on discussing god and religion

Well, if you wish others to understand how you connect the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and the role God and religion play in your life regarding the other side of it, common sense tells us that the text must be illustrated.

That was the whole point of creating this thread. But I don’t need others to do this so much as being curious as to how they do it. Maybe how they do it might manage to reconfigure the fact that here and now I am unable to do it myself.

That is what a set of value judgments is to me. An existential contraption. Rooted out in a particular world. But: I may bump into someone whose confidence is such that I become less and less confident myself regarding how this is understood by me.

Sure, it can be what others have to lose. But I have to weigh that against all that I have got to gain.

Come on, how do we “work on ourselves” other then in reacting to how others work on themselves differently. Why my way and not theirs? Especially when their way is perceived by me to sustain considerably more comfort and consolation.

You don’t believe in God and you don’t have a religion, so what I think about God and religion is not applicable to you.

A lot of people, who know nothing, are very confident. And a lot of able, skilled and knowledgeable people lack confidence.

Therefore, another person’s confidence can’t be something that ought to produce a change in you.

All you do is to judge them and dismiss them. You don’t try anything that they are doing. At least you haven’t done it in the 8 years that I have been here. You don’t appear to be working on yourself at all.

It seems like we’re the animals in the zoo kind of entertainment/distraction for you. “Don’t those monkeys act funny”. :obscene-moneypiss:

No, not with any measure of precision. But we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the “human condition”.

What is there but the attempts themselves?

I can explore what her confidence is based on. I can note the manner in which our lives and our experiences overlap such that I am [perhaps] able to come closer to understanding how she thinks about these relationships.

After all, this sort of thing happens all the time. We meet new people and we exchange narratives. Sometimes nothing changes in our life as a result of this, and sometimes a lot changes.

The crucial thing [for me] is the extent to which another is able to demonstrate why their confidence is justified. In other words, given the existential relationship between their values here and now and their imagined fate there and then — beyond the grave.

Anyway, no one here [to the best of my knowledge] is forced to pursue these avenues of communication.

And around and around we go. I’m the problem here. And you understand my motivation and intention even better than I do myself.

And how comforting and consoling that must be.

Is it fair now to conclude that you are comforting and consoling yourself here by claiming to know his psychology?

I wonder who started the mind reading?

I am glad to see that your epistemology now includes being persuaded by the confidence of others as they tell you their stories.

You’ll be a Bible thumper soon. I mean, I think Phyllo is probobly not the apex confidence believer out there. There are religious forums…

Things are looking up.

Well, different.

Or not.

No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:

[b]…we are both human beings who share any number of genetic and memetic commonalities. We are able to communicate our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences so as to learn from each other. And to teach each other.

To learn and to teach new and different ways of viewing the “human condition”.

What is there but the attempts themselves?[/b]

In particular given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

These attempts can be and will be only so successful. But: What else is there?

Still, it certainly seems to me that given his belief in objective morality on this side of the grave, and the manner in which this is connected to his understanding of God and religion on the other side of it, how can he not be considerably more comforted and consoled than “I” am down in my hole inching ever so closely to oblivion?

My epistemology [like his, like yours] reflects the gap between our utterly infinitesimal, insignificant existence and all that can be known about the utterly stupendous vastness embedded in All There Is To Know About Existence Itself.

What on earth does this mean?

I’ll tell you what…

In the spirit of the OP, why don’t you connect the dots between the manner in which you construe your value judgments on this side of the grave and the manner in which you imagine the fate of “I” – your “I” – on the other side of it.

In fact, the discussion I would be most curious about regarding this is the one between you and Phyllo.

Odd. Suddenly the cultural and historical contraptions fall away and there are a bunch of commonalities. It sounds like an objective set of commonalities. What happened to dasein? The stuff that makes it nearly impossible to understand and accept other people’s arguments?

I don’t think that existence is insignificant. I don’t think that ‘infinitesimal’ is equal to ‘none’ or ‘nothing’. I think that we can know about lots of things and that we need not be paralyzed by uncertainty.

Those are important differences between us.

Maybe there are no dots to connect. Maybe what you do here and now has nothing to do with what happens after death. For example, the Stoics did not pursue virtue in this life in order to get a reward or avoid a punishment in an afterlife.

Over and over and over again I note the distinction between things we share in common in the either/or world and things we may or may not share in common regarding our reaction to these things in the is/ought world. With regard to human sexuality, pregnancy and abortion there are genetic and memetic factors able to be established as true for all of us. I am this, I am not that. You are this, you are not that.

Dasein, as “I” understand it, revolves around discussions of abortion as a moral issue. What can we say is in fact true or false about the ethics of aborting the unborn?

[b]Note to KT:

Kindly explain my point to him or his point to me.[/b]

What you think about these relationships is not the same as being able to demonstrate that all rational men and women ought to think about them in the same way. I readily acknowledge my own inability to accomplish this.

Given the gap between what I think I know and all that can be known about existence itself.

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

That’s the important difference between us.

But clearly you were not talking about the either/or world because the post was about motivation, intention and psychology.
Here : “No, my point about his psychology revolves around this:”

If psychology is in the either/or world then value judgments would be in the either/or world as well.

What does mean if I can’t demonstrate it to all rational people?

It doesn’t mean that I don’t have knowledge, although it could mean that. I might just not be convincing. I might not appear trustworthy. I might not have sufficient teaching skill. I might not be able to present it in a clear manner. I might not sufficient resources to back up what I say. I might be less willing to lie and manipulate than a competing snake oil salesman. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I can accept my limitations and the limitations of humans in general. I can move on. Can you?

Call it comfort and consolation if you want.

There is some knowledge that cannot be put into words or presented in the form of an argument.

Some things cannot be demonstrated to other people. They have to demonstrate it to themselves … they have to discover it themselves.

Having followers, believers and disciples does not show knowledge. It’s possible to be obscure, unknown and ignored and still to be knowledgeable and wise.

One can have this as a criterion. He can have it as a criterion. He can make that demand or have that as a thought experiment. And there is a modicum of fairness, or one could say analytical usefulness in this criterion, since many people act like: they know the right answer, they can justify it such that a rational person should be convinced, and thus if someone does not agree they are irrational. People do exist who function like this, and most of us have moments where we do. So I get the criterion. But it is also a ridiculous criterion. In the above I am trying to be as respectful as possible to his criterion, since it does not appear in a vaccuum. People do act like this, assume it to be a reasonable criterion.

Problems abound with it of course. Right off the bat we have the implicit binary nature of it. Rational people in group A, irrational people in group B. But, of course, humans are not like this. They are rational in some situations and not others, regarding some topics and not others (and that’s with pretty much any definition of ‘rational’. Further rationality is itself not easy to demonstrate. IOW page 24 of whichever Kant book you choose should, you would think qualify as rational. I mean the guy was brilliant, he was a pro. He worked fucking hard on that page. But still it may very well have irrational elements. From cultural assumptions, from language, from his own idiosyncrasies. From error.

The problem with rational as a category is also here. Could two equally informed people both be rational and reach different conclusions on the same conclusion`? Yes. Especially if they have different experiences - though one could say that means they have different information. But then, we always have different information. Rationality is an approach. Generally means working with deduction and empirical evidence. It is an approach. But we use rationality as a value laden term. It tends to mean good thinking. Which is silly, since it is an approach and one that can obviously reach false conclusions. Extremely rational, well informed people have used lovely deduction and come to wrong conclusions.

This conflation of 'rationality´as meaning thinking that follows whatever one considers the correct epistemology and the meaning of being correct, is a mistake. Rational thinking and rational thinkers can reach false conclusions. Even when they are being very rational, no fallacies that day.

The criterion is actually vague, falsely binary and almost meaningless.

And unlikely ever to be met. It certainly has never been met on any topic, even on either side of the is ought divide.

Yes, exactly. It sounds like an objective measurement. And I suppose it could be. We could set Phyllo loose on a huge statistical sample of people judged rational. But if he seems nervous, some might just not be convinced even if Phyllos logic and assumptions were spot on. And some of them might be having a bad day. And of course, cognitive dissonence related to issues that are emotionally charged could get in the way. One would think that someone with a belief system founded on dasein would think it was a ridiculous criterion.

We could give Iamb the benefit of the doubt and say: well, that’s his point. You can’t convince everyone. Fine, but then one must never conflate this criterion with a good judge of the truth.

An inability to convince huge numbers of people of something should never be conflated with not being right. ONe can be right and not be able to convince a single person.

And at least in practical terms, I have experienced this. IOW my continued belief in my own conclusion about what happened date X at 3pm, is working for me, has even helped me, despite the fact that I cannot prove that my sense of what happened is correct to a single human. And this would be about things on the is side of the is ought divide.

Yes. to all this. And there are a range of issues here. That not all knowledge is verbal. That not all things can be learned through rational discussion - and I would add, that this is even a good way to learn most of the time is false, especially if it is the only way one is learning. And last, yes, all rational people have believed in things that Iamb is extremely skeptical about, like say God.

And even scientists have, en masse, been wrong. Must we then categorize them all as irrational?

Epistomology is being conflated with PR.

We all come into the world hard-wired genetically to experience what we call mental, emotional and psychological states. So, if Joe is about to be executed, different people will react to that in different ways.

But they all have the capacity to react in different ways. They have a particular intention in and a particular motivation for reacting as they do. And this will be embedded in a complex intertwining of genes and memes out in a particular world. In what “I” call dasein.

There are facts about those reactions we are or are not able to establish.

My point however [over and over again] is to explore this philosophically when the discussion shifts to the moral components of these reactions. When the reactions come into conflict, is there a way in which to determine how one ought to react to Joe’s execution? What is in fact true here?

Now, how on earth do you equate the facts embedded in our psychological reactions with attempts to resolve conflicting goods?

Re Joe’s execution.

I completely agree. All of these factors [and others besides] may well be applicable here. I have never argued that objective morality does not exist. I have never argued that rooting this in God or in ideology or in nature is necessarily irrational.

I have merely noted that here and now “I” do not believe in God and/or objective morality. I am down in my hole anticipating oblivion. I have no existential access to the sort of comfort and consolation that any number of religious objectivist have.

All I can do [on this thread] is ask those folks who do believe in God and in objective morality to take their religious and moral and political narratives/agendas out into the world and situate them in a particular context.

As we did with Communism.

The bottom line then being that you either convince me that your frame of mind is more reasonable than mine or you don’t. But even if you do convince me that doesn’t establish it as necessarily true. Not until the dots can be connected between what we now concur regarding Communism and all that would need to be known about the existence of existence itself.

Call it moving on if you like, but that doesn’t make all of the “unknown unknowns” embedded in the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world” go away. Instead I’m back to this:

Basically you just shrug that gap off and talk yourself into believing that what you think you know need be as far as it goes. Why? Because what you think you know comforts and consoles you psychologically.

What I want pales in importance to what you want. You either are comforted and consoled by your moral and religious beliefs or you’re not.

I’m definitely not.

Note to others: What’s missing here?

A context?

This is the classic “general description” embraced by any number of moral and political objectivsts. They have demonstrated to themselves that the discovery of their own value judgments encompasses all the knowledge they need to embrace one or another God, one or another political ideology, one or another deontological contraption or one or another take on Nature.

And, having convinced themselves that they are wise, it then comes down to how tolerant they will be of all those who refuse to be. “One of them” in other words.

Then above all else they must steer clear of the points I raise. After all, the more I make sense to them the more they – their own particular “I” – are risk of becoming increasingly fractured and fragmented themselves.

What is this but a gigantic intellectual contraption in which words define and defend other words; and are thus true or false depending on the internal logic of the definitions themselves.

Rational in regard to what? In what context involving what behaviors? What here are we likely to establish as in fact true objectively for all of us; and what instead would seem more applicable to the components of my own moral/political/religious narrative?

I think that it’s safe to conclude that Iambig is unreceptive to anything we have to say.

We can leave it there.

Note to others:

If this reflects your own frame of mind, by all means, move on to others. But [for all practical purposes] I can only be receptive to points that seem reasonable to me given the manner in which I construe the “self” [in the is/ought world] to be an existential contraption.

And thus the extent to which you are able to persuade me how in any particular context your own sense of self is not one of those.

In the spirit of the OP:

Noting how you do go about connecting the dots between your value judgments on this side of the grave and that which you imagine the fate of “I” to be on the other side of it.

God, I hope you can.

What I find fascinating in the quoted rant is that it is intended as a playing to the gallery. IOW the rhetorical structure that parallels ranting to like minds about a third party: a right winger complaining about ‘transperson ideology’ to other right wingers or a left winger complaining about alt.right sexism at a feminist convention. It is a speech aimed at the nodding heads of like minds, referring to the absurdity of what is supposedly Phyllo’s position.

Perhaps it is absurd. Perhaps it is Phyllo’s position. But let’s set that aside.

Who the fuck is the gallery?

Who does he imagine are nodding their heads? ready to call out ‘here, here’.

Now we can get some kind of victimy humble: oh, I know most people are objectivists, but i struggle here alone in the face of…

But it’s this kind of thing that makes one wonder if he knows what he is doing.

When one says what he might be doing, he objects, and fair enough. It is very hard to know what he is doing, what purpose this serves.

But taking it at face value seems unjustified.

And, with Phyllo, God does manage to figure into all of this. Though “in the spirit of the OP” I’ve never actually been able to pin him down as to how.

And, really, how is this relevant to the intent of the OP? My point is that there are folks all along the political spectrum who have “personal opinions” about human gender identity. Some predicate their moral narratives and political agendas on God and religion, some don’t.

And, from my perspective, “like minds” here embody the components of my own argument on this thread: dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Existential contraptions in a No God world. Out in a particular context out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.

I just don’t pretend that my own frame of mind is not in turn an existential contraption subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas and arguments.

I merely suggest further that this is applicable to Phyllo and KT as well.

And that the objectivists among us seek to shut that part down by insisting that their own value judgments in regard to gender identity are essentially/necessarily true because they are predicated on one or another God and religion.

Or, in regard to the No God objectivists among us, on one or another political ideology, one or another deontological philosophical assessment or on one or another assessment of “natural behaviors”.

Well, among others, anyone who is reading this now.

And they will either engage the intent of the OP or they won’t. They will either bring their value judgments and religions convictions “down to earth” and explore them with me contextually or they won’t.

Well, right now, “in total there are 3 users online”. So, not many to say the least. On the other hand, in that context, why is he here? Go figure the things any particular “I” chooses to do. Go figure why this and not something else.

But then he procedes to “nail” me:

Of course the implication here is that he does know what he is doing. Though, admittedly, aside from waiting for godot, I have myself not pinned that down yet.

On the other hand, there have been many, many very intelligent and articulate folks I have bumped into here at ILP. There is always the possibility that on threads like this one, someone will in fact succeed in nudging me in another direction. One less grim perhaps.

In the interim, I still enjoy contributing posts to my own quotes, movies and music threads. And I do gain some level of satisfaction [based on the view counts] that others here enjoy them too.

Note to others:

What, in your view, prompts this clear hostility that he often conveys towards me here. I have my own suspicions but I’ll keep that to myself. If you know what I mean.

No, really, do you know what I mean?llll :wink:

Still at it with your ‘conflicting good,’ intellectual contraption and stuck in the hole you dig for yourself.

Why not have a look at this;
How long can you Hold Your Breath?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194655

That is something practical not the typical intellectual contraption, it may prop you out of your deep hole.

I believe KT has good intentions, but you are stuck in such a deep shit hole, it would be very unlikely for anyone to contribute any assistance.

Why, thank you?
Unexpected. My crankiness level will go down.