Imagination and Reality

Imagination and Reality

We tend to split imagination from reality, too neatly – just as we generally split existence from non-existence. “Surely, A cannot be ~A.” The atheist, especially, claims that certain things exist and certain things do not exist. The theist, who might be intuitively skeptical of such categorical absoluteness, nonetheless feels compelled to utilize his opponent’s conceptual framework when claiming “God exists”.

This God of the theists must not, for theists, be a product of the imagination. He cannot be an imaginary friend. He must be “real” in some way. For this God to at least loosely correlate with some theistic narrative, he must be an empirical possibility. Even if he doesn’t generally manifest in space and time, he can and necessarily at least once did manifest in space and time.

This God of the theists must, for atheists, be a product of the imagination. He is an imaginary friend, and is completely unreal. He is an empirical impossibility, or perhaps empirically nonsense or metaphor.

I’m currently dealing with the lingering symptoms of the common cold. Though I don’t cough at night while I’m very relaxed or asleep, I cough throughout my waking hours. Something about being awake and active agitates my lungs, causing me to regularly cough. Simplistically, one answer to the coughing problem is to completely relax, similarly to a inducing a state of near-sleep. This would in fact work, though I wouldn’t be able to function the way I need to in order to live and make a living. A trick I’ve discovered is to literally (but not out loud) “talk” to my lungs at certain times during the day. I say soothing things to my lungs, and in my imagination I picture them responding. Empirically, they do respond. And the response lasts beyond the exercise.

I tend to think of myself, vaguely, as an internally homogenous entity. But this is clearly not the case. What is this “self”? Is it the body? If so, which part of the body is it? I can certainly cut off my thumb or receive a transplant and I am still me. Am I my brain? But if so, which part of my brain am I? Am I not my body, but my immaterial thoughts? My will? But thoughts come and go, and my will is just as volatile.

Some years ago I took some yoga classes with my wife. I liked yoga, and the classes were pleasant and energizing. For some reason though, I always had a slight balance problem. And for some reason I don’t do yoga anymore. I prefer “old fashioned” workouts to stay in shape. But I still do a very short yoga routine after my workout, which is great for not tightening up too much. And I still have this slight balance problem. In yoga class, the woman who led the class would often go around helping us with various postures. She would use her hands to guide the body into its proper alignment. A trick I’ve discovered is to imagine her beside me, literally holding my body in its proper position – literally supporting me. This technique actually works.

I tend to think of myself, vaguely, as a singular entity, independent of any substantial context. The space around me is thin, not thick. I am like a billiard ball, bouncing back and forth between other billiard balls. But this is clearly not the case. I would not exist at all if it weren’t for innumerable others, and perfect supporting conditions.

If I know with certainty that “I” do not exist as such (as a single, independent, unchanging material or immaterial entity) how could I then believe that lungs, or yoga teachers, or God exists in that way? God cannot “exist”. But perhaps neither does he not “exist”. But what, then, is he?

When I was in my 20’s, I learned to be healthier. I learned how to eat better, get more exercise, and not abuse my body and mind. At the time I thought I had been healthy. I had no idea at the time that I hadn’t been. We cling to our ideas of what is sane, normal, and reasonable. We might even elevate these concepts, giving them quasi-religious status. We might even call it “The Middle Way”. But we need to continually pinch ourselves, lest we sink for good into this dream that we, with mistaken confidence, call “reality”.

These “tricks”, if we understand their import, are reminders of unbounded reality as it is. Myself, I know that without utilizing them, I tend to forget who and what I really am. It is an enormous misfortune in life to mistake convention for truth; normalcy for sanity, existence for health.

I tend to think of existence as I do pregnancy. You can’t be “kinda pregnant”. You either are or you are not. There is no gray area. The matter of something existing is rather binary. Now of course we can begin to argue about whether or not each other exists in reality, what reality really is, etc., etc., but if you really want to go that far into the hypotheticals there’s really nothing of value we could derive from their discussion, save for the possibility of entertainment, I suppose.

Those are some interesting thoughts Anon. I can recognize it can be a problem for atheists to accept the existence of a “Supreme Being” that is responsible for this universe we live in. Possibly mostly due to the negative aspects which arise from the belief that are perpetrated from people who use those aspects to justify that belief. It is especially reinforced when certain people are held in high pious positions that do things which contradicts the tenets set forth by God.

I wonder if those who do believe in God demonstrated nothing but positive actions in word and deed which buttresses what God wants from us would have a different effect on the atheist mind. Would there be more acquiescence from sceptical thinkers if everything which is professed by believers is exercised even without a physical proof of God?

Do I totally show those aspects to others? No…sadly I do not all the time. If this is the crux for non-believers to be acceptive of such a belief, then I fail on my part in that regard. Being part of the human race before my recognition of God’s Love for us could be the reason for this. If so, I accept responisbility and will try to improve on my behavior in that regard.

I tend to think in binary ways too. But is questioning that approach more deeply really only about entertainment? I just presented concrete examples here of the value of loosening up with respect to ontology.

I think you’re right that religion could be more about behavior than about ontological arguments.

I can speak only on my own behalf, but even if every single religious person across the globe acted in a manner that best represented their chosen god(s), I would still conclude that no god exists, simply due to the lack of any evidence for his alleged existence. This goes for every deity of every religion that ever was or ever will be. Unless, of course, there comes such a time where evidence suggesting the existing of a deity is brought to light. Until then, however, I am a devout atheist. :stuck_out_tongue:

The examples were tantamount to a Christian explaining how s/he feels the holy spirit. While these may be concrete examples to you, personally, they happen to be pretty flimsy to me. I understand the question “What is the self?”, but ultimately it is nothing more than an entertaining thought experiment, unless you can turn it into a legal defense. “I didn’t rob the bank! My body was being controlled by an insane drunken fool that night!” I don’t think it will hold too well in court, though.

Flimsy how? As ontology? I agree. You seem to be missing my point.

I just might be. I’ll list what I’ve interpreted as your examples that you use to explain your reasoning.

Are these the examples you are referring to? If so, once more they are rather flimsy. If, however, they are the short descriptions in between:

I completely understand what you’re saying, aside from the “I am like a billiard ball, bouncing back and forth between other billiard balls” part. That’s a bit too metaphorical for my tastes. I understand the sentences surrounding that one, though, so I think I can grasp the metaphor enough to get some meaning out of it.

It really all boils down to Decartes. I can’t prove the existence of anyone aside from me, and even then I can only prove it to myself. That’s all there really is. The only thing that can lead from this is a series of hypotheticals that, while fun and exciting, don’t offer any more substance.

How does this pertain to the alleged existence of God? It’s one of those hypothetical things that end up being philosophical treadmills. You’ll wear yourself out mentally while trying to come up with an answer, which I imagine as a motivational twinkie tied to stick that’s attached to your head. No matter how long you run, you’ll never catch that twinkie. You can cheat and take the stick off of your head, though, so I guess the metaphor isn’t perfect…

Anyway, I’m just trying to save you from yourself, but I imagine I’m ruining all of your fun.

I can look at it more than one way. For instance I could completely reject ontological questions in favor of some form of instrumentalism. Or I could provisionally hold to some ontological stance such as that only that which has causal efficacy is “real” and then explore what “God” is shorthand for. An approach like that might lead to a greater understanding of how the placebo effect actually works. A third approach is we could assume theists are onto something, even if we take much of what they say with a grain of salt. It’s up to you I guess. But fixating on the exists-doesn’t exist dichotomy right from the start is I think not very artful, philosophically.

Sorry, it’s my dogmatic approach to atheism that clouds my interpretation of things sometimes. I’ll work on that for future topics.

Your first approach wouldn’t be very fruitful, I would think, as there isn’t anything you could really measure God with, assuming his existence to be true. The second approach could be entertaining, but I don’t see how it would really add to our current understanding of the placebo effect that is religion and God. I mean, it seems obvious, to me at least, that people cling to religion and God as children do to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. They’re comforting, imaginary, and questioning their existence upsets believers. Sarcasm aside, there may be some merit to exploring your second and third approaches, but I’m holding cautious optimism about it. Don’t promise me a pony and give me a mule. That would just be cruel.

Instrumentalism is all about fruitfulness. The idea of measuring God isn’t problematic. As with “love”, for instance, “God” is either wholly non-empirical, a metaphor for empirical things or relationships, or somehow a combination of the two. To say that an instrumentalist approach wouldn’t be very fruitful is very odd I think.

The placebo effect is empirically demonstrable. To refuse to study how it actually works is obscurantist.

I’m being anything but cruel.

If something is non-empirical, doesn’t that mean any measurements that might be obtained would be pretty useless? If it isn’t empirical, it’s subjective, right? And metaphors are tricky things to decipher. Look no further than theologians debating amongst one another about the meanings of various religious verses. I just don’t really see how one could measure God in any meaningful way. We’re not measuring something like physical pain, which is both empirical and non-empirical. We’re measuring a metaphysical being. I don’t think that’s the kind of thing that’s really going to happen on an Internet forum.

Yes, it is empirically demonstrable. It’s also been done a lot. There are entire fields of study devoted to it in the overarching science of psychology. This very thing has been studied to death and back (ba-dum-ching!), so I don’t think we can really get any new or useful observations out of it.

Well then let’s quit talking about and start…talking…about…it?
Lead the way and I’ll attempt to follow as best as my sleep-deprived brain can at the moment.
I’ve tried to sleep, but can’t shut my brain up, so my bipolar ass is awake for a while.

You’re still fixating on ontology. My whole point is about not doing that. Of what use is trying to measure God? It’s silly. According to atheists God doesn’t exist and is therefore not measureable. According to theists, God is immeasureable. Instrumentalism, in a very general sense, would be more concerned with something like measuring the effects of prayer. If 100 people pray for a new car, and none of them get one, what does that imply? If 100 people pray for world peace, and their anxiety decreases, what does that imply?

Of course it’s been done to some extent already. By pragmatists and psychologists. The ontologists are busy claiming the placebo effect either is a figment of the imagination (i.e. there is no such thing, it doesn’t work at all) or that the mind has supernatural healing powers or that God did it. And they care about those positions a little too much.

I’m not stuck on the existence of God. Assuming he exists, how would one go about measuring him? I don’t mean how tall he is or how old (you’d just need to sever a limb and count the rings, right?). I mean his effect on the world. It would be damned near impossible to pin that down, wouldn’t it? We’d need to consult a theologian on the matter, else all we’d end up with is a large list of “maybe”. Good luck getting a straight answer, though, as even they have yet to come to agreeance on anything but his existence and we’d be assuming that to be true anyway.

As for your example of measuring answered prayers, who would determine what counts as an answered prayer and with what set of conditions would a prayer qualify as answered? Certainly many of the possible answered prayers would have rather mundane explanations. I don’t mean “answered” as in “yes” or “no”, but rather was it fulfilled? Did they get what they wanted? I don’t think it would be possible to really discern that kind of thing in any objective manner. That is why I don’t think this line of investigation is worth the effort, not because I have problems assuming God’s existence.

The cause of placebo is mental and the effect is physical. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about God and religion or prescription medication. It’s a boring subject at worst and an unoriginal way to poke fun at the religious at best. It can be rather entertaining, though…

Your answer here reminds me of how racists always start their racist comments with “I’m not a racist, but…” Your entire answer is concerned with the existence of God - whether God exists or not.

You’re describing questions concerning methodology. These kinds of questions always come up when discussing proper methodology. Do you really think investigation of phenomena isn’t worth the effort? Are you a nihilist?

No, that’s not “it”, unless you think the placebo effect is magic. If it works, it has workings which can be studied and analyzed. By saying “that’s it”, you are giving yourself away as a pure ontologist. You’re uselessly arguing over abstractions.

You’ll have to explain this one to me as I’m not following.

Now that’s in interesting bit of “leap of faith” logic. Prayer phenomena are not worth investigating => No phenomena are worth investigating => Meatcube’s a nihilist. That’s pretty impressive.

I didn’t give detailed explanations, so you have me there, but the effects of placebo have already been studied to death and there isn’t really anything to gain in their investigation anymore. The hypothetical views of a researcher’s opinions on the subject are moot.

Try as I might, my thoughts on the matter just aren’t getting through. I’m about to give up and let you chase that twinkie. It would probably be for the best.

What twinkie? And how is it that you think I’m chasing anything at all?

You’ll find out what I’m talking about as you go.

Huh? As I go where?