So, either through Kierkegaardian leaps of faith or Pascalian wagers, some will be able to include God and religion in their understanding of the human condition. I have met a few of them myself over the years. And they were not fools.[/quote]
Personally, I do not believe in immortality nor salvation. The individual has an impression that he is it, meaning the ultimate purpose of a long process which could not be further from the truth. The essence of what he is, creates the chain of beings, read the genes, which next to the individual are relatively immortal. So, the individual is that which cares for its own essence and then passes it along this chain of being, the being dies the essence carries on. I simply don't get it that so many people in this day and age embrace anthropomorphism, it is just silly. As regards fools, as say apposed to genius, genius allows for being a genius in a given category or at most a number of categories obviously these religious people are not geniuses in the category of life's origins. In your, they are not fools statement, I imagine you think so because they are otherwise high functioning people in the categories of making a living but context is all important here. I would be a fool if I thought I could perform neurosurgery, context is important. There is no critical thinking involved in believing something without evidence, it is the mark of a fool.
But, in my view, even to them it doesn't make this...
[/quote] Old traditions, new traditions. To each I attempt to bring them around to answering this question:popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmJust as all man-made things in the physical world are his biological extensions, expressions of his human nature and its knowledge, these desert religions are the biological extensions of the ignorance of our ancestors. You seem to think in some of your protests to my reasoning that context is important, and it is, these old traditions need to be read through today's context to put things in a rational framework. If we hold onto these traditions as guides we might as well not have come down from the trees, just to tread these stagnate waters.
"How, in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change, ought one to live?"
Morally. Righteously. In either a God or a No God world.
But [from my frame of mind] you keep it all up in the general description intellectual/spiritual clouds:[/quote]
You have to make up your mind in making this enquirer if it is going to be emotionally based or intellectually based, a belief without evidence is emotionally based. How is one to live the good life, philosophy and/or science can do a better job at that. When morality is based on superstition and magic appealing to one's emotional state is a recipe for chaos. The only sane foundation for morality is one based upon our common biology to include all life forms, grounded in reality.
Pertaining to what particular context?[/quote]popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmReligions in the past have had the purpose of giving the population an orientation to the world as they knew it, which didn't amount to much in the way of knowledge. In the beginning these religions were oral traditions and tended to change with the times but the printed word concretized the word, and ignorance became sacred. Morality in order to be rational must serve the self -interests of our common biology embracing all life forms, for it is only when one identifies one's self with the self in others does compassion arise which is the bases of morality. It is perfectly natural to assume that life in general is part of something larger than itself but to credit that something to something supernatural, an anthropomorphic god, that is not manifest in space/time can be considered insane even if it is being politically incorrect, seems crazy isn't crazy if the crazies have the numbers.
The context of society.
Okay, above you focused in on the "simple principle" of suffering.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:42 pmAs to your concerns over the confusion of what is suffering across the board first, you must have a point of reference and that reference is our common biology. Certain generalizations can be made, it is after all are common carbon-based biology and its suffering which evokes compassion across the board. Where there is no compassion you have a psychopathic individual or a collective as found in the aggression of empires. Biology is the creator of all meaning in the world and the only possible, read rational reference point.
To which I noted:
It certainly is not applicable across the board on a supernatural realm but one based on our commonality it certainly would be.Given a particular context that most of us will be familiar with...situations in which moral and political and spiritual convictions often come into conflict...how would you imagine his "simple principle" being applicable.
You embrace the right of the unborn to live in order to prevent it suffering the fate of extinction. You embrace the right of a woman to choose abortion in order the prevent her suffering the fate of being forced to give birth...or being arrested and tried for murder.
You embrace the right of gun owners in order that they don't suffer a world in which their guns are taken. You embrace the right of gun haters in order that they don't suffer a world where guns slaughter thousands and thousands, year in and year out.
And on and on with all the rest of the "conflicting goods". What one side construes to be suffering the other side construes to be relief.[/quote]
I am assuming reason and logic applied to a morality based upon our common biology, and when one does so one needs to take into consideration the context present and future for the security and well being of that common biology. When morality is based upon a supernatural being with a bad disposition Pandora's box is left wide open.
Now references are made to our "common biology" and "compassion".
Okay, so how is my point above any less applicable to them? Common biology and compassion in regard to the unborn or the pregnant woman, to the gun lovers or the gun haters? [/quote'
Morality based upon our common biology would not permit the mass shootings that depend largely upon little in the way of gun control. As to the welfare of a fetus and/or a pregnant women that would depend first on whether a fetus is indeed to be considered a person. Also one needs to take the context of the women circumstances into account and the consequences for the biological well being of the larger community.
What I do here then is to note my own assessment of conflicting goods as the embodiment of dasein.
[/quote]
The judging and assessment of what conflicting goods are to be made available would be determined by its affecting the well-being of dasein read our common biology on an individual and/or collective level.