I don’t think I’m confused about this at all, I’m simply using the words in a much more specific way than you imagine. Yes “better” and “worse” are subjective and relative, but I am using them specifically with respect to the subject of oneself, and I’m using it specifically to compare entire future possible states of the world to other future possible states of the world. I mean “better” and “worse’ in the sense often described as “preferable”, with a sense of correctness to that preference as opposed to whim.
The question about God shows you’ve completely missed the point—which may be my fault as much as yours but there it is. To answer the question then, which may well help: It is not true to say that it’s impossible to make any progress or meaningful decisions without belief in God. The negation of “belief in God” does not prevent all possible progress, where as the negation of each of the examples I prevent does. Pascal’s Wager is also a form of pragmatism but is otherwise unrelated.
I don’t think I’m confused about this at all, I’m simply using the words in a much more specific way than you imagine. Yes “better” and “worse” are subjective and relative, but I am using them specifically with respect to the subject of oneself, and I’m using it specifically to compare entire future possible states of the world to other future possible states of the world. I mean “better” and “worse’ in the sense often described as “preferable”, with a sense of correctness to that preference as opposed to whim.
The question about God shows you’ve completely missed the point—which may be my fault as much as yours but there it is. To answer the question then, which may well help: It is not true to say that it’s impossible to make any progress or meaningful decisions without belief in God. The negation of “belief in God” does not prevent all possible progress, where as the negation of each of the examples I prevent does. Pascal’s Wager is also a form of pragmatism but is otherwise unrelated.