God and the Wondrously Abstract

As a retort to an essay written earlier by a fellow thinker, I wish to address a couple concerns that I have had apropos multiple stances recognized, not only in the essay that I’m replying to, but also in many of the dialogues I have had with fellow interlocutors in the group. Mainly I wish to address the “Unification” of institutionalized religion through an understanding of “Divine Law” in the subject of jurisprudence; and take a look at the wondrous abstraction that is God. Before getting started, and in hopes of making antecedent bias known, I feel it is only fair to point out that for all practical purposes I am an atheist, although I’m not a materialist; and it’s worth noting that I am infamously hard to read when dealing with subjects such as these, and have a tendency to get lost in my own thought (I apologize in advance). That being said, I have contributed hundreds of hours of my time to understanding theological works, and the vast mythologies that have spawned from them; so, without further ado let's begin. 

To get right to the point, I don’t think that a theistic religion as a juridical means is necessary to all peoples throughout time; as there have been multiple societies whom have functioned without it, found in various secs of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism. Not to mention multiple western thinkers who were active participants in the furthering of both societies’, and their own thought were, in fact, confessed atheist. Now, I do believe a collective ideal can indeed give us something like a contractarian oath, but let us not forget that many of the divisions it creates have just as much potential for destruction as for creation whilst in proximity to other societies if some form of tolerance has not been formed. As I am an advocate for the teleology found in a liberal government that reflects its people, and their ideals—both as a whole, and individual—I usually find that the pragmatic stance of the institution that represents a collective ideal often leads to the compromise—if not the complete abdication—of the individual’s ideal. This pragmatism is nothing new, and is even welcome in certain scenarios; but often it can lead away from reflecting the ideals of many to the ideals of a few that stagnate the realization of others to maintain a state that is conducive to their interests. So, can religion help a collective people survive by establishing law? Yes, but so can a government, or just a rationally thought out principle (see gain theory); and what's more is that these two seem to lead closer to the means of establishing the ideal on the individual level—which, of course—is where we want it if the abstract right that is the law is to be reflective of the empirical ethic, instead of history for history’s/tradition for tradition’s sake (more on this in the next paragraph). The values that we assign must be in context as they are objective, lest their practicality is lost to those whom they would serve. 

Now onto the logical contradiction in the practical that is God. God is quite the loaded term, and when you say it everyone has a different idea of what you mean (remember the “liberal ideal” from the last paragraph). Now what I mean by “logical contradiction in the practical” when “mentioning” God is that—for me—this concept/notion is a fine logical abstraction; until you try to make it objective in use. In other words, God is a lot like math to me (oh god I can hear the replies now) in that it is an abstraction that we use to build on other abstractions that we may/may not have practical ends (see internal and external motivation in mathematics). This can be compared to writing a book, or narrative that one creates characters to fulfill certain duties; all without having to worry about the difficulties of discovery in the objective. Now the problem with this seems to come about when people like to “pop” out of the abstraction, and proceed to bring their moral God with them; or as an objective value, that I will refer to as “property”, whilst using what I will call the “fantasy law”. Now when god is in the abstract right that is law through divine theory (or a bunch of other types of governments), or in my thoughts as an abstraction it’s representation, due to its lack of immediacy in an shared objective plain, is an actual property as it is connected to the particulars of either me or state; and thus, either Logically or historically necessary (think a big old logical if then). However, when I bring God into an ethical conversation—which I am having with a presupposed other rational—it becomes an unfalsifiable argument/conversation; or at best a representation of an ambiguous ethic, that becomes superfluous through substitution with egotism that allows responsibility through recognition of human fault (via Fichte). This is often best represented via the sepulcher in France noted in Hume’s work, where the individuals just ascribe “miracles from god”, because they don’t understand what is happening; resulting in a stagnation of the pursuit of the real through use of rigor, no matter the limits of one's current epistemology/axiology. Or, this can lead to a dogma found in external teleological dictum that stagnates further discovery. This, when applied on a large scale such as state, can lead to the promulgation of various traditions and laws that appeal to a deity/authority/character, whilst denying the individuals whom represent actual negation due to this objective ideal personified by recognizable property; and thus perpetuating only the survival of the abstract right that is state, not the individual people whom make it up. So, I wish to instead advocate for the subjective (not entirely, but that’s a conversation for another time), and rigorous religion of metaphysics in the question of my own belief structures through reflection, and investigation (that’s Kant by the way; same guy who is responsible for god being what we can’t know) that lead just as much—if not more—room for speculation; or that I vouchsafe this upon those whom I recognize as rational/conscious as it is to be their moral. To quote Voltaire, “I want religion without the church”, and as such, to recognize the values as to whom they belong as particulars. 
Now on to matter of the religious institutions, and their connection—as well as any other institution—to the state of our previously defined understanding of "property"; and the mimetic nature of mythology that foists the ideal onto material inheritance. Us being born into the world often take note that we inherit the material goods of those whom came before us, but so rarely do we think of the ideals that embody the rigor necessary to create their material representations that is constant. Now one of these creations is the wondrous structure of institutions of various sorts that allow us to transcend our immediacy and address the state/nation/world more as a whole throughout time. This by itself is not a problem, and I even would go as so far as to say it perfectly represents the talk of "unification"; however, as these structures become synonymous with value and not knowledge, so they usual seek to uphold these through enforcing a clear set of determined rules in our shared objective. Now this is can be bypassed by recognition of the external dogma that we addressed in the previous paragraph; or, be the practice of mimetic mythology that allows for every person to reflect the representation of their belief upon the whole body of work. Now, while the mythology does have a potential to liberalize the ideal it cannot be enforced through a set of presupposed dictums enforced by a single institution; lest it confines the individual to the realization of their ideal through the practical by forcing a set of "our values" upon them prior, and thus forgoes any chance of a liberal end. Not to mention that this puts a requirement of ability to participate in the mythos for all, furthering the schism of those don’t inherit things such as language that can be recognized by the collective. Now this isn't to say neither of these can be effective on their own, but instead address a set of ideas presented that I feel threaten a regress in our way of thinking/life when these two are coupled. Oh my, this has gone on for far too long! I will start the the wrap up post haste!

On that note I have two last points that I would like to make; that there are certain values throughout history that we see as fortuitous to the whole of humanity by means of their ubiquitous references in the archives of history to which I say this: That as the value is recognized by means through past/history it is a “mention” of the action, and not an “use” due to lack of immediacy. This is meant to safeguard against the material inheritance of posterity that would deny others tribulations due to their conducive use of the current value system by adducing merely abstract in the form of historical reference. For example this would mean when you have read a certain value judgement in a book you must also engage in the act of “popping” to ensure that it has practicality in the objective to which you now inhabit; and not just in the abstract that it remains consistent with. The second point is this: The citation of “human nature” is highly flawed in my opinion. The idea that we attribute a singular/multiple pattern(s) to the whole of humanity as an inevitability is a clear misapplication of inductive reasoning as it requires our beloved “pop” to be empirical; and as an abstract historical field lacks the means to present every scenario that is found in principle of deductive reasoning through substitution, and as such I can only conclude that the use of it is equivalent to “Well everyone eventually just does that, because everyone knows that, because it happens a lot in our history.” Which I would say is similar in use to a historical version of a common sense fallacy. 

There is much more I could add to this, and if you let me; I fear that this would be an endless rebuttal to an age-old question, that honestly, I wouldn’t mind devoting a large portion of my life to. But, seeing as this is already over a thousand words, and I really should save some for our discussions I will acquiesce to my cessation until a later time. I hope I was able to shed some light on my thoughts—if not digress into a needless chain of thought—apropos all of yours', and will look forward to hearing from you! Auf Wiedersehen meine Freunde!