Ierrellus wrote: As expected. It would be nice if the matter was only in my head. Then I could take credit for it. The new wave is forming from better minds than mine.
Yes, it's in the minds of others too. Better minds than yours. But how would the very best of these minds go about demonstrating that their own new and improved God is in fact more in sync with what religion really ought to be than the very best minds of those who still hold to the old narrative?
Link us to what you construe to be the best contemporary argument you have come upon.
Also, their argument as to how the God that they imagine can ever possibly be squared with the terrible "natural disasters" embedded in what would seem to be a planet that He created. Again, only Harold Kushner's argument makes any sense to me here.
Ierrellus wrote: My agreement with them is not a problem. It is an opportunity to evolve or die.
Evolve or die pertaining to what set of behaviors in what contexts?
I comment on objectivity since that appears to be all that would satisfy your lack of curiosity.
Commenting on it and demonstrating it in relationship to God would seem to be the distinction that anyone curious about their own immortality and salvation would make.
And I have come upon few who have delved into it more than I have. Being curious though is actually the least of it when waiting for godot.
Ierrellus wrote: After all, by your own definitions, objectivity is just a consensus of agreements. In your head are your philosophical arguments. Show me the numbers of rational and virtuous people, even here at ILP, who do not contest your ideas, but align with them.
On the contrary, in regard to the either/or world, a consensus of opinion is always trumped by that which can actually be demonstrated to be true.
And on the day you are able to demonstrate the existence of this new and improved "progressive God", I will be the first to insist that any particular consensus embraced by others must give way to the proven facts that you provide.
And it is indeed a fact that many contest my own arguments here at ILP. But that doesn't necessarily make either them or me rational and virtuous. To the extent that you actually believe this is merely the extent to which you completely misconstrue my point of view.
Also, I suspect that most will reject my arguments here because as I noted elsewhere:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.