on discussing god and religion

This is rather preposterous.

No, not the part about the link between the unknown begetting spiritualism begetting souls begetting religions begetting Gods.

That is clearly rooted historically in the evolution of the human species.

To wit:

Why does something exist at all?
Why this something?
How ought we to live?
What happens after we die?

The answers can then revolve around one or another Scripture.

No, the absudity revolves more around equating the Abrahamic religion with Nihilism.

Consider:

Nihilism:

“the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.”

Or, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence.”

Yes, we know there are folks able to twist the meaning of nihilism into any number of self-serving configurations. The point being to define it so as to further their own philosophical or political agenda.

But, come on, the Abrahamic religion, like most other denominations, is hardly intent on arguing that human existence – human interaction – is essentially meaningless and absurd. On the contrary, the whole point of creating these generally doctrinaire and dogmatic litrugies, is to argue that the soul is sacred only to the extent that it follows the One True Part to immortality and salvation.

That way our behaviors can be judged on this side of the grave is either virtuous or sinful.

And that way the is/ought world is able to be conveyed as the embodiment of the either/or world. Either you do the right things or you burn.

But, again, if you wish to reconfigure Nihilism into that, so be it.

Yes, it is ‘balanced,’ grounded, anchored on a strong center of gravity, etc.
A state of psychological composure [equanimity] is necessary for one to be ‘balanced’ in whatever the conflicting situations.

I was talking about the broad here and now. What you do when you interact with objectivists. The moral stance you take in relation to them.

I seem to have triggered a lecture, but it is unclear to me how this relates to the moral superiority you implicitly claim to objectivists.

My point was that even if you identify with non-objectivism and argue that you find no ground to make moral claims YOU MAKE MORAL CLAIMS just as objectivist novelists do EVEN WHEN they do not directly state those moral beliefs in the novels. One can deduce the novelists moral objectivism just as your is present if not stated directly.

And again, just pointing out how you are acting in a couple with any discussion partner. These posts reek of moral superiority, not simply epistemological superiority.

Which I notice you do not do. You do not demonstate this, that the moral superiority you constantly implicitly claim relates to objective facts that are true for all of us.

Doing that does not preclude being an objectivist. One can claim to be a feminist, call out support for victims of rape, and then hit women. This happens and Metoo seems to have found a number of such men.

So what is in it for you feeling morally superior to objectivists?

Systematic presentation of moral superiority, not instances of fallible dasein influenced slips. That the relationship dynamic has that as a rule.
Ask outsiders, via the net, socially, to read the threads and see if they have the same experience. Try to get an outsider’s impression. Humans are notoriously poor judges of these kinds of things.

Surprisingly, you’re not that far off from where I see things, P-man. The moral compass endues the atheist and theist alike because its value dynamic [truth] is woven into the fabric of existence. The true-true union [what we call “correspondence”] of the information of minds with propositions (e.g., the mind uniting with the proposition “moral laws possess truth”), because it senses or intuits (or abstracts, as Prismatic suggests) that same true-true relation in everything from the unifying nature of mathematics’ relationship to the function and operation of existents with the physical laws to the good feeling one experiences upon helping a less fortunate, etc. These are all t-t connections, and this dynamic of connection is why true beliefs are available to reason for the religious and non-religious alike. Truth is a universal quality that permeates reality; it doesn’t discriminate, a point my more fundamentalist brethren don’t seem to grasp.

What if you get “good feelings” from abusing the less fortunate? Or if you get “good feelings” from being indifferent to the less fortunate?

That happens a lot.

The first is pretty common, but good feelings specifically from being indifferent to the less fortunate doesn’t make sense…indifference suggests a neutral state of mind.

But to the first, actions that damage or deny the well being of others is a prescriptive falsification. Those who give in repeatedly to wrong–true-false propositions, i.e., knowing that to cause detriment is wrong, as in inventing justifications (hiding the truth) because the abuse is found to be pleasurable] eventually create a false-false state where the false (abusing the less fortunate is good) is accepted as true. Thus, abuse is the act of a significantly falsified mind. In Christian theology this is called “spiritual death”, the acceptance of false religious belief as true. The principle works across the spectrum of moral behaviors, from religious belief to pedophilia to genocide, etc.

Indifference allows you to focus on something else and to get “good feelings” there instead of through some interaction with the less fortunate. Sure, children are starving in Africa, but you have profitable YouTube videos, a big house, a pool and steaks sizzling on the barbecue. It’s all good.

How do they know that? How do they know what detriment is?

That’s really the issue. You seem to treat it as obvious.

But this takes the equation outside the realm of common sense. Any person, no matter his wealth or lack thereof can reasonably be culpable for the less fortunate worldwide. And the good feelings you mention have no association with the suffering of others, it’s (as you describe it) merely pleasure gained from the fruits of one’s labor. Those fruits may or may not have included unethical behavior against one or more persons to get there, but that’s a different matter. I think it prudent to suggest that if one is morally responsible for the less fortunate, that responsibility can only reasonably extend to the those in one’s immediate sphere of existence.

It appears you didn’t fully understand my previous post. Wrongdoing is very often not obvious to the wrongdoer. I suggest knowledge of wrongdoing and its accompanying culpability are available to the mind of the wrongdoer in degrees. In the part you’re referencing I mention the starting point for blameworthiness in previous post:

" Those who give in repeatedly to wrong–true-false propositions, i.e., knowing that to cause detriment is wrong, as in inventing justifications (hiding the truth) because the abuse is found to be pleasurable] eventually create a false-false state where the false (abusing the less fortunate is good) is accepted as true. Thus, abuse is the act of a significantly falsified mind."

It was late at night, probably didn’t word this clearly. I’m suggesting that all wrongdoing begins with some knowledge, on some level, that the decision being contemplated is wrong by virtue of at least one [probably many] t-f relation in the decision-making process.

A t-f relation denotes the truth value of those elements of the mind’s information involved in the decision to do desired wrong in connection with the false, wrong or immoral information of a proposition used to contemplate a desire to perform that wrong. The discord this relation causes in intellectual operation can probably be mapped to the sense of ‘guilty conscience’ we’re sometimes said to feel in recognition of a false, illegal or immoral desire.

The important thing about this relation is that it causes tension and resistance (the secular version is called ‘cognitive dissonance’) in the mind; moral responsibility affixes by degrees to one’s reactions to tension/resistance raised in contemplating the pursuit of a desired wrong. My mention of the truth being hidden from the contemplator but eventually resulting in a f-f condition refers to the increase of self-falsification of the essence—and causally, the mind—of the desirer by recurrent pursuit of paths to justification for wrong desire. We falsify our own essence by repeatedly ignoring the dissonance and contemplating the wrong action we desire. In other words, this position is that we falsify our own essence or stain our souls by bad or unsound choices.

In a sufficiently falsified state, a f-f connection (or collection of connections) is achieved by the contemplator. In other words the contemplator comes to hold the false proposition (I am justified in performing x) as true. At each successive level of falsification, the contemplator becomes less culpable for the wrong he desires because he has, by inventing justifications for why he is not morally/ethically responsible for committing the wrong he desires, falsified (convinced) himself to believe that wrong does not exist for him in the equation. Another way to express this is that quantitatively sufficient f-f connections between intellect and propositions to justify the commitment of a wrong are established so that the motives and grounds for doing wrong [false] are held as acceptable [true]. The f-f connection translates to the holding of a false proposition or belief as true: Joe deems himself justified to p because q and r, where p is wrongdoing (by reasonable external standards) and q and r (as elements of a set) are false reasons Joe uses for justification. Joe eventually accepts the false as true, or the wrong as not-wrong, or possibly even as good.

Culpability doesn’t lie in libertarian certainty, it almost always attaches by decreasing degrees to the wrongdoer and is stronger in the early stages of contemplation of a wrong desire than late. This explains why, when accosted for his crime, the criminal often has trouble explaining why he did it…he knows intuitively that he “knew” on some level (though almost certainly doesn’t recognize and can’t articulate the process involved) his desire was wrong. Sorry about going on and on, I feel I’m not explaining sufficiently.

But you’re the one who is suggesting that there is some kind of truth embedded within the fabric of existence. So if you are right to get good feelings from helping the less fortunate, wrong to get good feelings from abusing them, then isn’t being indifferent also a wrong (although a lesser wrong than outright abuse)?

Being indifferent doesn’t count?

Sure. It’s obviously wrong to you. But he doesn’t think that it is wrong. Why are you right in your evaluation and why is he wrong?

That’s the thing. You’re saying that he knows it’s wrong. But maybe he doesn’t know it “on any level” at all. Maybe he does it because he thinks it’s absolutely right.

To show that it’s right or wrong, you would have to extract the truth out of wherever you think it resides. And it seems impossible to do this. He is either extracting another truth or there is no truth to extract.

I know that in your head you’re convinced that this is an adequate response to the point I raise. But in my head it is not even close.

I guess we’re stuck.

You have either ingested all of the knowledge/information available pertaining to these relationships on planet earth or you have not. And while the speculations of those on other worlds is entirely hypothetical, any number of folks in the scientific community are convinced that they are out there.

Instead, you fall back on this:

What seems an impossibility here is any mere mortal having access to all that has been experienced, written, discussed etc., about these questions. In other words, who knows what insights have been accumulated in the exchanges that we are not privy to.

Right?

Instead, what folks like you insist is that the information/knowledge that you have accumulated is just enough — just enough to make it possible for you to claim to know that what you know is all one needs to know in order to close the book on these mysteries.

Mysteries like this: bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 … ist-at-all

So, where does “I” fit into all of this?

Now, the God folks simply create a shortcut here to one or another Creator. And, dispite your protestations [here and elsewhere], you are not able to demonstrate that a God, the God, my God does not in fact exist. Other than pertaining to and predicated upon the assumptions embedded in the arguments in your head.

Or so it seems to me.

And then back up into the scholastic clouds bursting at the seams with “general descriptions” of…of something.

How on earth does this pertain to the “intellectual integrity” of the arguments that I have raised on this thread?

Objective pertaining to what? Let’s choose a context in which value judgments come into conflict. And then explore attempts made to resolve them in either a God or a No God world.

On the other hand, we are clearly at odds regarding the “practicals” here:

I can only call them as I construe them. And don’t I point out over and again that the problem may well be me not understanding your own particular rendition of a “right makes might” world?

I’m just trying to connect the dots between conflicting human behaviors here and now and this imagined future of yours where objective moral interactions are finally achieved. And achieved not pharmaceutically but philosophically.

Ridiculous perhaps in a wholly determined universe. But in a universe in which the human species is said to possess at least some measure of autonomy, where are the philosophers/ethicists able to concoct the definitive argument regarding the political prejudices revolving around those who either do or do not want to replace cars with mass transit systems?

The parts that comprise the car or the subway are able to be noted objectively. But what about the parts embedded in the conflicting goods here? Then we are back to the gap between the knowledge/information that any particular one of us might accumulate here and all of the knowledge/information that was, is or ever will be exchanged by all of those who have thought about this.

What key insights might we never have become aware of?

All I can do here is to point out how hopelessly abstract this is. Unless and until we bring one or another existential rendition of the Middle-Way down out of the clouds and discuss it pertaining to an actual context, we’re just batting words back and forth.

Although, for some, I suspect, that is really the whole point.

Morality and ethics is a difficult subject, with few easy answers. To suggest that someone well off is responsible to every less fortunate person in the world or even in other parts of the country or state he lives in is sophistry. Whether a fortunate person has a moral obligation to share with the less fortunate in his own community is an interesting question, but consists in moral minutiae not relevant to this discussion. You’ll have to engage your introspection to determine whether or how much of your own wealth you should give to the poor if this is a matter of great concern to you.

Human beings are fragmentally falsified. The consequence of this is that we perceive both factual and moral matters obscurely. This is well known; it’s not unusual for human imperfection to be injected into conversation. Our indistinct grasp of the depth and breadth of truth and the moral issues surrounding it naturally makes conceptualization of ambiguous matters—like whether a well-off person is responsible for all the world’s poor—difficult and irrelevant. What I’m suggesting has a single goal: the pursuit of truth is the single most important goal one can engage in. Let that be your guide to ambiguous moral questions.

More sophistry. As you well know, I made no claims to rightness. I claim that truth is right and that clarity of truth is unavailable to fragmentally falsified humans. If you want to discuss, don’t twist the issues. I don’t have much patience with bullshit.

Now you’re either being purposefully absurd or everyone you hang with is an amoral sociopath. If the latter, I suggest you find some new friends whose behaviour can give you a refreshingly new slant on life and improve your understanding of moral issues. If the former, the interesting question is, what is it about what I wrote that stings you? Are there truths in the informational content presented that provoke the sophist inside? One of the interesting features of this hypothesis of truth is its predictive capabilities, you know.

Oh, I see.

Many of the above points are repeats so I will not go through them again.

As I had stated many times to optimize living one has to complement the ‘knowing’ [intellectual knowledge] with the ‘doing’ [the practical] and thus they Middle-Way, i.e. the way of Wisdom. ‘Doing’ is the most critical whilst must be supported by the ‘knowing.’

What I find you are lacking is sufficient ‘knowing’ and also insufficient ‘doing’ i.e. actual practices that would rewire your brain for wisdom.

It is as if you want to be like Roger Federer or Stephen Curry or even 50% of their ability. What is lacking here is you have not bothered to gather the necessary knowledge and doing the right actions and sufficient practices in the right direction to develop the necessary knowledge and relevant skills.
Note the generic model re life problem solving technique I presented in the various posts.

I had stated ALL humans are infected with desperate existential psychology that generate existential angst.
One of the most effective solution to the existential angst is theism, i.e. just believe and viola! one is saved and feel secured. As you had mentioned you were once clinging to this ‘straw’ in your life.
Whilst theism provides REAL psychological security, it is very flimsy like clinging to straws in the middle of the deep ocean. Theism supporting knowledge and practices are very faith-based, irrational and insecure thus will raise doubts in those with rising intellect and rationality BUT the fact is it works [with limited conditions].

I believed you was once one of those with rising [in baby steps] intellect and rationality and saw through the irrationality [or stupidity] of theism. Then you jumped into existentialism [Barrett] and others.

The problem is the jumping into existentialism is like ‘jumping from the frying pan into the fire’.
Whilst existentialism is more rational than the rigid theological doctrines of theism, in generally and in most cases it does not by itself provide the real psychological security that theology does. What it will do or did to you as you have stated is it shattered the “I” and leave all its broken pieces suspended in mid-air and ungrounded.
Note the exception of Kierkegaard who shifted into existentialism but he kept his theistic beliefs and thus maintain the necessary real psychological security to deal with the real inherent existential angst.
Note Sartre who had to eventually clung back to theism.

On your part you abandon theism and clung to secular existentialism thus giving up the essential REAL psychological security and thus digging a deeper and deeper hole and being trapped therein.

Existentialism which directs onto the subject [rather than external objects or god] is filled with all sorts of flimsy intellectual contraptions [Existence precedes essence,
The Absurd & Meaningless, Facticity Authenticity The Other and the Look
Angst and dread, Despair, etc.] that do not provide a strong enough real psychological security to deal with the very desperate inherent real existential angst.

When you cling to the above ideas, you lack the right knowing and worst I don’t see any ‘doing’ on your part. Question: What are doing to secure the anchor to deal with the inherent and unavoidable turbulences in life? Look like you are not doing anything but merely intellectualizing the ideas.

As least with theism [irrational and whatever] the belief [unreal] ensures real psychological security to deal with the real desperate existential crisis and angst.

With existentialism of your kind you may acquire some truth that the focus must be on the subject and self, but you deliberately don’t want to acquire the relevant knowledge of the self or “I” as I had proposed nor cultivate the necessary wisdom and equanimity in doing the necessary practicals [to rewire the brain with the right circuitry].

You keep accusing me of being stuck to intellectual contraptions. Nah it is not ‘contraptions’, but in a forum the only activity has to intellectual, what else? But I am intellectualizing on the right knowledge not contraptions.
Outside the forum I am doing the right practice [over many many years] to cultivate equanimity and practical wisdom to modulate the inherent and inevitable unavoidable existential angst. What right practices have you done?

What on earth are you talking about here?

What I have come to embody [in the is/ought world] is a fractured and fragmented “I”. And on this thread that revolves around my speculation that in a No God world there does not appear to be a font/foundation that mere mortals can turn to in order to make a philosophical distinction between right and wrong, good and evil.

All I do here is invite those who do embody one or another God world narrative to explore the relationship between the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave and what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it.

And I recognize that my own value judgments are basically existential contraptions [political prejudices] rooted in dasein.

How are yours not?

So what? What counts [from my perspective] is the extent to which any particular individual is able to demonstrate that his or her own value judgments reflect the optimal or the only rational understanding of human virtue.

All we can do here is to bring this assertion down to earth — by exploring a particular context. Is there a “systemic” fallibility that ethicists are able to discern? And then encompass in an argument intertwined in a description/assessment of a particular context?

I don’t agree. But clearly you know me better than I know myself. So, by all means, convince me.

What I have stated many times is that, in my opinion, you have never demonstrated [to me] why/how you have wisely complemented the knowing with the doing: as this pertains to a particular conflicting good in a particular context that you have yourself experienced.

In a No God world.

Note to others:

I don’t read all of his posts. Has he attempted to demonstrate this to you on another thread? All I want to do here is to bring these assessments down to earth.

Think about it: How is it even possible for one mere mortal to “gather all of the necessary knowledge” when any particular one of us only has access to a tiny sliver of all the exchanges [experiences/information/knowledge] that our species has disseminated amongst and between ourselves over the centuries.

Then think about this:

There may well be be any number of key insights here that we are completely oblivious to. As this pertains to conflicting goods in the is/ought world.

Right?

Here you don’t grasp the manner in which I surmise that, psychologically, you too are merely concocting [in a world of words] the secular rendition of God and theism. A frame of mind into which you can subsume “I”. Why? In order to sustain “in your head” the comfort and consolation embodied in championing one or another TOE. Indeed, at ILP alone there have been dozens of them proposed over the years. They clearly cannot all be right but down to the individual objectivist, they are all argued to be the one true assessment of the human condition.

Still, as with most of the other secular [humanist] narratives, when you die that’s it. No immortality, no salvation, no divine justice.

But at least you can take pride in having both the Intestinal fortitude and the intellectual integrity of encompassing All There Is – as it really, really is – in a No God world.

And folks like me are deemed “weak” because we won’t/don’t display the same qualities. We are still groping for a way up out of an essentially absurd and meaningless world that ends in oblivion.

You, on the other hand, have figured out how this all works. You understand God and religion [and why folks embrace them] wholly, fully, definitively. Not only that but “in your head” you have concocted the intellectual scaffolding from which mere mortals can derive absolute moral agendas in a No God world. As in fact they finally will “in the future”.

Here [of course] you speak of existentialism in an intellectual contraption. A “general description” of the philosophy. Okay, so let’s bring it down to Earth by embedding its components [as we understand them] in the is/ought world. In a context most here will likely to be familiar with.

In other words, “what in the world” are you talking about here:

From my frame of mind, this sort of thing smacks of pedanty. Almost as though you are imagining others reading it and marveling at how “deep” it sounds. How intellectual. But what on earth does it have to do with any actual conflicting behaviors derived from conflicting goods pertaining to a particular “human all too human” context?

Here you demur:

What “right practices”? In what context?

Then back again to this: How are you not entangled in my own dilemma when confronting others who do not share your own value judgments?

Hell, you don’t even follow “politics”. In other words, so as to discern just how many conflicting goods still abound thousands of years after the pre-Socratics first broached [as philosophers] these interactions in the is/ought world.

In this contexts of complementing the knowing with the doing, I was referring the necessary exercises one has to do to deal with conflicts.
Personally I have been striving to cultivate a state of equanimity & other qualities and doing the necessary practices for MANY years to achieve reasonable progress to deal with conflicting goods whatever they are. I will not claim I have attained a 90/100 state of equanimity, etc. but at least I have ventured into it and been continually improving over the MANY years I have been into it.

I am not very sure what example of conflicting goods you want me to present.
Life is filled with all sorts of dilemma and the mother of all dilemma is the inherent unavoidable existential dilemma. I have tackle this existing inherent unavoidable existential dilemma via theism to non-theism with a state of equanimity and whatever is necessary.

I have given you an example of complementing the knowing with the doing as in wanting to be a good tennis player, say 50% of Federer’s standard.
To be a skillful tennis player one has to know the theories and do lots of practices with intelligence and smartness.
One can know whether skillful tennis player is knowledgeable or not by the type of knowledge s/he has presented in comparison to the pool of knowledge on playing tennis available.
But to know whether one has successfully complementing the knowing with the doing, the doing [practices] has to be observed or proven with actual results like what Federer has achieved.

So how can I demonstrate to you unless you know me personally and have seen what I have done physically or mentally.
The only way you can know what I know is from what I have posted here which is restricted to knowledge [knowing] but not the practical [doing].

But in your case, using the intention to be a skillful tennis player, you have learned (brainwashed) with ineffective knowledge on tennis and have not bothered to practice to develop your skills.

There are many perspectives to “right practices.”
Your problem is you don’t even have the concept of “right practices” within your views.
That is the problem with the Continental existentialists who only talk but do not propose how to practice to deal with the existential despairs. Show which Continental existentialist has proposed “right practices” [non-intellectualizing].

In contrast, Buddhism is also involves in existentialism in its own way, note;

Whilst Buddhism [existential] has tons of practices with deal with the real problems faced by the individual, Continental existentialists do not come up with actual practices [rewiring the brain] to deal with the existential issues.

I do follow ‘politics’ intellectually and analyze it philosophically but I don’t practice politics [not a member of any political party nor a fan of any political ideology].

As for conflicting goods I do not believe fire-fighting is effective, thus what I have done is to analyze the root cause of the mother of all conflicting goods, i.e. the existential crisis and apply the generic solution to all other conflicting goods or evil that naturally arise within my circumstances.

You are like living in a place surrounded by water and do not know how to swim but has a terrible fear of water.
Because you are surrounded by water, you have been advised to learn how to swim to be on the safe side just in case.
But unfortunately you have been exposed to superficial theories of swimming and has no interest [out of fear] and developed great resistance to get into the water to practice swimming.

The above is an analogy of the dilemma and catch-22 you are in.
You know you have a dilemma but somehow [for whatever reason] do not bother to exhaust all necessary knowledge and views [to get a balanced view] and to practice [doing] the very necessary to get of that dilemma.

I believe I have talked enough, it is up to you to gather more knowledge and get into the ‘water’ and act [do the doing].

This thread revolves around the moral narratives of those who embrace one or another God.

You of course don’t.

For you “progressive” behaviors seem to revolve instead around a philosophical understanding of how rational men and women are obligated to differentiate between right and wrong, good and evil.

Yet you are telling us that in the course of livng your life from day to day over the years, you are unable to recall a specific context in which your own value judgments came into conflict with anothers.

A context in which you are able to flesh out/illustrate the points that you are making scholastically above.

As I was once forced to with respect to John and Mary and abortion. A fundamental context in my own life because, in conjunction with William Barrett’s “rival goods”, my own embodiment of objectivism began to crumble.

I’m simply trying to grasp how your ideas might work given a particular context. If not one of your own then one that we might all be familiar with in following any number of conflicted goods “in the news”.

Not in other words something like this:

Here the relationship between knowing and doing revolves largely around the either/or world. The results are clearly calcuable in that you either do or do not become a great tennis player.

But, again, shift the discussion from that to the arguments [pro and con] about parents who take their kids at a very early age and try to shape and mold them into great tennis players. The controversy surrounding the “sports parent”. 24/7 some kids are made to live and breathe tennis.

Or some other sport.

Now, is this a good thing or a bad thing? What would constitute a “progressive” parent in this particlar context?

The sort of controversy that swirls around things like this: huffingtonpost.com/john-oas … 50790.html

And yet everytime I try to bring these things down into the realm of day to day human interactions in conflict…

You basically respond like this…

All I can do then is to point out just how far removed we are from forging this exchange into a substantive discussion of conflicting goods in a No God world.

Then this:

Or:

You do not have a dilemma because you have managed to think yourself into believing that you have exhausted all of the necessary knowledge and views. And in the course of living your life from day to day you are wholly in sync with that.

And this brings you comfort and consolation. It brings you equanimity. And some day down the road when everyone else shares your knowledge and views, they too will all be doing the same things.

And, who knows, it may even be possible that you will actually be around to see this happen.

How confident are you of this?

Normally after >50 pages the theme gets lost and sway into other things. Since what we are into is related to existentialism, it is possible to reconcile this to the OP?

Nope! my emphasis is not solely on the rational.
My principle is complementarity, i.e. the rational must be complemented by the empirical, i.e. experiences by the subject toward continuous improvement based on the system approach.
Note the Yin-Yang where the opposites must embrace each other spirally.

I have stated one must be rational [using reason and intellect] to establish the knowing but at the same time one must act [doing] on what is known and reflect on the experiences within a Framework and System with a drive for continuous improvement in all aspects of life.

Being human I am definitely exposed to all sorts of dilemma, including those of conflicting goods [Barrett’s ‘rival goods’].

But the philosophy I had adopted treat these naturally inevitable and unavoidable dilemmas like water droplets on a lotus leaf. I experience these dilemma but they don’t stick around for me to ruminate on them like you do.
That is why I am not able to narrate any significant dilemma I have experienced in life that is traumatic {PTSD} enough for me to recall easily.

That is why I always fall back to the inherent principle of ‘learning how to fish’ i.e. doing and a generic do-it-yourself to tackle any life problems.

Barrett introduced the concept of ‘rival goods’ in his book, The Irrational Man’.

As you will note from the above, religions [Christianity in this case] has at least some crude rickety system [based on illusion and impossibilities but it works] to deal with the dilemma of ‘rival goods.’
The point is when existentialism explains away flimsy-theistic-religions into nothingness, meaningless and absurdities, it does not provide an alternative ‘crutch’ for the terrified and panicky newly converted believers of existentialism to cling on.

The above is your existing dilemma, i.e. in a limbo.
To resolve the dilemma I suggested a Framework and System of ‘knowing and doing’ as a generic technique to deal with the inherent dilemma.
What I had proposed is a generic [how to fish] technique re how to resolve dilemmas in life and not addressing any specific dilemma [feeding one fishes on a daily basis].

Once the person has cultivated the necessary state and skills to deal with whatever dilemmas, the dilemmas [including the worst] will be like continuous water [even if polluted] falling on and off lotus leaves.

My example is for a person who has a strong drive and personal interest in playing tennis to the highest level.
In this case you are shifting the goalpost of the discussion or changing the subject matter from the person who is personally interested in learning, to the parents.

But even if you bring the parents in, then the main theme is still skills, i.e. parenting skills. If the parents has sufficient knowledge of what is good parenting [knowing] and has the ability to put that into practice, then they will not subject the kid to 24/7 practice.

The ultimate point is still about ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’.

Note my focus is on ‘how to fish’ while you want me to find the next fish to you, then presumably I have to do it on a daily basis.

It is not that I think I don’t have a dilemma.
Based on the right efforts I have put in over many years, I have managed to develop the necessary mental state to modulate ‘rival goods’ spontaneously without having to cry and ruminate over it.

As for the majority, I won’t be around to see the average person having the average state to deal with the existential dilemma effectively. However, given the progressing trend, I am optimistic it will happen, perhaps in >75 >100 years from now. What we can do is discuss the issue at present.

Yes, a fairly standard articulation of the faithful. They project into God all that they would be unable to fully comprehend about themselves in a No God world.

In other words, if God did not exist, He would have to be invented.

On the other hand, there are those who, having yanked God up and out of our lives, come to insist that God is not even necessary in order that mere mortals acquire a complete “knowledge and understanding of self”.

Ever and always their own. And then the irony here is completely lost on them.

God is gone, but not our capacity to differentiate right from wrong behaviors.

As “on of us” or “one of them”.

Naturally it seems.