on discussing god and religion

[iambiguous]

The Meaning of Life
Daniel Hill argues that without God, life would be meaningless.

What is the meaning of ‘the meaning of life’? In analytic philosophy the bearers of meaning have usually been considered to be words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. Hence life itself is not usually considered to be a bearer of meaning, but the word ‘life’ is.

As in, for example, defining it. A definition that comes closest to a technically correct understanding of it if you don't actually take into consideration the things that you do in the course of, say, living it.

Assuming first that we can pin down the precise definition of definition itself. As that relates to an epistemologically sound understanding of what this means to those who take philosophy seriously.

And, some suggest, that can only revolve around the manner in which the human mind begets human perceptions beget human conceptions about life in regard to the shadows on the cave wall. Not life en soi. Not life going all the way back formally to one or another transcending font. God say.

Understanding the meaning of the latter is itself an important philosophical task, to determine whether life involves any non-physical substance, or whether it merely involves a certain form or arrangement of a certain type of physical matter.

And this is crucial pertaining to any discussion of determinism. Meaning may well be whatever nature evolved itself into construing it to be. It simply is nature itself.

Then this part:

It is therefore a task that logically must be tackled before the task of understanding the meaning of life in the sense usually intended by the earnest questioner. However, the person that asks “What is the meaning of life?” is not usually asking for a definition of the word ‘life’. What I think the questioner means to ask is what the explanation is for the presence of life or existence of living things.

But that only brings some of us back to the gap between the mind of the questioner and the minds of any particular individual providing an answer and a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. How are we all not stuck there?

Peter van Inwagen gives a helpful analogy: “If Alice surprises a trusted employee who has broken into her office and is going through her files, and if Alice says ‘What is the meaning of this?’ she is requesting an explanation of a certain state of affairs in terms of the purposes of her employee or those whose agent the employee is.” So, if someone asked you the meaning of the fact that the water was boiling, replying that a heating element was giving the water molecules energy wouldn’t be a proper answer, nor would saying that the water had reached 100ºC. The answer would be that (for example) someone had put the kettle on in order to have hot water to make a cup of tea. If it was apparent that nobody was responsible for the event in question, if, say, the event was just the boiling of water in a natural geyser, the person asking “What is the meaning of the fact that the water is boiling?” would receive the answer that there was no meaning (or would perhaps receive just a puzzled stare). Thomas Morris calls this the ‘Endowment Thesis’: “Something has meaning if and only if it is endowed with meaning or significance by a purposive personal agent or group of such agents.”

What assessments like this bring me back to is encompassing the word meaning in a context in which explanations are able to be communicated back and forth such that reasonable conclusions can be derived. It means this or it means that. We just have to understand what the intent of the questioner is in regard to understanding the particular context.

On the other hand, in the is/ought world, the conflicting meaning that we give to words that encompass our value judgments, may or may not be resolved with a dictionary.

[iambiguous]

But there's a certain literal-mindedness in that isn't there? As if some of these words on the virtual page are privileged to be more than mere words on the virtual page. We're back to the myth of the heroic ego-- the one personification of the mind who is charged by modernity to take itself as literally real. And that culturally reinforced mainstream Western ego is thereby locked in. Only I am real. Other putative entities are real to the degree that they think like I do. Otherwise they are in the " hundreds of millions" outgroup.

Not at all sure what this point has to do with my point.

In my view, we would use words on this thread in an attempt to connect the dots between the words we choose and the manner in which we can persuade others that they might be applicable to an understanding of their own lives. As those lives revolve around morality here and now, death and what comes after it.

[felix dakat]

But there's a certain literal-mindedness in that isn't there? As if some of these words on the virtual page are privileged to be more than mere words on the virtual page. We're back to the myth of the heroic ego-- the one personification of the mind who is charged by modernity to take itself as literally real. And that culturally reinforced mainstream Western ego is thereby locked in. Only I am real. Other putative entities are real to the degree that they think like I do. Otherwise they are in the " hundreds of millions" outgroup.

Not at all sure what this point has to do with my point.

In my view, we would use words on this thread in an attempt to connect the dots between the words we choose and the manner in which we can persuade others that they might be applicable to an understanding of their own lives. As those lives revolve around morality here and now, death and what comes after it.

Do you suppose the human beings are fully aware and autonomous? Do you think you're fully transparent to yourself? When you look around at others, don't you see that their apparently free decisions turn out to be effects of forces that are unknown to them? Do you suppose that you're immune to these lines of force?

[iambiguous]

In my view, we would use words on this thread in an attempt to connect the dots between the words we choose and the manner in which we can persuade others that they might be applicable to an understanding of their own lives. As those lives revolve around morality here and now, death and what comes after it.

Do you suppose the human beings are fully aware and autonomous? Do you think you're fully transparent to yourself? When you look around at others, don't you see that their apparently free decisions turn out to be effects of forces that are unknown to them? Do you suppose that you're immune to these lines of force?

Well, my argument here is that in the either/or world, we may in fact be incorrect in our thinking about why things are the way they are. But: there are others able to set us straight as to how all rational men and women are obligated to think one thing rather than another. In other words, in regard to mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the rules of logic pertaining to human language out in that world.

So, no, we don't have to be fully aware here as long as others are. As for autonomy, are there any among us able to demonstrate that in fact they are fully aware of all the variables that would go into demonstrating that the human species existing in our own infinitesimally tiny speck of the universe, are free to think and feel and say and do what they choose to of their own volition?

Instead, the crucial distinction I make is between "I" in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. Now, if we lived in a wholly determined universe as I construe it "here and now", "I" in the is/ought world embodies just the psychological illusion of freedom. The is/ought world would be no less an inherent/necessary component of the either/or world.

The human brain/mind here would [it seems] just be the most sophisticated matter of all. But no less subject to the immutable laws of nature. Unless of course, as some do, you count God. The main focus on this thread.

But even given human autonomy, "I" in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption interacting with others as "I" have come to encompass this in my signature threads.

[felix dakat]

In my view, we would use words on this thread in an attempt to connect the dots between the words we choose and the manner in which we can persuade others that they might be applicable to an understanding of their own lives. As those lives revolve around morality here and now, death and what comes after it.

Do you suppose the human beings are fully aware and autonomous? Do you think you're fully transparent to yourself? When you look around at others, don't you see that their apparently free decisions turn out to be effects of forces that are unknown to them? Do you suppose that you're immune to these lines of force?

Well, my argument here is that in the either/or world, we may in fact be incorrect in our thinking about why things are the way they are. But: there are others able to set us straight as to how all rational men and women are obligated to think one thing rather than another. In other words, in regard to mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the rules of logic pertaining to human language out in that world.

So, no, we don't have to be fully aware here as long as others are. As for autonomy, are there any among us able to demonstrate that in fact they are fully aware of all the variables that would go into demonstrating that the human species existing in our own infinitesimally tiny speck of the universe, are free to think and feel and say and do what they choose to of their own volition?

Instead, the crucial distinction I make is between "I" in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. Now, if we lived in a wholly determined universe as I construe it "here and now", "I" in the is/ought world embodies just the psychological illusion of freedom. The is/ought world would be no less an inherent/necessary component of the either/or world.

The human brain/mind here would [it seems] just be the most sophisticated matter of all. But no less subject to the immutable laws of nature. Unless of course, as some do, you count God. The main focus on this thread.

But even given human autonomy, "I" in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption interacting with others as "I" have come to encompass this in my signature threads.

Who are these people who can “set us straight”? And who are these rational men and women who can be set straight? What do the straight setters tell you about yourself? Do they know about the unique individual that you might happen to be? Or are you making yourself over in the mold that they supply to you?

So, there are others that are fully self-aware? Who? Where? Are you sure that they are not organisms that evolved to function predominantly unconsciously with a limited consciousness operating more or less epiphenomenally? What would that mean to your notion of “morality”?

“Immutable laws of nature”. That seems to be a metaphor based on human society with its laws. What about a different metaphor? That of habits? Maybe nature operates on the basis of habits not laws. If not, the notion of human autonomy seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we are the product of universe governed by natural law. In such a universe, moral choice is more likely an egocentric illusion.

[iambiguous]

Who are these people who can “set us straight”? And who are these rational men and women who can be set straight? What do the straight setters tell you about yourself? Do they know about the unique individual that you might happen to be? Or are you making yourself over in the mold that they supply to you?

You know me: It depends on the context. There are men and women who acquire a more sophisticated understanding of many aspects of the "human condition". From biologists and physicists among the hard sciences, to psychologists and sociologists among the soft sciences. So depending on what you think you know is true they are more or less able to set you straight if your own understanding does not comport with facts that can be demonstrated.

My point on this thread however revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. "I" able to connect the dots in his/her head to one or another God, and "I" not able to. Here there does not appear [to me] to be the sort of expertise among the theologians, we come to expect from the scientists. They have faith in God. And the closest they come to demonstrating His existence revolves more around intellectual contraptions of this sort: https://www.edge.org/conversation/rebec ... nce-of-god

Here, a mind-boggling 36 arguments!

So, there are others that are fully self-aware? Who? Where? Are you sure that they are not organisms that evolved to function predominantly unconsciously with a limited consciousness operating more or less epiphenomenally? What would that mean to your notion of “morality”?

Over and again: we need a particular context in which to compare and contrast that which precipitates conflicting assessments of, say, moral duty, and then examines the extent to which advocates are able to demonstrate their own point of view. Then we could address to them the point you raise here. Sans that, it's just another intellectual contraption to me.

“Immutable laws of nature”. That seems to be a metaphor based on human society with its laws.

Tell that to the hard guys who have been probing these laws now for thousands of years. And, indeed, what they have begotten is the modern industrial world bursting at the seams with simply extraordinary technological achievements.

In contrast, human society and its laws are still all over the map in regard to any number of behaviors. The laws of nature followed by doctors in performing abortions encompass a precision that social laws permitting or prohibiting abortion don't even come close to. Genes meet memes because the human species is the only one around [on this planet] where that actually has to be taken into consideration. But: what happens when that is taken all the way back to God. Among other things, moral closure, right?

Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding your point.

What about a different metaphor? That of habits? Maybe nature operates on the basis of habits not laws. If not, the notion of human autonomy seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we are the product of universe governed by natural law. In such a universe, moral choice is more likely an egocentric illusion.

Sure, maybe. But how exactly would one go about demonstrating that distinction in regard to a particular context? One embedded in a God world, one embedded in a No God world.

[felix dakat]

Who are these people who can “set us straight”? And who are these rational men and women who can be set straight? What do the straight setters tell you about yourself? Do they know about the unique individual that you might happen to be? Or are you making yourself over in the mold that they supply to you?

You know me: It depends on the context. There are men and women who acquire a more sophisticated understanding of many aspects of the "human condition". From biologists and physicists among the hard sciences, to psychologists and sociologists among the soft sciences. So depending on what you think you know is true they are more or less able to set you straight if your own understanding does not comport with facts that can be demonstrated.

My point on this thread however revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. "I" able to connect the dots in his/her head to one or another God, and "I" not able to. Here there does not appear [to me] to be the sort of expertise among the theologians, we come to expect from the scientists. They have faith in God. And the closest they come to demonstrating His existence revolves more around intellectual contraptions of this sort: https://www.edge.org/conversation/rebec ... nce-of-god

Here, a mind-boggling 36 arguments!

So, there are others that are fully self-aware? Who? Where? Are you sure that they are not organisms that evolved to function predominantly unconsciously with a limited consciousness operating more or less epiphenomenally? What would that mean to your notion of “morality”?

Over and again: we need a particular context in which to compare and contrast that which precipitates conflicting assessments of, say, moral duty, and then examines the extent to which advocates are able to demonstrate their own point of view. Then we could address to them the point you raise here. Sans that, it's just another intellectual contraption to me.

“Immutable laws of nature”. That seems to be a metaphor based on human society with its laws.

Tell that to the hard guys who have been probing these laws now for thousands of years. And, indeed, what they have begotten is the modern industrial world bursting at the seams with simply extraordinary technological achievements.

In contrast, human society and its laws are still all over the map in regard to any number of behaviors. The laws of nature followed by doctors in performing abortions encompass a precision that social laws permitting or prohibiting abortion don't even come close to. Genes meet memes because the human species is the only one around [on this planet] where that actually has to be taken into consideration. But: what happens when that is taken all the way back to God. Among other things, moral closure, right?

Unless of course I am completely misunderstanding your point.

What about a different metaphor? That of habits? Maybe nature operates on the basis of habits not laws. If not, the notion of human autonomy seems to be inconsistent with the idea that we are the product of universe governed by natural law. In such a universe, moral choice is more likely an egocentric illusion.

Sure, maybe. But how exactly would one go about demonstrating that distinction in regard to a particular context? One embedded in a God world, one embedded in a No God world.

No, I don't know you. And you don't know me. And mostly, we don't know ourselves. But, you seem to think you do. The beginning of wisdom might be for you to realize that you don't. Maybe one of your expert rationalists can help you. But, if you don't want to see, you will pick ones that steer you away from looking. Then you can go on talking about "the human condition" as if you're standing outside of it looking with the gaze of Medusa that turns living souls into stone. But hey, I might have this all wrong. You can "set me straight".

[Karpel Tunnel]

as if you're you're standing outside of it looking...

Impressed you got this impression after not much interaction. I think this is a fundamental quality of his posts. As if he is outside looking in. His questions are as if he is outside and wondering where to step into reality to participate or not. As if he is not already acting in the world based on his beliefs. How sound are his choices? How do his choices compare with options others choose? Might if be worthwhile to try something different for a bit? Given that he is already inside, in motion, making choices with positive and negative aspects.

There is no transcendent position. So, then one is immanent. If one is immanent, then one must necessarily test certain things. Some of these may seem right for person A but not person B. We find ourselves in the middle of our lives, not at the beginning. We already have habits. Should we move from these? What seems right for me, given I am like X, given I live in Y, given, my personality is like Z? What are my goals?

Of course the answers may be tentative. That is what it is to be alive. Dealing with less information than might be ideal. There is something ad hoc about choices.

But one has no option not to choose a lifestyle.

And whatever you do, you do to 100%, even if it is to regularly be half-hearted or regularly skeptical.

That's how you are going about things.

How is THAT working?

It is not all clear and easy, and yes some people think they have the answer for everyone.

There is no need to assume they are correct even in that.

[iambiguous]

No, I don't know you. And you don't know me. And mostly, we don't know ourselves. But, you seem to think you do.

Over and over and over again, I make that crucial distinction between what we think we know about ourselves and what we or others are able to demonstrate is in fact true.

What else is there?

Sans sim worlds or dream worlds or one or another rendition of the matrix etc., I know that I am sitting here typing these words. There are facts about me. My situation. My "set of circumstances". Things that I am able to demonstrate are in fact true about me. Things that I and others know are true about me.

But this thread concerns itself with what I think I know is true about God and religion. And, subsequently, how what I think I know is true precipitates particular behaviors relating to morality on this side of the grave and to the fate of "I" on the other side of it.

So, what am I able to demonstrate here as in fact true? How do I determine if what I think I know about God and religion here and now is in sync with what is actually true about them going back ontologically -- teleologically? -- to an understanding of existence itself?

And how are you not in the same boat?

Think of all the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables [from the day you were born] that go into the making of who you think you are today. Many beyond your understanding of or control over. How close can anyone come to nailing down a definitive understanding of themselves?

The beginning of wisdom might be for you to realize that you don't.

I already do recognize that. But what disturbs many about my narrative here [objectivists in particular] is how I am especially suspicious of "I" in the is/ought world. Here I focus on how and why being "fractured and fragmented" is a reasonable assessment given the assumption that we live in a No God world. Here I note my argument in my signature threads. Others are able to react to it by noting how it is not applicable to them.

Instead, most of them seem intent on keeping the discussion on this level:

Maybe one of your expert rationalists can help you. But, if you don't want to see, you will pick ones that steer you away from looking. Then you can go on talking about "the human condition" as if you're standing outside of it looking with the gaze of Medusa that turns living souls into stone. But hey, I might have this all wrong. You can "set me straight".

In another words, another general description intellectual contraption.

To which I respond, "what on earth do you mean?"

So, what do you mean? Choose a context, a set of circumstances and behaviors we are all likely to be familiar with and embed your own assessment of "I" in it. For example, given the nature of this thread, how do you construe your own sense of identity in relationship to God and religion in relationship to the moral values you embrace in relationship to what you imagine your fate to be when you die?

Are you a moral nihilist as I am? If not, why not?

[iambiguous]

as if you're you're standing outside of it looking...

Impressed you got this impression after not much interaction. I think this is a fundamental quality of his posts. As if he is outside looking in. His questions are as if he is outside and wondering where to step into reality to participate or not. As if he is not already acting in the world based on his beliefs. How sound are his choices? How do his choices compare with options other choose? Might if be worthwhile to try something different for a bit? Given that he is already inside, in motion, making choices with positive and negative aspects.

What I am here and now is inside a particular set of circumstances. Just as he is. And I react to those circumstances given all of the sets of circumstances in my life that predisposed me existentially to think and to feel one way rather than another. Just as he did.

On this thread that revolves around God and religion.

In one set of circumstances some years ago I believed in a God, the God, my God. And, in believing it, I behaved in what I construed to be the appropriate manner.

But other sets of circumstances have since come to predispose me to a No God world. And that has prompted me to come to the conclusions that I have about human interactions in my signature threads.

So, let him respond here by noting how, when one is not on the outside looking in at life, he might react to the points I raise in this thread.

[felix dakat]

For me to be a moral realist or a moral nihilist would require more knowledge about ultimate reality then I think is possible. I can talk in a limited way about my God the god of my experience although I cannot prove that such is ultimately grounded. Likewise my moral intuitions. I am learning to be open to the images my soul produces. They enrich my life and creativity. So for me these days it's not so much a matter of believing as it is of entertaining. And I aspire to getting better at it with practice. I call what I'm doing phenomenology. One exercise involves meditating and observing the images that come. Another involves working on dream and hypnogogic images via active imagination. Based on my experience, I think that imagery underlies all thought. I'm finding that there's more to "Know thyself" then I had previously imagined. The soul or psyche which is unconscious is the source of the imagery which is the basis of both art and religion. The predominant trends in both secular culture and fundamentalist religion cut people off from the depths of their own soul. So, at the moment, I'm espousing a mindset of openness to one's own psyche as a source of possible transcendence.

[iambiguous]

For me to be a moral realist or a moral nihilist would require more knowledge about ultimate reality then I think is possible.

Exactly. Especially [for me] in regard to those who insist that they have "thought up" an argument [philosophical, theological, scientific or otherwise] that allows them to view conflicting human behaviors from the perspective of the moral objectivist. That's the crucial distinction I make. It's just that I am then no less obligated to acknowledge that this distinction is as well no less far removed from all that would need to be known by me to grasp "ultimate reality".

We're all the embodiment of this predicament in my view. There is only admitting it to yourself or not.

I can talk in a limited way about my God the god of my experience although I cannot prove that such is ultimately grounded. Likewise my moral intuitions. I am learning to be open to the images my soul produces.

What however do you mean by this existentially, for all practical purposes? Cite a few examples where in particular sets of circumstances your soul produced images. If I have a soul, it's still beyond my grasp given any particular context.

They enrich my life and creativity. So for me these days it's not so much a matter of believing as it is of entertaining. And I aspire to getting better at it with practice. I call what I'm doing phenomenology. One exercise involves meditating and observing the images that come. Another involves working on dream and hypnogogic images via active imagination. Based on my experience, I think that imagery underlies all thought. I'm finding that there's more to "Know thyself" then I had previously imagined. The soul or psyche which is unconscious is the source of the imagery which is the basis of both art and religion. The predominant trends in both secular culture and fundamentalist religion cut people off from the depths of their own soul. So, at the moment, I'm espousing a mindset of openness to one's own psyche as a source of possible transcendence.

Again, this sort of assessment is just another psychologism to me. An intellectual contraption embedded in a world of words that is not encompassed in turn in a description of a situation you have been in such that you can illustrate more substantively what you mean by it.

In particular, given the aim of this thread, as that relates to actual behaviors that you choose given a particular moral narrative out in a particular world/context...as that relates to what you imagine the fate of "I" to be when you are dead and gone.

Yes, you can go back here to noting the gap between "I" and "ultimate reality". But, when I do this, I'm back to the components of own moral philosophy: nihilism.

Then what interest me is the extent to which others [in a No God world] are not "fractured and fragmented" when confronting conflicting goods. Here and now, I can't think of a way not to be given the manner in which I have come to understand "I" in the is/ought world. As dasein. As an existential contraption ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

[felix dakat]

For me to be a moral realist or a moral nihilist would require more knowledge about ultimate reality then I think is possible.

Exactly. Especially [for me] in regard to those who insist that they have "thought up" an argument [philosophical, theological, scientific or otherwise] that allows them to view conflicting human behaviors from the perspective of the moral objectivist. That's the crucial distinction I make. It's just that I am then no less obligated to acknowledge that this distinction is as well no less far removed from all that would need to be known by me to grasp "ultimate reality".

We're all the embodiment of this predicament in my view. There is only admitting it to yourself or not.

I can talk in a limited way about my God the god of my experience although I cannot prove that such is ultimately grounded. Likewise my moral intuitions. I am learning to be open to the images my soul produces.

What however do you mean by this existentially, for all practical purposes? Cite a few examples where in particular sets of circumstances your soul produced images. If I have a soul, it's still beyond my grasp given any particular context.

They enrich my life and creativity. So for me these days it's not so much a matter of believing as it is of entertaining. And I aspire to getting better at it with practice. I call what I'm doing phenomenology. One exercise involves meditating and observing the images that come. Another involves working on dream and hypnogogic images via active imagination. Based on my experience, I think that imagery underlies all thought. I'm finding that there's more to "Know thyself" then I had previously imagined. The soul or psyche which is unconscious is the source of the imagery which is the basis of both art and religion. The predominant trends in both secular culture and fundamentalist religion cut people off from the depths of their own soul. So, at the moment, I'm espousing a mindset of openness to one's own psyche as a source of possible transcendence.

Again, this sort of assessment is just another psychologism to me. An intellectual contraption embedded in a world of words that is not encompassed in turn in a description of a situation you have been in such that you can illustrate more substantively what you mean by it.

In particular, given the aim of this thread, as that relates to actual behaviors that you choose given a particular moral narrative out in a particular world/context...as that relates to what you imagine the fate of "I" to be when you are dead and gone.

Yes, you can go back here to noting the gap between "I" and "ultimate reality". But, when I do this, I'm back to the components of own moral philosophy: nihilism.

Then what interest me is the extent to which others [in a No God world] are not "fractured and fragmented" when confronting conflicting goods. Here and now, I can't think of a way not to be given the manner in which I have come to understand "I" in the is/ought world. As dasein. As an existential contraption ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

I see no point in further explicating my point of view for you at this time. I described how it seems to me at the moment and you've described how it seems to you. Now, if you’re claiming ultimacy for your point of view, that’s another matter.

[iambiguous]

I see no point in further explicating my point of view for you at this time. I described how it seems to me at the moment and you've described how it seems to you. Now, if you’re claiming ultimacy for your point of view, that’s another matter.

On the contrary, in regard to value judgments relating to God and religion, my point is to suggest quite the opposite: that "I" here is an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein embodied in a particular life that is embedded from the cradle to the grave out in a particular world.

I focus almost entirely here on this part:

"...actual behaviors that one chooses given a particular moral narrative out in a particular context; as that relates to what one imagines the fate of "I" to be when one is dead and gone."

And:

"...what interest me is the extent to which others [in a No God world] are not "fractured and fragmented" when confronting conflicting goods. Here and now, I can't think of a way not to be given the manner in which I have come to understand "I" in the is/ought world. As dasein. As an existential contraption ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas."

This thread was created for those who do believe in God. In order that they might address this fundamental relationshiip between "here and now" and "there and then".

[felix dakat]

I see no point in further explicating my point of view for you at this time. I described how it seems to me at the moment and you've described how it seems to you. Now, if you’re claiming ultimacy for your point of view, that’s another matter.

On the contrary, in regard to value judgments relating to God and religion, my point is to suggest quite the opposite: that "I" here is an existential contraption rooted subjectively/subjunctively in dasein embodied in a particular life that is embedded from the cradle to the grave out in a particular world.

I focus almost entirely here on this part:

"...actual behaviors that one chooses given a particular moral narrative out in a particular context; as that relates to what one imagines the fate of "I" to be when one is dead and gone."

And:

"...what interest me is the extent to which others [in a No God world] are not "fractured and fragmented" when confronting conflicting goods. Here and now, I can't think of a way not to be given the manner in which I have come to understand "I" in the is/ought world. As dasein. As an existential contraption ever and always subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. Given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas."

This thread was created for those who do believe in God. In order that they might address this fundamental relationshiip between "here and now" and "there and then".

My perspective has been influenced by existential philosophy too. So, I’m not totally averse to your characterization of being in the world. For the sake of dialogue, I'll focus on our apparent differences.

Am I wrong in suspecting that your characterization of dasein as a contraption reflects depersonalization in your particular perspectival gestalt?

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

Ironically but not surprisingly you talk about everything as fractured and fragmented and yet you present dasein as a whole. Whether that Gestalt tendency is a psychologism or a drive toward Transcendence, is an open question we can talk about but not resolve. There you go: a fragment. But one for all time or just our historical moment?

Asked if he believed in God, CG Jung replied, “I don't need to believe, I know”. Any idea what he might have meant?

[iambiguous]

My perspective has been influenced by existential philosophy too. So, I’m not totally averse to your characterization of being in the world. For the sake of dialogue, I'll focus on our apparent differences.

Am I wrong in suspecting that your characterization of dasein as a contraption reflects depersonalization in your particular perspectival gestalt?

But: What on earth does this mean? My point in fact is to take points like this out into the world of actual human interactions and to note the extent to which the words are able to be intertwined in particular contexts.

For example, if I meet someone and the discussion turns to the killing of Soleimani in Iraq, my characterization of dasein revolves around the extent to which what "I" believe is true about it can be demonstrated as, in fact, true for all of us. And here the distinction revolves around the objective facts -- Soleimani was killed in a drone strike ordered by Trump -- and subjective assessments rooted only in moral and political prejudices. In other words, was this killing justified? Was it the right thing to do?

It's this part -- "I" in the is/ought world -- that becomes the embodiment of dasein for me. In a No God world. Or in a world where no one is able to convince me that, through secular narratives, the answers to questions like this can in fact be determined. Deontologically, for example. Or ideologically.

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

What do I know of Epicurus's life? What could he know of mine? Dasein is everywhere here. There's death. And there is our individual reaction to it. His dictum does nothing to quell my fear of death. What does that mean? That it ought to but since it doesn't the problem is me? Instead, to the extent I have people and things that I truly love, experiences that I never want to end, death is there to obliterate them. To obliterate "I" itself. From my frame of mind, only when the pain in my life reaches the point where it blots out all the things I live for will my anxiety be quelled.

But that's just me. What could you or others know about that?

Instead, if someone were able to convince me that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, and noted the path I must follow to attain immortality and salvation, why on earth would I hesitate to take it?

Ironically but not surprisingly you talk about everything as fractured and fragmented and yet you present dasein as a whole. Whether that Gestalt tendency is a psychologism or a drive toward Transcendence, is an open question we can talk about but not resolve. There you go: a fragment. But one for all time or just our historical moment?

No, this is you completely misconstruing the manner in which I have come to understand dasein in my signature threads. There are any number of variables in my life [in the either/or world] that I am not fractured or fragmented regarding at all.

Again, we need a context here. A set of circumstances in which human beings interact. And, given the aim of this thread, one that involves choosing behaviors "here and now" as that relates to what we imagine our fate to be "there and then".

You pick it.

Asked if he believed in God, CG Jung replied, “I don't need to believe, I know”. Any idea what he might have meant?

More to the point, given a particular context, how does he know that God exists. How would he go about demonstrating it? How, for all practical purposes, would he distinguish what he claims to know from what I merely claim to believe about God.

[felix dakat]

My perspective has been influenced by existential philosophy too. So, I’m not totally averse to your characterization of being in the world. For the sake of dialogue, I'll focus on our apparent differences.

Am I wrong in suspecting that your characterization of dasein as a contraption reflects depersonalization in your particular perspectival gestalt?

But: What on earth does this mean? My point in fact is to take points like this out into the world of actual human interactions and to note the extent to which the words are able to be intertwined in particular contexts.

For example, if I meet someone and the discussion turns to the killing of Soleimani in Iraq, my characterization of dasein revolves around the extent to which what "I" believe is true about it can be demonstrated as, in fact, true for all of us. And here the distinction revolves around the objective facts -- Soleimani was killed in a drone strike ordered by Trump -- and subjective assessments rooted only in moral and political prejudices. In other words, was this killing justified? Was it the right thing to do?

It's this part -- "I" in the is/ought world -- that becomes the embodiment of dasein for me. In a No God world. Or in a world where no one is able to convince me that, through secular narratives, the answers to questions like this can in fact be determined. Deontologically, for example. Or ideologically.

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

What do I know of Epicurus's life? What could he know of mine? Dasein is everywhere here. There's death. And there is our individual reaction to it. His dictum does nothing to quell my fear of death. What does that mean? That it ought to but since it doesn't the problem is me? Instead, to the extent I have people and things that I truly love, experiences that I never want to end, death is there to obliterate them. To obliterate "I" itself. From my frame of mind, only when the pain in my life reaches the point where it blots out all the things I live for will my anxiety be quelled.

But that's just me. What could you or others know about that?

Instead, if someone were able to convince me that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, and noted the path I must follow to attain immortality and salvation, why on earth would I hesitate to take it?

Ironically but not surprisingly you talk about everything as fractured and fragmented and yet you present dasein as a whole. Whether that Gestalt tendency is a psychologism or a drive toward Transcendence, is an open question we can talk about but not resolve. There you go: a fragment. But one for all time or just our historical moment?

No, this is you completely misconstruing the manner in which I have come to understand dasein in my signature threads. There are any number of variables in my life [in the either/or world] that I am not fractured or fragmented regarding at all.

Again, we need a context here. A set of circumstances in which human beings interact. And, given the aim of this thread, one that involves choosing behaviors "here and now" as that relates to what we imagine our fate to be "there and then".

You pick it.

Asked if he believed in God, CG Jung replied, “I don't need to believe, I know”. Any idea what he might have meant?

More to the point, given a particular context, how does he know that God exists. How would he go about demonstrating it? How, for all practical purposes, would he distinguish what he claims to know from what I merely claim to believe about God.

I had a career in psychotherapy. To me your view of your ego as a contraption seems to be symptomatic of depersonalization. Here’s a novel who’s protagnoist shows an remarkable likeness to your depersonalized way of being- in- the- world:

“‘I’ The Contraption Searching for Heaven” by Geza Bosze

“A sci-fi parable in which an artificial man searches for answers to some of life’s deepest mysteries. Pinocchio, the protagonist of Bosze’s fiction debut, views himself as a kind of thinking automaton, a “contraption” with an “amazing onboard computer”—his brain, which comes to conceive of his own existence and then to ask a series of elemental questions about that existence. What’s the point of life? Why are living things here? What’s the nature of reality? What are the limits of identity? Bosze takes his naïve, questing character through a series of encounters with various figures who expound on one aspect of life or another. When, for example, Pinocchio meets Artificial Man, who calmly says he was intelligently assembled, Pinocchio tells him that, in his own case, current scientific ideas stipulate that the opposite is true: “[W]e were just a freaky combination of chemicals in a pool of water that got zapped by lightning,” Pinocchio says, “and voila, four billion years later, here we are, complex biological machines.” (Artificial Man doesn’t seem convinced, and readers clearly aren’t meant to be, either.) A character from the future, named simply 4000 AD, reminds Pinocchio that “it is a common mistake to assume that comprehending some of the ‘magic’ is akin to erasing its mystery. But we found that the more our knowledge grew, the deeper grew the mystery.” Pinocchio moves from one such conversation to another through the effects of something called a Life Simulator, and that all-encompassing reality-replicator brings Pinocchio to many such alternate realities, including a New Earth, where he’s toured around a radically altered world. Bosze skillfully uses all these encounters to frame a number of metaphysical conversations and arrive at some metaphysical answers. “Let’s face it,” he writes, “there is no room for false modesty here—we humans (as far as we know) are the conscious universe. As pathetic as we are, there is no one with anywhere near the ability to challenge our ‘lofty position.’ ” The age-old religious and philosophical questions Bosze rehearses in this way are endlessly fascinating, and his fictional gambit makes his approach palatable to readers at most points on the faith spectrum. A fast-paced, engaging look at the natures of faith and science.”

[felix dakat]

Oh and by the way if we unambiguously lived in a "no God world" you wouldn't have to keep proposing that we do.

[felix dakat]

Oh and by the way if we unambiguously lived in a "no God world" you wouldn't have to keep proposing that we do.

Nietzsche's prognosis of the death of God has proven false. Christianity has returned to Russia which was atheist for 70 years and theistic religion is offering resistance right now in China where atheism is the official policy enforced by high-tech surveillance and concentration camps.

[iambiguous]

I had a career in psychotherapy. To me your view of your ego as a contraption seems to be symptomatic of depersonalization.

Just as with the word dasein, I use the word contraption to distinguish between I in the either/or world and "I" in the is/ought world. In regard to those factors in my life that are rooted in objective facts [biological, circumstantial, social, political, economic] my I is as solid as yours is. Provided of course that neither one of us suffer from a brain ailment [like schizophrenia] in which "I" can be twisted into any number of strange contraptions.

Now, in relationship to our beliefs about God and religion, here too there are "the facts" involved in our actual situation, and the part where "I" becomes more an existential "contraption" in that what we think we know is true revolves around how we have come to think about all of those variable in our life that predispose some to go in one direction and others to go in entirely different directions. Variables we only have so much understanding and control over. In particular in regard to the time and place into which we are fortuitously thrown at birth, and all the factors that go into our indoctrination as children.

Sure, I understand this as "I" do. You understand it as "you" do. But: using the tools of philosophy, is there a way that all rational men and women are in fact obligated to understand it?

And, if there is, bring the tools down to earth by focusing in on an understanding of our behaviors in a particular context in which our views of God and religion come into conflict.

And I am not an "artificial" man. On the other hand, I may well be a man that "here and now" am wholly compelled to type these words. And to think and feel and say and do everything only as I was ever able to. A truly natural man.

But, most importantly, I am not arguing that how I see these relationships is the way they are. Only, that given the life that I have lived so far, this is what all of the variables in my life have existentially predisposed me to think about them "here and now".

And, in fact, the way I do see them precipitates a truly grim understanding of my current situation. Living in an essentially meaningless world that will soon topple over into oblivion. Of course I am looking for a more hopeful frame of mind.

After all, I was once one of the objectivists myself.

And, I suspect, the reaction of some here to my argument is predictable: What if it is applicable to them too?!

[iambiguous]

Oh and by the way if we unambiguously lived in a "no God world" you wouldn't have to keep proposing that we do.

Not really sure what your point is here. But: Note where I have ever proposed that we do in fact live in a No God world. On the contrary, over and again I propose instead that "I" have no inherent capacity to demonstrate it one way or the other. My thoughts and feeling here and now are no less an existential contraption rooted in the manner in which [again here and now] I am predisposed to embody one set of assumptions rather than another. Just as with those who do claim to believe in a God, the God, my God.

But: believing or having faith in this God is not the same thing as demonstrating His actual existence.

Right?

We're all basically in the same boat here. After all, for all practical purposes, we are really all just agnostics until someone -- God perhaps? -- is able to encompass for us an ontological understanding of existence itself.

[iambiguous]

Nietzsche's prognosis of the death of God has proven false. Christianity has returned to Russia which was atheist for 70 years and theistic religion is offering resistance right now in China where atheism is the official policy enforced by high-tech surveillance and concentration camps.

As though Nietzsche's own understanding of God [or will to power or ubermen] was not in turn an existential contraption rooted in a particular "I" derived from a particular historical and cultural context generating and regenerating its own unique set of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge and ideas.

God is dead to anyone based on all the variables that have come together in their lived life that have inclined them to one particular set of assumptions.

From my frame of mind, who cares what anyone believes "in their head" about a God, the God, my God. Instead, what can they actually demonstrate to me that, as a rational human being, I am obligated to believe in turn.

Except that with God one can always fall back on faith. More or less blind. God's ways are mysterious. We as mere mortals could never hope to grasp them. That way anything and everything that seems unintelligible [or ghastly] to us can be subsumed in that. All the way up to and including things like the Holocaust or extinction events here on planet earth.

[felix dakat]

My perspective has been influenced by existential philosophy too. So, I’m not totally averse to your characterization of being in the world. For the sake of dialogue, I'll focus on our apparent differences.

Am I wrong in suspecting that your characterization of dasein as a contraption reflects depersonalization in your particular perspectival gestalt?

But: What on earth does this mean? My point in fact is to take points like this out into the world of actual human interactions and to note the extent to which the words are able to be intertwined in particular contexts.

For example, if I meet someone and the discussion turns to the killing of Soleimani in Iraq, my characterization of dasein revolves around the extent to which what "I" believe is true about it can be demonstrated as, in fact, true for all of us. And here the distinction revolves around the objective facts -- Soleimani was killed in a drone strike ordered by Trump -- and subjective assessments rooted only in moral and political prejudices. In other words, was this killing justified? Was it the right thing to do?

It's this part -- "I" in the is/ought world -- that becomes the embodiment of dasein for me. In a No God world. Or in a world where no one is able to convince me that, through secular narratives, the answers to questions like this can in fact be determined. Deontologically, for example. Or ideologically.

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

What do I know of Epicurus's life? What could he know of mine? Dasein is everywhere here. There's death. And there is our individual reaction to it. His dictum does nothing to quell my fear of death. What does that mean? That it ought to but since it doesn't the problem is me? Instead, to the extent I have people and things that I truly love, experiences that I never want to end, death is there to obliterate them. To obliterate "I" itself. From my frame of mind, only when the pain in my life reaches the point where it blots out all the things I live for will my anxiety be quelled.

But that's just me. What could you or others know about that?

Instead, if someone were able to convince me that a God, the God, their God does in fact exist, and noted the path I must follow to attain immortality and salvation, why on earth would I hesitate to take it?

Ironically but not surprisingly you talk about everything as fractured and fragmented and yet you present dasein as a whole. Whether that Gestalt tendency is a psychologism or a drive toward Transcendence, is an open question we can talk about but not resolve. There you go: a fragment. But one for all time or just our historical moment?

No, this is you completely misconstruing the manner in which I have come to understand dasein in my signature threads. There are any number of variables in my life [in the either/or world] that I am not fractured or fragmented regarding at all.

Again, we need a context here. A set of circumstances in which human beings interact. And, given the aim of this thread, one that involves choosing behaviors "here and now" as that relates to what we imagine our fate to be "there and then".

You pick it.

Asked if he believed in God, CG Jung replied, “I don't need to believe, I know”. Any idea what he might have meant?

More to the point, given a particular context, how does he know that God exists. How would he go about demonstrating it? How, for all practical purposes, would he distinguish what he claims to know from what I merely claim to believe about God.

Right there, in your statements that I have placed in embolden font, you have negated your moral nihilism! You affirm that you have people and things that you truly love. Right there your love for others implies that they have value. Right there, you also admit that you have things that you live for, and your anxiety about death implies that life has value for you. If we extend your experience of what you value to include the survival and flourishing of all sentient beings like yourself--voila!-- we have discovered an undeniable basis for a universal moral principle in what you value!

[iambiguous]

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

What do I know of Epicurus's life? What could he know of mine? Dasein is everywhere here. There's death. And there is our individual reaction to it. His dictum does nothing to quell my fear of death. What does that mean? That it ought to but since it doesn't the problem is me? Instead, to the extent I have people and things that I truly love, experiences that I never want to end, death is there to obliterate them. To obliterate "I" itself. From my frame of mind, only when the pain in my life reaches the point where it blots out all the things I live for will my anxiety be quelled.

Right there, in your statements that I have placed in embolden font, you have negated your moral nihilism! You affirm that you have people and things that you truly love. Right there your love for others implies that they have value. Right there, you also admit that you have things that you live for, and your anxiety about death implies that life has value for you. If we extend your experience of what you value to include the survival and flourishing of all sentient beings like yourself--voila!-- we have discovered an undeniable basis for a universal moral principle in what you value!

My point is not that each of us have things and people that we love. After all, our capacity to love is built right into us biologically, genetically. Then the question becomes the extent to which the things and people we choose to love are actually only embodied in the illusion of choice. In a wholly determined universe.

No, instead, my point [given some measure of free will] is in exploring why any particular individual chooses to love these things and these people rather than those things and those people. That's where the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein comes in.

Being able to value is an inherent component of the evolution of life on Earth. But are there things that one ought to value? And, here, in regard to death, ought one to reject suicide and continue to value life---whatever one's set of circumstances?

How is this not more the existential embodiment of dasein rather than a problem to be solved by philosophers?

What "universal moral principle" have you established here other than what you have come to conclude "in your head"?

Unless, of course, I am missing your point altogether.

[felix dakat]

Epicurus’ dictum "Death is nothing to us; for that which is dissolved, is without sensation, and that which lacks sensation is nothing to us." is helpful for quelling anxiety about death if that’s a problem for you.

What do I know of Epicurus's life? What could he know of mine? Dasein is everywhere here. There's death. And there is our individual reaction to it. His dictum does nothing to quell my fear of death. What does that mean? That it ought to but since it doesn't the problem is me? Instead, to the extent I have people and things that I truly love, experiences that I never want to end, death is there to obliterate them. To obliterate "I" itself. From my frame of mind, only when the pain in my life reaches the point where it blots out all the things I live for will my anxiety be quelled.

Right there, in your statements that I have placed in embolden font, you have negated your moral nihilism! You affirm that you have people and things that you truly love. Right there your love for others implies that they have value. Right there, you also admit that you have things that you live for, and your anxiety about death implies that life has value for you. If we extend your experience of what you value to include the survival and flourishing of all sentient beings like yourself--voila!-- we have discovered an undeniable basis for a universal moral principle in what you value!

My point is not that each of us have things and people that we love. After all, our capacity to love is built right into us biologically, genetically. Then the question becomes the extent to which the things and people we choose to love are actually only embodied in the illusion of choice. In a wholly determined universe.

No, instead, my point [given some measure of free will] is in exploring why any particular individual chooses to love these things and these people rather than those things and those people. That's where the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein comes in.

Being able to value is an inherent component of the evolution of life on Earth. But are there things that one ought to value? And, here, in regard to death, ought one to reject suicide and continue to value life---whatever one's set of circumstances?

How is this not more the existential embodiment of dasein rather than a problem to be solved by philosophers?

What "universal moral principle" have you established here other than what you have come to conclude "in your head"?

Unless, of course, I am missing your point altogether.

That love is built into us by evolution doesn't support the conclusion that there is no ultimate moral truth. On the contrary it can be interpreted as evidence that morality is built into the structure of reality.

Be that as it may, by admitting love for persons and things of your own choosing, you're already one step away from that meta-ethical position I would call moral nihilism wherein it’s totally means whether you love or not. You already rejected that position after you read it into my epicurean proposition above regarding death.

And given that you do love, how can you deny the anxiety that you might not be loving rightly, or the right persons, or loving enough? That anxiety is the expression of the moral imperative. It’s clearly the motivation behind the questioning that drives you on this thread.