on discussing god and religion

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon May 18, 2020 8:57 am

iambiguous wrote:Again back to the points I raise on this tread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Whether the changes occur as a result of a concerted effort on someone's part to finally probe the morality of abortion in depth, or occur adventiously as a result of changes beyond someone's control or attempt to understand, it doesn't get "I" any closer to pinning down definitively if in fact abortion is either moral or immoral. Other than for some "in their heads".

The part about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don't go away.

This part doesn't go away either:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Or, rather, so it still seems to me.

For me, it remains two different manifestations of objectivsms. One for those who philosophize themselves into a deontological political agenda, and another for those who just stumble into one as a result a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge, ideas and ideals.

The embodiment of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism" here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Hm, what I wrote had to do with what you wrote. What you wrote in response to that had nothing to do with what I wrote. Hm.


Religions and their secular equivalents: Kantian deontologists, Marxist ideologues, Ayn Rand Objectivists, liberal and conservative political idealists, Satyr and his ilks worship of all things Nature.

But: however the values are construed -- from the top, from the bottom -- the objectivists cling to the assumption that their own values reflect an inherent, necessary attachment to one true substantive Self then able to be anchored to the right thing to do.
Right, but for some reason you cling to a top down way of finding your own values. You may not be an objectivist about values, but the way to get values is top down for you. And you seem to treat this as objective. It's not.

Also, the argument you make here would, in my view, become more intelligible if you chose instead to illustrate the points by examining them in a particular context. Cite examples of those who come at this from the top rather than the bottom...or the bottom rather than the top


From the top: Iamb tries to find, via the internet, values that he ought to live by. He does this by asking for arguments that would convince every rational person that abortion is right (or wrong). Once he found an argument it would have to function top down. Let's say he encounters an argument that proves to every rational person that abortion is wrong. Well regardless of his own feelings, he would then have to judge the choices of female friends who get abortions as wrong.

Me: I am not fond of abortions. That's how that feels to me. But I want woman to be able to terminate. Those are my values. I find those values in me. They no doubt have to do with a whole range of feelings about what I want and don't want and feelings I have about other people and the world. this has played out in a couple of instances where women I knew wanted to either discuss or get abortions. I do not think this is the objectively correct moral decision. I don't think it either can be demonstrated to be so or that I have done this. That's bottom up. I am not looking for a morality to then MAKE myself conform to.

You sit now with both sets of arguments: pro and con abortion. Both those sets of arguments are functioning top down for you. I am sure you also have preference based values also. That's a lot of splits. The head telling the feelings pro arguments, the head telling the feelings con arguments. A lot of F&F, because you are seeking objective answers, even if you think they are likely none out there. That's what you want and you strive to find them. And so the top down process is happening in you and making you more F&F. Most people are top down. Scientists generally are very top down, for example, about morals. Most people are. They presume that they must have a morality to force/compel them, in some way, to do the right thing. You don't have one, but you are seeking one. One that should convince everyone. With words.

And, by the way, I have done this before, with specific examples.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 18, 2020 6:57 pm

iambiguous wrote:Again back to the points I raise on this tread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

Whether the changes occur as a result of a concerted effort on someone's part to finally probe the morality of abortion in depth, or occur adventitiously as a result of changes beyond someone's control or attempt to understand, it doesn't get "I" any closer to pinning down definitively if in fact abortion is either moral or immoral. Other than for some "in their heads".

The part about dasein, conflicting goods and political economy don't go away.

This part doesn't go away either:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Or, rather, so it still seems to me.

For me, it remains two different manifestations of objectivism. One for those who philosophize themselves into a deontological political agenda, and another for those who just stumble into one as a result a particular sequence of experiences, relationships and access to information, knowledge, ideas and ideals.

The embodiment of what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism" here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296



Karpel Tunnel wrote: Hm, what I wrote had to do with what you wrote. What you wrote in response to that had nothing to do with what I wrote. Hm.


We'll just have to allow others to decide for themselves the extent to which this is true.


Religions and their secular equivalents: Kantian deontologists, Marxist ideologues, Ayn Rand Objectivists, liberal and conservative political idealists, Satyr and his ilk's worship of all things Nature.

But: however the values are construed -- from the top, from the bottom -- the objectivists cling to the assumption that their own values reflect an inherent, necessary attachment to one true substantive Self then able to be anchored to the right thing to do.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Right, but for some reason you cling to a top down way of finding your own values. You may not be an objectivist about values, but the way to get values is top down for you. And you seem to treat this as objective. It's not.


Here again, however, we need a discussion of an actual context so that you are able to note more perspicuously my "top down" approach to finding values. After all, given that I root moral and political value judgments in the actual sequence of experiences and relationships that any particular individual comes to embody from the cradle to the grave, it's always seemed considerably more "down" than "up" to me.

Unless, of course, this is a "technical" thing.

Also, the argument you make here would, in my view, become more intelligible if you chose instead to illustrate the points by examining them in a particular context. Cite examples of those who come at this from the top rather than the bottom...or the bottom rather than the top


Karpel Tunnel wrote: From the top: Iamb tries to find, via the internet, values that he ought to live by. He does this by asking for arguments that would convince every rational person that abortion is right (or wrong).


No, I try to find arguments that might convince me that the manner in which I construe the embodiment of moral and political values in my signature threads is not nearly as reasonable as [here and now] I think it is.

Only in this way might I come in turn to entertain the possibility that in a No God world [an assumption] all rational people are obligated to think and feel and behave categorically and imperatively this way instead of that.

Encompassed then in a particular set of circumstances.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Once he found an argument it would have to function top down. Let's say he encounters an argument that proves to every rational person that abortion is wrong. Well regardless of his own feelings, he would then have to judge the choices of female friends who get abortions as wrong.


Or, let's say he encounters an argument that proves to every rational person that abortion is right. Well regardless of his own feelings, he would then have to judge the choices of female friends who get abortions as right.

Yep, that's how it would work if a definitive moral argument was discovered/invented. Only, here and now, the objectivists already have that argument, don't they? Just ask them.

But what if, instead, it is somehow proven that how one thinks and feels about the morality of abortion, is in fact in sync with the components of my own rendition of moral nihilism?

That each and every "I" here is the embodiment of this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

Then I would shift the discussion to how, if this is the case, another's "I" is not as fractured and fragmented as mine.

Here for example are your own particular political prejudices [rooted existentially in dasein, in my view] regarding the issue:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Me: I am not fond of abortions. That's how that feels to me. But I want woman to be able to terminate. Those are my values. I find those values in me. They no doubt have to do with a whole range of feelings about what I want and don't want and feelings I have about other people and the world. this has played out in a couple of instances where women I knew wanted to either discuss or get abortions. I do not think this is the objectively correct moral decision. I don't think it either can be demonstrated to be so or that I have done this. That's bottom up. I am not looking for a morality to then MAKE myself conform to.


So, you are willing to admit that had your experiences in the past been very different, you might well be espousing a conservative point of view instead. And, in turn, given that both the liberals and the conservatives are able to raise points the other side can't make go away, there appears no way in which to pin down [philosophically or otherwise] anything approaching a deontological agenda.

Me too. Only given the existential parameters of my own psychological makeup here, "I" find myself considerably more "fractured and fragmented" than you. But: It seems entirely reasonable to me that in a No God world one would be drawn and quartered in the face of conflicting goods.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You sit now with both sets of arguments: pro and con abortion. Both those sets of arguments are functioning top down for you. I am sure you also have preference based values also. That's a lot of splits. The head telling the feelings pro arguments, the head telling the feelings con arguments. A lot of F&F, because you are seeking objective answers, even if you think they are likely none out there. That's what you want and you strive to find them. And so the top down process is happening in you and making you more F&F. Most people are top down. Scientists generally are very top down, for example, about morals. Most people are. They presume that they must have a morality to force/compel them, in some way, to do the right thing. You don't have one, but you are seeking one. One that should convince everyone. With words.


Again, this is your own rendition of me. Your own rendition of top/down.

What I am seeking are not answers but arguments able to persuade me that there are answers. Arguments embedded in the manner in which I approach such things as the morality of abortion on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In fact, I seek your own rendition of this "existential trajectory".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 21, 2020 6:24 pm

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

A 1998 survey of National Academy members indicated that only 7% believe in a personal God (Edward J. Larson, ‘Leading Scientists Still Reject God’, Nature 294, #6691). Surely such a high level of unbelief is the result of the members being scientists – I doubt you would find such a low proportion of belief in the US among bakers or accountants. Yet the Academy insists that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural:

“Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” (National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, 1998, p.58)

This disingenuous statement is belied by the evidence. Scientists from top-rated institutions such as Harvard, Duke, and the Mayo Clinic have performed careful experiments on the efficacy of prayer in aiding healing, for example. These experiments certainly have bearing on the existence of God. The results so far have been negative, but they need not have been. Many theologians and churchmen have adopted positions similar to the Academy. Imagine how fast they’d change their tune if the evidence that prayer worked was positive and no natural explanation could be found. They would gleefully fill the airwaves with, “See? We told you so. Science proves God exists!”


And around and around they go. Science and religion probing that which neither camp is able to either access or assess except within that gap between what any of us think we know about God here and now, all that can be known about God, and the relationship between all that can be known about God and all that can be known about existence itself.

Me, I'm still more or less in the camp that insist the burden of proof here lies with those who insist that something does exist. Rather than on those to prove that it does not. It's like conjuring up a Matrix reality in a film, believing it is true, and arguing that it is incumbent on the skeptics to demonstrate that it is not the reality we live in.

Does anyone really believe that performing scientific experiments regarding prayer is the way to go in establishing God's existence? After all, an omnipotent God, given His own mysterious ways and His own mysterious reasons can create any result He deems necessary. Then the part where science squares these experiments with an omniscient God. As though they actually have the capacity to freely choose to do so.

Instead, it gets tangled up in all the things we still do not know that we still do not know about everything encompassed in reality itself.

I applaud those in the scientific community who are at least willing to probe these things experimentally. Better that than more or less blind leaps of faith. I just can't imagine any conclusion able to be demonstrated given the gaps that most intrigue me here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 23, 2020 2:55 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Hm, what I wrote had to do with what you wrote. What you wrote in response to that had nothing to do with what I wrote. Hm.

We'll just have to allow others to decide for themselves the extent to which this is true.
It's deluded to think someone would care to.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Right, but for some reason you cling to a top down way of finding your own values. You may not be an objectivist about values, but the way to get values is top down for you. And you seem to treat this as objective. It's not.


Here again, however, we need a discussion of an actual context
And I do that. But as usual you speak about what 'we need' in this case (a universalizing or objectifization of what you want.......)

Your wants are not what we need or one needs or any other of your usual objectivizing your own values.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: From the top: Iamb tries to find, via the internet, values that he ought to live by. He does this by asking for arguments that would convince every rational person that abortion is right (or wrong).


No, I try to find arguments that might convince me that the manner in which I construe the embodiment of moral and political values in my signature threads is not nearly as reasonable as [here and now] I think it is.
Those are not mutually exclusive and you repeatedly ask people to demonstrate how one ought to live such that all rational people would have to agree.

Only in this way might I come in turn to entertain the possibility that in a No God world [an assumption] all rational people are obligated to think and feel and behave categorically and imperatively this way instead of that.
Well, actually, since you consider yourself rational, you would then be convinced. Which is exactly what I said you are asking people to do.

Or, let's say he encounters an argument that proves to every rational person that abortion is right. Well regardless of his own feelings, he would then have to judge the choices of female friends who get abortions as right.

Yep, that's how it would work if a definitive moral argument was discovered/invented. Only, here and now, the objectivists already have that argument, don't they? Just ask them.
You're heading off on a tangent. I am describing what you are doing and have done in threads for years: asking people to show you those arguments.

Here for example are your own particular political prejudices [rooted existentially in dasein, in my view] regarding the issue:
Labeling them prejudices is a negative value judgment. You behave, with regularity, like an objectivist.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Me: I am not fond of abortions. That's how that feels to me. But I want woman to be able to terminate. Those are my values. I find those values in me. They no doubt have to do with a whole range of feelings about what I want and don't want and feelings I have about other people and the world. this has played out in a couple of instances where women I knew wanted to either discuss or get abortions. I do not think this is the objectively correct moral decision. I don't think it either can be demonstrated to be so or that I have done this. That's bottom up. I am not looking for a morality to then MAKE myself conform to.


So, you are willing to admit that had your experiences in the past been very different, you might well be espousing a conservative point of view instead.
I said this years ago, you ass. Seriously what is wrong with you.


And, in turn, given that both the liberals and the conservatives are able to raise points the other side can't make go away, there appears no way in which to pin down [philosophically or otherwise] anything approaching a deontological agenda.
I made no claim that it would go away. In fact I have generally assumed it will not. What is wrong with you, you ass.

Me too. Only given the existential parameters of my own psychological makeup here, "I" find myself considerably more "fractured and fragmented" than you. But: It seems entirely reasonable to me that in a No God world one would be drawn and quartered in the face of conflicting goods.
I have never seen you mount an argument that would convince all rational people that I should feel drawn and quartered. Your reaction is your reaction. As usual you are universalizing and making objective your own personal reactions to something. You seem not to notice that there is a wide set of human reactions to change, death, impermanence, sex, and...just about everything.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You sit now with both sets of arguments: pro and con abortion. Both those sets of arguments are functioning top down for you. I am sure you also have preference based values also. That's a lot of splits. The head telling the feelings pro arguments, the head telling the feelings con arguments. A lot of F&F, because you are seeking objective answers, even if you think they are likely none out there. That's what you want and you strive to find them. And so the top down process is happening in you and making you more F&F. Most people are top down. Scientists generally are very top down, for example, about morals. Most people are. They presume that they must have a morality to force/compel them, in some way, to do the right thing. You don't have one, but you are seeking one. One that should convince everyone. With words.

Again, this is your own rendition of me. Your own rendition of top/down.
Well, obviously. What is wrong with your brain. You could try to show that rendition is incorrect, for example, but telling me it is my rendition is moronic.

What I am seeking are not answers but arguments able to persuade me that there are answers. Arguments embedded in the manner in which I approach such things as the morality of abortion on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

In fact, I seek your own rendition of this "existential trajectory".
Well, duh.

First off the fact that you are top down is shown precisely in how you have described your being F & F. You have heard the arguments of two sides of the abortion issue, for example, and cannot determine who is right. That is top down. Ideas in the head causing your values. Objective claims causing splits. EVen if you do not believe in their objectivity, they have led to splits in, as per your own descriptions.

Further, to know that there are answers one would need an example of a specific moral that could be demonstrated. Which is what you ask for. Which means you ask for specific arguments for specific morals, like around abortion, you fucking moron. So the first thing you will get if you ever get the answer of whether their are answers or not is a specific answer. And that will, should it come, immediately obligate you to agree with it. Since it would be a totally convincing to all rational people argument, in favor or against abortion, your moron.

And then it is top down from there. Regardless of how you felt, you'd have to go along with it.

Me, I don't give a fuck about these hallucinated not present arguments. I am making my way in the world as best I can.

Which is what you are doing also, though you don't seem to notice. And the truly funny thing is that you cling to your search for a top down process even though it makes you F &F. If you could actually read and take seriously what any other human wrote, I might feel sympathy, and even have at times, but you go back to hitting yourself in the head with your hammer and finding ways not to learn a thing from anyone else and I'll find it funnier and funnier.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Sun May 24, 2020 4:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:If nothing else it brings you the comfort and consolation of believing in your intellectual superiority to the objectivists. You probably got a little shot of dopamine when you posted that post, and demonstrated to yourself how you're one up on me intellectually. Go for it bro. It seems like it's all you've got.


Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

Sure, there are atheists who wallow in the sort of smugness that comes from thinking that they embody both intellectual honesty and integrity in shunning religion. And, as well, if it brings you some measure of satisfaction to think that I am one of them, so be it.

But this suggests far more about you than it does me.

Well, whatever that means.



Let's say there are two modes of secular existence. One is self-assured the other is alienated. By definition, secularity entails a loss of a transcendent source of meaning. A strictly secular person will either find a source of meaning within this life or will find this life essentially meaningless. You claim to be persistently in the latter alienated mode. Right?

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Iambiguous said "Besides, does life have to be meaningful to enjoy good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments?"

Oh okay. So it seems that you acknowledge certain imminent values even if you are agnostic about transcendent ones. How are all those goods not meaningful?



Who says they are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my point here is to suggest the beliefs that Buddhists hold dear are not meaningful?

Do you imagine my points is to debunk religious values as, what, inherently meaningless?

No, I am interested in exploring how Buddhists intertwine what they construe the meaning of enlightenment and karma to be here and now as that impacts on what they construe the meaning of reincarnation and Nirvana to be there and then. Insofar as they choose particular behaviors.

And, of far greater importance, the extent to which what they believe is able to be reconfigured into an actual demonstration such that I might be inclined to believe the same thing.


No I'm trying to understand what you mean by calling yourself a moral nihilist. You recognize immanent values, e.g. good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments. And those goods are by no means unique to you. Although there are individual differences in choice and expression in relatively free societies, those are cross-cultural values with socio-biological bases whether or not there is a God or and afterlife.
Last edited by felix dakat on Mon May 25, 2020 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8829
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon May 25, 2020 4:50 pm

double
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon May 25, 2020 4:51 pm

triple
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 26, 2020 12:54 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: From the top: Iamb tries to find, via the internet, values that he ought to live by. He does this by asking for arguments that would convince every rational person that abortion is right (or wrong).


No, I try to find arguments that might convince me that the manner in which I construe the embodiment of moral and political values in my signature threads is not nearly as reasonable as [here and now] I think it is.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Those are not mutually exclusive and you repeatedly ask people to demonstrate how one ought to live such that all rational people would have to agree.


But: For my own reasons, not for the reasons that you ascribe to me here. After that, we're stuck.

Only in this way might I come in turn to entertain the possibility that in a No God world [an assumption] all rational people are obligated to think and feel and behave categorically and imperatively this way instead of that.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Well, actually, since you consider yourself rational, you would then be convinced. Which is exactly what I said you are asking people to do.


No, actually, I am not convinced that "I" as an existential fabrication derived from dasein is able to be objectively rational regarding conflicting goods. Unlike, say, the objectivists themselves?

Here for example are your own particular political prejudices [rooted existentially in dasein, in my view] regarding the issue:


Karpel Tunnel wrote: Labeling them prejudices is a negative value judgment. You behave, with regularity, like an objectivist.


No, I would be an objectivist if I insisted that all others are obligated in turn to construe them as political prejudices. Instead, in my signature threads, I convey the reasons that I think as I do regarding "I" acquiring moral and political value judgments.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Me: I am not fond of abortions. That's how that feels to me. But I want woman to be able to terminate. Those are my values. I find those values in me. They no doubt have to do with a whole range of feelings about what I want and don't want and feelings I have about other people and the world. this has played out in a couple of instances where women I knew wanted to either discuss or get abortions. I do not think this is the objectively correct moral decision. I don't think it either can be demonstrated to be so or that I have done this. That's bottom up. I am not looking for a morality to then MAKE myself conform to.


So, you are willing to admit that had your experiences in the past been very different, you might well be espousing a conservative point of view instead.


Karpel Tunnel wrote: I said this years ago, you ass. Seriously what is wrong with you.


Note to others:

This is how he is. If you don't agree with his frame of mind [or eventually come around to it], he resorts to name-calling.

How flustered he becomes!!

Also, in my view, he claims to acknowledge the point I am making here but he doesn't own up to the existential implications of it. If you admit that your views on the morality of abortion could be either liberal or conservative depending on the experiences you encountered in the life you lived, then you are forced to confront them as political prejudices rooted in dasein...or you think yourself into believing that there is a way as a philosopher to derive the most rational point of view.

And sure there may well be. But the objectivists always insist that it can only be the way that they think about it. They almost never delve deeply into the part about dasein and conflicting goods. Let alone the reality of political economy out in the real world.

Then, coupled with a caustic personal attack -- I'm a "fucking moron" this time -- it's back up into the stratosphere of general description intellectual contraptions:

Karpel Tunnel wrote: First off the fact that you are top down is shown precisely in how you have described your being F & F. You have heard the arguments of two sides of the abortion issue, for example, and cannot determine who is right. That is top down. Ideas in the head causing your values. Objective claims causing splits. EVen if you do not believe in their objectivity, they have led to splits in, as per your own descriptions.

Further, to know that there are answers one would need an example of a specific moral that could be demonstrated. Which is what you ask for. Which means you ask for specific arguments for specific morals, like around abortion, you fucking moron. So the first thing you will get if you ever get the answer of whether their are answers or not is a specific answer. And that will, should it come, immediately obligate you to agree with it. Since it would be a totally convincing to all rational people argument, in favor or against abortion, your moron.

And then it is top down from there. Regardless of how you felt, you'd have to go along with it.

Me, I don't give a fuck about these hallucinated not present arguments. I am making my way in the world as best I can.

Which is what you are doing also, though you don't seem to notice. And the truly funny thing is that you cling to your search for a top down process even though it makes you F &F. If you could actually read and take seriously what any other human wrote, I might feel sympathy, and even have at times, but you go back to hitting yourself in the head with your hammer and finding ways not to learn a thing from anyone else and I'll find it funnier and funnier.


Okay, let's try this...

I challenge anyone here to reconfigure this "world of words" assessment of my "top down process" in such a way that it renders my attempt to intertwine top and bottom factors re abortion in the points I raise on this thread -- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 -- at the very least actually intelligible.

As that might relate to the points I raise in regard to God and religion on this thread.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 26, 2020 6:11 pm

phyllo wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:

Who says they are not meaningful?

Iamb says there is only the tiniest chance they are not meaningful....
That's how it all unfolded for me back when I was able to believe in immortality and salvation. Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion.

Here it is stated as simply the case...
Only I have come to conclude that human interactions are essentially meaningless.
Who said it? He said it.

Right, like the Buddhists among us can speak of enlightened behavior on this side the grave precipitating karma precipitating a favorable reincarnation, precipitating whatever it is they think that Nirvana is, while I get to embody the consolation of construing myself in an essentially meaningless human existence tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.


That's why KT is of interest to me. In some respects, he would seem to be in the same boat that I am in. Living in an essentially meaningless No God world, sans objective morality, that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all time to come.


The fear and anxiety are instead merely construed by me to be part and parcel of the brute facticity embedded in my own essentially meaningless existence.

Then all they need but do is to ask me about my own fractured and fragmented reaction to an essentially meaningless world that ends in the obliteration of "I" for all of eternity.
Note: his reaction to what is simply stated as a meaningless world.

These quotes are all fairly recent, but they actually go back years, in slightly different formulations, where he states that existence is meaningless.

He's a liar.
You missed the one essential word that he uses.

"ESSENTIALLY meaningless"

He's not saying that people don't find things or actions to be meaningful. He's not saying that he personally doesn't find things or actions to be meaningful.

The 'real problem' is that he has not found something which all rational people are obligated to consider meaningful.

Notice also that he is not saying that there is no such thing. He's only saying that he has not found it.

And this mirrors the other 'problems' :

He has not found the objective morality that all rational people are obligated to accept.

He has not found a god, the true god, THE God that all rational people are obligated to believe in.

He has not found the one religion ...

He has not found the one philosophy ...


Okay. But he has found values: "good food, good music, good art, good sex, good careers, good friendships, good accomplishments". Goods. And those are values all rational people are obligated to believe in. If they don't, they either die, or contradict themselves or [and this may hit close to home for the case in point] make themselves miserable. Now morality, which doesn't have to be invented because we all are embedded in it, simply grants that to exist socially, those biologically based values be granted to all. The ends, granted behaviorally more or less by all but the sociopath, the argument then becomes about means not ends. Now all we see about old iambiguous is what he puts on the page, so we can only imagine where he falls in the 'real world'. But, he seems to misrepresent himself and his situation, which is what I suppose Karpel alludes to when he calls the old boy a "liar".
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8829
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Tue May 26, 2020 7:04 pm

I only posted in order to save people from chasing their tails trying to figure out what Biggus is saying.

That one word 'essential' is apparently the critical word. :confusion-shrug:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 26, 2020 7:32 pm

felix dakat wrote:
What you don't understand is that you understand things in ways that you don't understand.


In regard to what, Curly?

In regard to this thread, for example, do I or don't I often go back to the gap between that which any of us think we know about connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then and all that can be known...must be known?

It's just that any number of religious denominations speak of this connection as though the gap didn't exist at all. On the contrary, they will tell you, if you don't follow their path, you may well be condemned to, among other things, the agonies of Hell for all of eternity.

So, okay, I note, given that there are alleged rewards and punishments for the behaviors that one chooses here and now, how, in any particular context, do they do about making their own distinctions? And how do they go about demonstrating that all others are obligated to make the same distinctions?

The part you simply refuse to weigh in on. Or, rather, so it still seems to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 26, 2020 7:49 pm

phyllo wrote:I only posted in order to save people from chasing their tails trying to figure out what Biggus is saying.

That one word 'essential' is apparently the critical word. :confusion-shrug:


Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

So, on this thread, if you believe that it is essential to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then in a way that is embraced by a particular religious denomination, cite some examples of this from your own life. And then note how you go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to do the same.

Otherwise, in my view, God and religion become this ecumenical, Ierrellian contraption where there is virtually nothing that can't be rationalized as okay in the eyes of God.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 26, 2020 8:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
What you don't understand is that you understand things in ways that you don't understand.


In regard to what, Curly?

In regard to this thread, for example, do I or don't I often go back to the gap between that which any of us think we know about connecting the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then and all that can be known...must be known?

It's just that any number of religious denominations speak of this connection as though the gap didn't exist at all. On the contrary, they will tell you, if you don't follow their path, you may well be condemned to, among other things, the agonies of Hell for all of eternity.

So, okay, I note, given that there are alleged rewards and punishments for the behaviors that one chooses here and now, how, in any particular context, do they do about making their own distinctions? And how do they go about demonstrating that all others are obligated to make the same distinctions?

The part you simply refuse to weigh in on. Or, rather, so it still seems to me.


I don't weigh in on that because I don't know the answer. And, I don't think the answer is objectively knowable. With regard to ultimate reality, agnosticism is the appropriate epistemology "here and now" as Socrates recognized on his death bed. I view religion as a repository for the accumulated wisdom of the collective unconscious. [There's a lot of foolishness in there too.]

You're not unique in not understanding how you understand things. Given the limitation of the human mind it isn't possible to understand something and understand how you understand it at the same time. The latter would be a meta-understanding. You don't understand everything about anything let alone yourself. So, to suppose you could know about "there and then" when you know so little about "here and now" is foolish in itself...said Curly.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8829
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Tue May 26, 2020 8:41 pm

Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

If one substitutes that into the original phrase, then one ends up with :

"absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless"

"Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion."

What could this mean? What does explaining 'essential' as 'absolutely necessary' get you? :-?
One has to conclude that the word 'essential' actually has some other meaning.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Tue May 26, 2020 10:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:I only posted in order to save people from chasing their tails trying to figure out what Biggus is saying.

That one word 'essential' is apparently the critical word. :confusion-shrug:


Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

So, on this thread, if you believe that it is essential to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then in a way that is embraced by a particular religious denomination, cite some examples of this from your own life. And then note how you go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to do the same.

Otherwise, in my view, God and religion become this ecumenical, Ierrellian contraption where there is virtually nothing that can't be rationalized as okay in the eyes of God.


You don't know everything about yourself. For example you don't understand thoroughly the neuropsychological means by which you are the fragmented fractured self that you allege yourself to be. So as with religion you refuse to engage in them until you can connect the dots, since you cannot connect the dots between your neuropsychological present and your putative neuropsychological future, I recommend that you stop committing to enacting yourself until all the information is in. And of course that isn't likely to happen in your lifetime... So like Pangloss at the end of Voltaire's "Candide" meanwhile maybe you just need to shut up about it. (See also Wittgenstein and the Daodejing) Silence before the mystery that is life is infinitely more profound then presenting it as an impossible choice that must be made based on an objective interpretation of competing myths. Myths are patterns for living in an objectively unknowable territory. You're playing the role of the victim of that dilemma like a beggar sitting at the gate that only a hero can enter. Yours, Curly
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8829
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 27, 2020 7:03 pm

felix dakat wrote:
The part you simply refuse to weigh in on. Or, rather, so it still seems to me.


I don't weigh in on that because I don't know the answer. And, I don't think the answer is objectively knowable. With regard to ultimate reality, agnosticism is the appropriate epistemology "here and now" as Socrates recognized on his death bed. I view religion as a repository for the accumulated wisdom of the collective unconscious. [There's a lot of foolishness in there too.]


Okay, but here and now, given the aim of this thread, one either does or does not believe in God and/or religion. And, if they do, this belief will almost certainly impact on the behaviors they choose on this side of the grave. Morality here and now, immortality there and then.

So, as close as you are able configure this into your own embodied frame of mind "here and now" how, in a particular context, do you go about choosing one set of behaviors rather than another?

In other words, to the best of your ability, explain how being an "agnostic" may or may not be the equivalent of my feeling "fractured and fragmented"? How could agnosticsim -- again, given what is at stake -- not precipitate that sense of feeling drawn and quartered when "I" is confronted with "doing the right thing"?

In other words...

felix dakat wrote:You're not unique in not understanding how you understand things. Given the limitation of the human mind it isn't possible to understand something and understand how you understand it at the same time. The latter would be a meta-understanding. You don't understand everything about anything let alone yourself. So, to suppose you could know about "there and then" when you know so little about "here and now" is foolish in itself...said Curly.


But, again, the whole point of this thread is to focus the beam in on those who sustain their own meta-understanding of themselves in the world around them through one or another religious denomination.

How, for all practical purposes, does that "work" for them when confronted with conflicting goods? And how do they see their "self" here in a way that is not construed as being "derived from an existential contraption rooted in the lives [experiences, relationships, ideas etc. ] they have lived rooted in dasein".

They -- you -- will either go there or not. And, sure, your own explanation above is perfectly exceptable to me. But then this thread wasn't created for agnostics, but for believers.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 27, 2020 7:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

If one substitutes that into the original phrase, then one ends up with :

"absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless"


Okay, let's focus in on a particular context relating to human morality here and now and human immortality there and then and explore how the words absolute and necessary might or might not be related in this context to things deemed either to be meaningful or meaningless.

You choose the situation.

phyllo wrote:"Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion."

What could this mean? What does explaining 'essential' as 'absolutely necessary' get you? :-?
One has to conclude that the word 'essential' actually has some other meaning.


Well, from my perspective, in a No God/No religion world, necessary and essential meaning applied to human interactions in the is/ought world is different from necessary and essential meaning relating to interactions in the either/or world.

That's why we need to take these "general description intellectual contraptions" out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions.

Although, sure, I may well be completely misunderstanding what your own general description intellectual contraption means on/in that post.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Wed May 27, 2020 7:35 pm

How, for all practical purposes, does that "work" for them when confronted with conflicting goods? And how do they see their "self" here in a way that is not construed as being "derived from an existential contraption rooted in the lives [experiences, relationships, ideas etc. ] they have lived rooted in dasein".
The obvious answer is that a religious person, a spiritual person, a believer, sees dasein [experiences, relationships, ideas etc. ] as something that comes intentionally from God. It's not just some random shit.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby phyllo » Wed May 27, 2020 7:43 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

If one substitutes that into the original phrase, then one ends up with :

"absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless"


Okay, let's focus in on a particular context relating to human morality here and now and human immortality there and then and explore how the words absolute and necessary might or might not be related in this context to things deemed either to be meaningful or meaningless.

You choose the situation.

phyllo wrote:"Now I'm left only with slimmest of hopes that somehow someone in places like this might manage to rekindle a spark of promise that this is not just an absolutely necessarily essentially meaningless existence that ends in oblivion."

What could this mean? What does explaining 'essential' as 'absolutely necessary' get you? :-?
One has to conclude that the word 'essential' actually has some other meaning.


Well, from my perspective, in a No God/No religion world, necessary and essential meaning applied to human interactions in the is/ought world is different from necessary and essential meaning relating to interactions in the either/or world.

That's why we need to take these "general description intellectual contraptions" out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions.

Although, sure, I may well be completely misunderstanding what your own general description intellectual contraption means on/in that post.
It means simply that your explanation of the word 'essential' doesn't explain anything. If anything, it makes your meaning more obscure.

And this latest post obscures it even more.

But who cares at this point.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12020
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 27, 2020 7:55 pm

phyllo wrote:
How, for all practical purposes, does that "work" for them when confronted with conflicting goods? And how do they see their "self" here in a way that is not construed as being "derived from an existential contraption rooted in the lives [experiences, relationships, ideas etc. ] they have lived rooted in dasein".
The obvious answer is that a religious person, a spiritual person, a believer, sees dasein [experiences, relationships, ideas etc. ] as something that comes intentionally from God. It's not just some random shit.


But that then brings this quandary into play...

If "I" revolves around only that which an omniscient/omnipotent God intends, then how on Earth can it be said that "I" have any actual free will at all?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Wed May 27, 2020 8:04 pm

iambiguous wrote:...from my perspective, in a No God/No religion world, necessary and essential meaning applied to human interactions in the is/ought world is different from necessary and essential meaning relating to interactions in the either/or world.

That's why we need to take these "general description intellectual contraptions" out into the world of flesh and blood human interactions.

Although, sure, I may well be completely misunderstanding what your own general description intellectual contraption means on/in that post.


phyllo wrote: It means simply that your explanation of the word 'essential' doesn't explain anything. If anything, it makes your meaning more obscure.

And this latest post obscures it even more.


But: my point is that the obscurity here is derived all the more from the fact that you go on making a distinction between these words up in the clouds of abstraction.

Necessary or contingent, absolute or relative, essential or existential meaning in regard to what set of circumstances? As those circumstance relate to morality here and now and immortality there and then?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 28, 2020 7:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

So, on this thread, if you believe that it is essential to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then in a way that is embraced by a particular religious denomination, cite some examples of this from your own life. And then note how you go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to do the same.

Otherwise, in my view, God and religion become this ecumenical, Ierrellian contraption where there is virtually nothing that can't be rationalized as okay in the eyes of God.


felix dakat wrote: You don't know everything about yourself. For example you don't understand thoroughly the neuropsychological means by which you are the fragmented fractured self that you allege yourself to be.



Over and again, I note that even in regard to "I" in the either/or world, there is that gap between what we seem able to know about ourselves objectively -- biology, demographics, empirical facts etc. -- and an objective understaning of how that all fits into a thorough understanding of existence itself.

We don't even know beyond any and all doubt if we embody actual free will in this exchange!

Or, okay, "I" don't.

Let alone the part where we are able to encompass a complete understanding of "I" grappling with morality here and now and immortality there and then...through God and/or religion.

On a thread like this.

Unless, of course, that's just me. Maybe others have encompassed this understanding. Maybe I will come upon one here at ILP.

felix dakat wrote: So as with religion you refuse to engage in them until you can connect the dots, since you cannot connect the dots between your neuropsychological present and your putative neuropsychological future, I recommend that you stop committing to enacting yourself until all the information is in.


And how on earth would one -- I, you, anyone -- know that?!! We're all in the same boat here: "They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more"...."Where I am, I don't know, I'll never know, in the silence you don't know, you must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on".

So, sure, some find their own antidote here in God and religion. Either in being brainwashed by others as children or in groping with questions of this sort on their own as philosophers in places like this.

So, okay, to them I say, "tell me about it". How do others connect the dots between here and now and there and then given their own understanding of God and religion. In all earnestness, polemics aside.

felix dakat wrote: And of course that isn't likely to happen in your lifetime... So like Pangloss at the end of Voltaire's "Candide" meanwhile maybe you just need to shut up about it. (See also Wittgenstein and the Daodejing) Silence before the mystery that is life is infinitely more profound then presenting it as an impossible choice that must be made based on an objective interpretation of competing myths. Myths are patterns for living in an objectively unknowable territory. You're playing the role of the victim of that dilemma like a beggar sitting at the gate that only a hero can enter. Yours, Curly


Look, I set aside a few hours a day groping with and then grappling to understand questions of this sort. Why? Because the stakes couldn't be higher. But I'm running out of time. So I also set aside many more hours a day for things -- distractions -- that take me away from these things and bring me enormous amounts of existential fulfillment and satisfaction. That part doesn't go away just because I construe life as being essentially meaningless in a No God world.

But there it is -- oblivion -- getting closer and closer. No more "fulfillment and satisfaction" of any kind ever again. Unless someone in a place like this is in fact actually able to link their arguments to demonstrable proof that practicing objective morality on their path here and now can bring about immortality [and even salvation] there and then.

Sorry, I can't explain it better than not. Not even to myself.

On the other hand, let me say that posts like this from you are actually a pleasure to read. You note what I construe to be important points that actually prompt me to think through my own. And I truly do appreciate that. Above you are not only not Curly, you're not even a stooge.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby felix dakat » Fri May 29, 2020 2:31 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Essential in the sense of being "absolutely necessary".

So, on this thread, if you believe that it is essential to connect the dots between morality here and now and immortality there and then in a way that is embraced by a particular religious denomination, cite some examples of this from your own life. And then note how you go about demonstrating that all other rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to do the same.

Otherwise, in my view, God and religion become this ecumenical, Ierrellian contraption where there is virtually nothing that can't be rationalized as okay in the eyes of God.


felix dakat wrote: You don't know everything about yourself. For example you don't understand thoroughly the neuropsychological means by which you are the fragmented fractured self that you allege yourself to be.



Over and again, I note that even in regard to "I" in the either/or world, there is that gap between what we seem able to know about ourselves objectively -- biology, demographics, empirical facts etc. -- and an objective understaning of how that all fits into a thorough understanding of existence itself.

We don't even know beyond any and all doubt if we embody actual free will in this exchange!

Or, okay, "I" don't.

Let alone the part where we are able to encompass a complete understanding of "I" grappling with morality here and now and immortality there and then...through God and/or religion.

On a thread like this.

Unless, of course, that's just me. Maybe others have encompassed this understanding. Maybe I will come upon one here at ILP.

felix dakat wrote: So as with religion you refuse to engage in them until you can connect the dots, since you cannot connect the dots between your neuropsychological present and your putative neuropsychological future, I recommend that you stop committing to enacting yourself until all the information is in.


And how on earth would one -- I, you, anyone -- know that?!! We're all in the same boat here: "They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more"...."Where I am, I don't know, I'll never know, in the silence you don't know, you must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on".

So, sure, some find their own antidote here in God and religion. Either in being brainwashed by others as children or in groping with questions of this sort on their own as philosophers in places like this.

So, okay, to them I say, "tell me about it". How do others connect the dots between here and now and there and then given their own understanding of God and religion. In all earnestness, polemics aside.

felix dakat wrote: And of course that isn't likely to happen in your lifetime... So like Pangloss at the end of Voltaire's "Candide" meanwhile maybe you just need to shut up about it. (See also Wittgenstein and the Daodejing) Silence before the mystery that is life is infinitely more profound then presenting it as an impossible choice that must be made based on an objective interpretation of competing myths. Myths are patterns for living in an objectively unknowable territory. You're playing the role of the victim of that dilemma like a beggar sitting at the gate that only a hero can enter. Yours, Curly


Look, I set aside a few hours a day groping with and then grappling to understand questions of this sort. Why? Because the stakes couldn't be higher. But I'm running out of time. So I also set aside many more hours a day for things -- distractions -- that take me away from these things and bring me enormous amounts of existential fulfillment and satisfaction. That part doesn't go away just because I construe life as being essentially meaningless in a No God world.

But there it is -- oblivion -- getting closer and closer. No more "fulfillment and satisfaction" of any kind ever again. Unless someone in a place like this is in fact actually able to link their arguments to demonstrable proof that practicing objective morality on their path here and now can bring about immortality [and even salvation] there and then.

Sorry, I can't explain it better than not. Not even to myself.

On the other hand, let me say that posts like this from you are actually a pleasure to read. You note what I construe to be important points that actually prompt me to think through my own. And I truly do appreciate that. Above you are not only not Curly, you're not even a stooge.


Thank you. You say the stakes are high. So you still hold onto the possibility of an afterlife AND the possibility that you can know what to do today with respect to it?
It may interest you to know that according to American New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman :

...neither ancient Christianity nor the Judaism it was built on—let alone the other religions in their immediate context—had a single, solitary view of the afterlife. Both religions—and all the religions at the time—were remarkably diverse in their views. These various views competed with one another. Even within the New Testament, different key figures promoted divergent understandings. The apostle Paul had different views of the afterlife from Jesus, whose views were not the same as those found in the Gospel of Luke or the Gospel of John or the book of Revelation. Moreover, none of these views coincides exactly with those of Christian leaders of the second, third, and fourth centuries whose ideas became the basis for the understandings of many Christians today.

Ehrman, Bart D.. Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife (p. XIX). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8829
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 01, 2020 5:53 pm

What’s New About The New Atheism?
Victor Stenger answers the question.

In a 1999 book, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, famed paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould made a well-intentioned attempt to eliminate the conflict between science and religion. He proposed that science and religion be considered as two “non-overlapping magisteria” (NOMA). A magisterium is “a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution.” In Gould’s proposal, science would be limited to the empirical realm – including theories developed to describe observations – while religion would deal with questions of ultimate meaning and moral value, and they wouldn’t need to overlap.


Sure, as long as the discussions unfold in a series of intellectual contraptions, scientists and theologians can speculate endlessly about their "domains". One working from one end, another from the other. But sooner or later both have to weigh in on extant sets of circumstances in which some insist that one set of behaviors bodes well for the soul down the road while others insist it is an entirely different set of behaviors. And, as well, they both have to come together to announce any actual evidence that "down the road" includes immortality and salvation.

Until then we are left only with more or less intelligent speculations in assessments like this.

From my reading of and contacts with both believing and nonbelieving scientists, I find that the majority are happy with Gould’s scheme. It offers an easy way for believing scientists to leave their science at the church door on Sunday morning and not apply their training to what they hear inside. Then on Monday morning they can return to the lab, where God doesn’t enter their equations. The concept of NOMA is also appealing to these nonbelieving scientists mentioned above who are happy to reach an accommodation with religion if it means that only legitimate science is taught in science classrooms.


That's certainly how it can all unfold for any particular scientist or theologian. A mental construct is anchored to a mind such that both can fall back on the possibility that science and religion are two sides of the same coin. As long as the actual reality of human interactions is kept to a minimum up on the pulpit and in the lab. Theoretically, morality and immortality can be conceived as intertwined in any number if "assessments". So, let's just leave it at that.

Then this in itself becomes embedded in an intellectual contraption:

The problem is, NOMA does not describe the empirical facts about the intersection of science and religion. That intersection is not a null set. In his 2006 bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins shows that the Abrahamic religions constantly deal in scientific matters. Others have noted that Gould attempted to redefine religion as moral philosophy. Yet not only does religion do more than talk about ultimate meanings and morals, science is not proscribed from doing so. After all, morals involve human behavior, an observable phenomenon, and science is the study of observable phenomena.


You know where I would take this particular "world of words".

Seriously, what point is he making that someone here might find applicable to their own life in regard to God and religion? What scientific matters do those who are faithful to the Abrahamic religions constantly deal with? And if scientists are not prohibited from delving into "ultimate meanings and morals", cite some examples of this. Whether as a scientist, an ecclesiastic or a philosopher, we all have our own reactions to "observable phenomena" day in and day out.

But not all of us share the same reactions. That's the part that interest me. Why this "I" and not that "I".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 02, 2020 1:53 am

God’s power to create is uncaused. God’s power to create is in harmony with everythingness. God’s power to create uses particular building blocks, such as atoms. Atoms do not care about suffering. God uses atoms to create evolution which causes suffering. But, don’t blame God. Blame evolution and atoms. God chooses the greater good to allow us to exist than to not exist. Plus, everythingness itself has certain characteristics where the simple greatly outnumbers the complex because the simple is more multitudinous than the complex in everythingness. There are certain uncaused aspects of creation that only allow God to create in certain ways.


Once again a mind-boggling -- surreal! -- intellectual contraption about God that in no way, shape or form even makes an attempt to demonstrate that it is grounded in anything other serial assumptions that circle around and around and around each other.

I know why people want to believe things like this, but it still amazes me how someone is able to actually think themselves into believing that God creates atoms as building blocks that, through evolution, configure into things like covid-19...and then blame the staggering suffering this disease has caused on the atoms themselves!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

"Gail, it’s as if someone dared 2020 to get worse, and 2020 replied: 'Just try me.' Right now I’m just sitting on my porch, awaiting a plague of locusts." Bret Stephens
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron