume this.
To me, this would seem to suggest…
1] “I” is obliterated for all time to come when we die
2] there is no teleological font “behind” existence; so, for all practical purposes, we live in an essentially absurd and meaningless world
3] morality [on this side of the grave] is basically just an existential contraption rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential [interpersonal] contexts
4] given oblivion, there is no possibility of Justice rooted in one or another teleological fontSo the question might then be this: How is all of this not applicable in turn to non-theistic narratives?
1. Yes, "I" is obliterated.
Based on the assumption that we exist in a No-God universe. Which neither you nor I [here and now] have the capacity to demonstrate beyond all doubt.
Unless, perhaps, you actually are able to demonstrate this beyond what I construe to be largely a set of intellectual assumptions about the nature of Existence itself.
Now, I’m not saying that you can’t demonstrate this, only that [so far] you have failed to convince me. And I suspect further that were any mere mortals able to demonstrate definitively either the existence of God or a No God reality, that’s all anyone would be talking about around the globe.
2. No 'teleological' ends do not necessary imply our life is absurd and meaningless.
Just as we can abstract the laws of nature from observations and experiment, we can abstract the meaning of life and strive to make it meaningful while being alive until the inevitable. Otherwise all humans might as well commit suicide now.
I understand this. My point is only to suggest that in the absence of an alleged omniscient and omnipotent “transcending font” [which most call God] it would appear that mere mortals are able only to propose conflicting and contradictory social, political and economic narratives in which the “meaning of life” revolves [in my view] around the manner in which “I” construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Which, however, I acknowledge from the start is just another “existential contraption”.
3. Just as we can abstract the meaning of life from observations of nature, we can abstract absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally.
Indeed, and any number of moral and political objectivists embrace this frame of mind. Completely. And, from their vantage point, as long as folks are willing to remain “one of us”, they are not “retards” or “morons”. Or always [necessarily] wrong.
Again, I merely suggest that this has more to do with the points I raise on this thread – viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 – than the philosophical pursuit of truth and wisdom.
4. There are no absolute justice. Based on 3 above, humanity we can continually improved on Justice.
What then is the substantive difference between “absolute justice” and “abstract[ing] absolute moral laws based on reason to guide living life optimally”?
I must be missing your point here.
And the point I keep raising here is that [apparently] only way off in the future are we able to finally determine if humanity succeeds in making that leap from “justice” ensconced in sets of political prejudices, embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts, to Justice as you imagine human interactions in your head here and now.
Which from my frame of mind is basically just one more psychological defense mechanism able to provide at least some measure of “comfort and consolation” to an “I” that I construe as but more a fractured and fragmented existential fabrication/contraption embedded out in particular worlds and revolving around the points I raise on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529