No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:17 pm

I will have no problem if you state my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature along with the justifications. If my views are really as such, then I will improve on them as I had done before.

It is not forum ethics to go on a personal attack to describe someone as psychotic. If you think my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, then give your justification and counter arguments.
No. One does not call anyone's views shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature.

One says :

"You have this view but this one is better for these reasons ...".

"You are mistaken/incorrect for these reasons ...".

"That is the view expressed here(/by this person/ by this school of thought) and these were the counterarguments ...".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:51 am

phyllo wrote:
All theists are generally normal people.
You have made some sweeping statements about theists. Now it seems that you are backtracking.

Where???

Note I have raised this thread;
Do NOT Bash Muslims - any Muslim
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=191104&p=2627059&hilit=do+not+bash+muslim#p2627059

This indicate my empathy and compassion for Muslims as human beings and that extend to all theists as human beings.

But if theists bash me, I am not going to be a sitting duck and stay still to be attacked.

Those who are mentally ill are those who are certified to be mentally ill in accordance to DSM-V by a qualified psychiatrist.
I didn't ask who has been diagnosed by using the DSM or how they are diagnosed. I asked where you draw the line between theists who are mentally ill or "psychologically desperate" and theists who are not mentally ill or "psychologically desperate". I suspect from reading your posts that you don't think any theist falls into the latter category.
There is a difference between "mentally ill" and "psychologically desperate'.
Mentally ill is as per the DSM-V.

I have stated many times ALL humans has the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. existential psychological desperation.
It is just that such inherent unavoidable existential psychological desperation are active in a range of degrees, some very active while others has less active desperations.

Those with very active psychological desperation comprised of theists and non-theists. While the psychological desperate theists turned to God, the psychological desperate non-theists turn to non-secular solutions like non-theistic spirituality, drugs, addictions, etc.

My point;
Theists claim there are many theists who have had experiences of God in many forms. This imply God exists.
My counter is, there are many people [both theists and non-theists] who have had experiences of God but they have to been proven to be mentally ill, brain damage, taken drugs & hallucinogen, stimulated by electronic waves, stressed, meditation, prayers, etc.
Therefore it is most likely the origin of theism is likely to be psychological based rather than the activity of an existing God out there.
Just because you have one explanation for it, does not mean that's the only explanation.

The fact that you see stars when hit on the head does not mean that there are no stars in the sky.
Scamp_Stars.jpg
I did not say that is THE ONLY explanation. I stated 'likely' and such empirical likelihood is more reasonable than a God which I have demonstrated to be impossible and a non-starter.

In addition there are already non-theistic approaches that deal the above psychological causes.
Buddhists also experience the so-claimed "God experiences" but they don't recognized it has anything to deal with a God but rather these are all effects of neural activities.

Note:
Whatever the "stars" it has to be justified empirically.
Btw, the "stars" you see in the sky are merely the effect of light waves hitting your retina. It is likely re the stars you see [light from light years away], there is no real time star at all as it could have already exploded some time ago.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:02 am

phyllo wrote:
I don't deny I have used the above terms but that is in relation to the views presented and not specifically to the person.
"Your philosophy is shallow" is a personal attack. It's not much different from saying "you're dumb". It's an insult.
In addition that is only in response to when I am attacked unnecessarily.
You don't need to retaliate. You are choosing to do so.
When I used those terms I often support it with justifications.
I don't see anything wrong with the above in pointing out someone's view and thinking is "shallow", "narrow", "ignorant" and "immature" with justification why it is so.
You rationalize it and you think that it's okay. It's not okay. It destroys rational discussion. That's what happened in the threads ... they became not much more than bitter personal attacks.
I believe letting them know of such a reality [in my view] could be beneficial to them.
You didn't help anyone ... people became defensive and retaliated. That was predictable.

Your targets are less likely to reconsider their positions as a result of the interaction.

Both your attacks and their attacks are inappropriate.
I understand your points.
I don't have the natural tendency to attack, all I am interested is to focus to express my views and with an expectation of more in depth counter views rather than agreement.

But if I am attack from people like James and Aminius I will definitely counter or avoid.

What I don't do is posting one-liners calling someone psychotic, mad, delusional or other derogatory terms directed at the person.
Those one-liners also can be rationalized as "necessary" and as a "beneficial suggestion to get medical help".
I don't see persistent one-liners as necessary at all. Usually this is against the rules in a forum for Philosophical discussion.
In response to Snark's one-liners I kept asking him for justified arguments.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:07 am

phyllo wrote:
I will have no problem if you state my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature along with the justifications. If my views are really as such, then I will improve on them as I had done before.

It is not forum ethics to go on a personal attack to describe someone as psychotic. If you think my views are shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, then give your justification and counter arguments.
No. One does not call anyone's views shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature.

One says :

"You have this view but this one is better for these reasons ...".

"You are mistaken/incorrect for these reasons ...".

"That is the view expressed here(/by this person/ by this school of thought) and these were the counterarguments ...".
Noted your point.

If in a normal discussion [no provocative attacks from the other side] if I see anyone's views as shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, I don't even bother to mention to them in the ways you propose. I just don't bother and continue to express my views, suggest a reading of such such a book or philosophers and offer alternative views.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:14 am

I have stated many times ALL humans has the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. existential psychological desperation.
It is just that such inherent unavoidable existential psychological desperation are active in a range of degrees, some very active while others has less active desperations.

Those with very active psychological desperation comprised of theists and non-theists. While the psychological desperate theists turned to God, the psychological desperate non-theists turn to non-secular solutions like non-theistic spirituality, drugs, addictions, etc.
Right. You're saying that there is not a single theist who looks around and says that God is a reasonable explanation for the stuff that he/she sees. (no desperation involved.)

That's what I said that you said.

And I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems. (And then there lots of ordinary people who don't seem very desperate.)
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:31 am

phyllo wrote:
I have stated many times ALL humans has the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. existential psychological desperation.
It is just that such inherent unavoidable existential psychological desperation are active in a range of degrees, some very active while others has less active desperations.

Those with very active psychological desperation comprised of theists and non-theists. While the psychological desperate theists turned to God, the psychological desperate non-theists turn to non-secular solutions like non-theistic spirituality, drugs, addictions, etc.
Right. You're saying that there is not a single theist who looks around and says that God is a reasonable explanation for the stuff that he/she sees. (no desperation involved.)

That's what I said that you said.

And I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems. (And then there lots of ordinary people who don't seem very desperate.)
The high profile theists do not have DSM type psychological problems but they do have a reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of.
Note "desperation" in this case comes in degrees in terms of activeness. While a jihadist terrorist may be 99% desperate psychologically, a high profile theists like the Pope may have say 20%.

I believe the above can be objective in terms of fMRI imaging of brain activities.

Dr. Andrew Newberg is a neuroscientist who studies the relationship between brain function and various mental states. He is a pioneer in the neurological study of religious and spiritual experiences, a field known as “neurotheology.” His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.
Lots of research have been done on this. The conclusions are crude but the degrees of activities in the various parts of the brain do signify intensity of "psychological desperation" [as I had claimed and defined].
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:24 am

The high profile theists do not have DSM type psychological problems but they do have a reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of.
It seems odd that you can know this about them.

I'm going by the content of their writings and their biographies and I have to admit that I'm making a guess about their mental states since I don't have personal access to these people.
Note "desperation" in this case comes in degrees in terms of activeness. While a jihadist terrorist may be 99% desperate psychologically, a high profile theists like the Pope may have say 20%.
Please don't use numbers when you don't have any data to support those numbers.
I believe the above can be objective in terms of fMRI imaging of brain activities.
Those people didn't get scanned. Maybe some test subjects have been scanned. How many of them were jihadi terrorists? None?
His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.Lots of research have been done on this. The conclusions are crude but the degrees of activities in the various parts of the brain do signify intensity of "psychological desperation" [as I had claimed and defined].
Scanning people in particular actions doesn't really say anything about the "psychological desperation" of a belief in God. It just says that there is a pattern of activity at those times.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:34 am

What's the baseline definition for "psychologically desperate"?

Obviously, there would have to be a distinct difference between "desperate" and "not desperate". Which is what?

And then what's the difference between "a little desperate" (say 10%) and "half desperate" (say 50%) and "really desperate" (say 99%)?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:34 am

phyllo wrote:
The high profile theists do not have DSM type psychological problems but they do have a reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of.
It seems odd that you can know this about them.

I'm going by the content of their writings and their biographies and I have to admit that I'm making a guess about their mental states since I don't have personal access to these people.
I do not know them.
I am going by your claim,
"I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems."
I agree as I have not read of reports of high profile theists, e.g. Popes, Scientists and others, as having DSM symptons by any qualified psychiatrist and considered as mentally ill.

As for their,
"reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of" this is based on an inference, i.e.

    1. All theists has some degree of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.
    2. Your mentioned these high profile people as theists.
    3. Therefore these these high profile people as theists has some degrees of of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.

As for P1, the proof is a long and complex one. However I have pointed to the example of Abraham's desperation to the extent of willing to kill his own son for God and other examples.

Note "desperation" in this case comes in degrees in terms of activeness. While a jihadist terrorist may be 99% desperate psychologically, a high profile theists like the Pope may have say 20%.
Please don't use numbers when you don't have any data to support those numbers.
Yes, I don't have precise numbers. The above numbers are merely to represent the relative comparison of high to lower degrees of activeness. Note my use of 'maybe'.

I believe the above can be objective in terms of fMRI imaging of brain activities.
Those people didn't get scanned. Maybe some test subjects have been scanned. How many of them were jihadi terrorists? None?
In the above I stated it is possible. I did not claim it has been done.
Various research has been done in the related areas and my hypothesis can be tested using such research facilities to prove my thesis. This is very possible.

His research includes taking brain scans of people in prayer, meditation, rituals, and trance states, in an attempt to better understand the nature of religious and spiritual practices and attitudes.Lots of research have been done on this. The conclusions are crude but the degrees of activities in the various parts of the brain do signify intensity of "psychological desperation" [as I had claimed and defined].

Scanning people in particular actions doesn't really say anything about the "psychological desperation" of a belief in God. It just says that there is a pattern of activity at those times.
Again, based on existing research, it can be extended to test my hypothesis re "psychological desperation". First we need to identify the mechanics related to "psychological desperation" then work on it.
At present the processes are very crude.

The field of neuroscientific knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate and there is the Human Connectome Project to map the neural connection of the whole human brain. When humanity has reached a certain critical milestone on this project, humanity will be able to identify the neural activities related to this 'psychological desperation' and test to verify its existence, then proposed the necessary improvements.

You have a lot to cover in this area of knowledge.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:11 am

phyllo wrote:What's the baseline definition for "psychologically desperate"?

Obviously, there would have to be a distinct difference between "desperate" and "not desperate". Which is what?

And then what's the difference between "a little desperate" (say 10%) and "half desperate" (say 50%) and "really desperate" (say 99%)?
To differentiate the "desperate" and "not desperate", it will be the following;

    1. Desperate = all theists
    2. Not desperate = the more advance non-theistic Buddhist practitioners and the likes.

Therefore ALL theists-proper* by default has various degrees of desperation within their subconscious mind that compelled them to believe in a God of various forms.
* not fake ones, e.g. pretend to be theist to marry their theistic girlfriend and other reasons.

And then what's the difference between "a little desperate" (say 10%) and "half desperate" (say 50%) and "really desperate" (say 99%)?
Let take the example of the sexual drive which is the same but not as deeply fundamental as the existential drive and its complex existential crisis.

    1. The really desperate [99%] who are controlled by their sexual drive are those rapists, sex perverts, sex addicts, and the likes.
    2. The half desperate [50/50] are the average person who has sex say 3 times a week during their active and peak sexual phase.
    3. Those who are "a little desperate" are those who has low active sexual drive, maybe having sex once a month.

Obviously for those in 2 and 3 there is no noticeable desperation, but the term degree of desperation is valid when we put them on a continuum of desperation.
If our continuum is based on 'not desperate' then the % would be reversed.

The principles and use of desperation within a continuum as in sex can be used for the psychological desperation re existential crisis.

I have used the above relative principles within a continuum in relation to 'evilness'.
If genocide is 99% evilness then relatively petty crimes could be 1% evilness along the same continuum of evilness.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:00 am

“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists. It presumes God is an object of empirical knowledge like any other thing in nature, but that is not the case nor has it ever been. Whether fear-based or based on awe of sheer being, the sense of the sacred is a universal phenomenon as old as humankind. And if it has evolutionary, psychological and biological underpinnings as skeptics argue, then the absence of the sense of the divine is the anomaly, not the sense of the sacred.

According to Dr. Joseph Dispenza, a leading pioneer in the fields of neuroscience, the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information a second but we are only aware of 2,000, or .000005% of those bits. Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature.

Abraham Maslow, a well-known psychology professor, wrote:

Human life will never be understood unless its highest aspirations are taken into account. Growth, self-actualization, the striving toward health, the quest for identity and autonomy. the yearning for excellence (and other ways of phrasing the striving "upward") must by now be accepted beyond question as a widespread and perhaps universal human tendency.

...in any judging of the motivations for a person's behavior, the character of the judge also has to be taken into account. He chooses the motivations to which he will attribute the behavior, for instance, in accord with his generalized optimism or pessimism. I find the latter choice to be made far more frequently today, so frequently that I find it useful to name the phenomenon "downlevelling of the motivations." Briefly put, this is the tendency to prefer, for explanatory purposes, the
lower needs to the middle needs. and the middle needs to the higher. A purely materialistic motivation is preferred to a social or metamotivated one, or to a mixture of all three. It is a kind of paranoid-like suspicion, a form of devaluation of human nature, which I see often but which. to my knowledge, has not been sufficiently described. I think that any complete theory of motivation must include this additional variable.

...the trend in our culture is very clearly toward widespread downleveIling. The lower needs are being heavily overused for explanatory purposes and the higher and metaneeds are being badly underused.


Prismatic's downleveling of the human condition is as dark as it is irrational. Even if his information is right, and to some extent it is, the focus of his attention is like a millstone around the neck of anyone willing listen.
Last edited by Snark on Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 7:30 am

Snark wrote:“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists. It presumes God is an object of empirical knowledge like any other thing in nature, but that is not the case nor has it ever been. Whether fear-based or based on awe of sheer being, the sense of the sacred is a universal phenomenon as old as humankind. And if it has evolutionary, psychological and biological underpinnings as skeptics argue, then the absence of the sense of the divine is the anomaly, not the sense of the sacred.
I have never presumed God is an object of empirical knowledge.
My point is, to prove God is real within an empirical-rational reality, then God must be proven on that basis.

My argument is the idea of God is an illusion and impossibility and thus is moot and a non-starter. Therefore the idea of God cannot even be considered at all within the perspective of an empirical-rational reality.

According to Dr. Joseph Dispenza, a leading pioneer in the fields of neuroscience, the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information a second but we are only aware of 2,000, or .000005% of those bits. Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature.


Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!

Joseph Dispenza is an author of several fluffy New-Age snowflake bullshit self-help books, and is particularly notable for his appearance in the deranged piece of pseudo-science delusion “What the Bleep do we know”. Dispenza, who presents himself as "Dr. Dispenza", is the proud possessor of a “Doctor of Chiropractic degree” from Life University, and currently seems to be in the “miraculous healing” business. He is also a follower of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment, and has produced several Youtube videos in which he talks about quantum physics the way he sees it, which has nothing to do with quantum physics (Dispenza really doesn’t even have the faintest idea what quantum physics is), but a lot to do with gibberish centered around various ridiculous forms of woo and crackpot spirituality crap.

If you enjoy torturing yourself with fluffy fogbanks of pink-tinged drivel, you may check out his DVD series “Your Immortal Brain,” which allegedly “looks at the ways in which the human brain can be used to create reality through the mastery of thought” – which does not mean anything (alludes to the Secret), but that doesn’t seem to matter much to Dispenza; like quantum physics linguistic meaning appears to be just whatever Dispenza fancies it to be at any given moment.

Diagnosis: Pretentious, delusional puddinghead who is apparently convinced that what he thinks becomes reality in virtue of him thinking it. Otherwise Dispenza doesn’t care too much about reality.


Abraham Maslow, a well-known psychology professor, wrote:

Human life will never be understood unless its highest aspirations are taken into account. Growth, self-actualization, the striving toward health, the quest for identity and autonomy. the yearning for excellence (and other ways of phrasing the striving "upward") must by now be accepted beyond question as a widespread and perhaps universal human tendency.

...in any judging of the motivations for a person's behavior, the character of the judge also has to be taken into account. He chooses the motivations to which he will attribute the behavior, for instance, in accord with his generalized optimism or pessimism. I find the latter choice to be made far more frequently today, so frequently that I find it useful to name the phenomenon "downlevelling of the motivations." Briefly put, this is the tendency to prefer, for explanatory purposes, the
lower needs to the middle needs. and the middle needs to the higher. A purely materialistic motivation is preferred to a social or metamotivated one, or to a mixture of all three. It is a kind of paranoid-like suspicion, a form of devaluation of human nature, which I see often but which. to my knowledge, has not been sufficiently described. I think that any complete theory of motivation must include this additional variable.

...the trend in our culture is very clearly toward widespread downleveIling. The lower needs are being heavily overused for explanatory purposes and the higher and metaneeds are being badly underused.


Note this in counter to your reliance on Maslow;

It is important to note, however, that Maslow considered himself to be an atheist--thus, by his conceptualization of transcendence, any individual can have such experiences.
http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime. ... maslow.htm


Thus both your supporting references do not lend credibility to your claims.

Prismatic's downleveling of the human condition is as dark as it is irrational. Even if his information is right, and to some extent it is, the focus of his attention is like a millstone around the neck of anyone willing listen.
Your above use of reference is "irrational".

What you are doing in this case is merely preaching based on some dogma of yours.

I invite you to give more credible supporting arguments.

But I am very confident the basis of the idea of God arise from psychological factors and no matter how you argue you will never be able to produce any convincing proofs God exists are real within the most reliable basis of reality i.e. the empirical rational reality.

The only realistic way a theist can justify for a belief in God is via the psychological basis.

Btw, I am not arguing here to convince you to be a non-theist at all.
I would not recommend any theist to convert to be a non-theists AT PRESENT* unless s/he has an effective alternative replacement to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
* not future within next 50, 100 or > years.

If you are a panentheist, it is not advisable to do it alone. It is recommended for one to adopt some establish spiritual Framework and System that provide practices for one to reinforce the necessary related neural circuits.
Advaita Vedanta [besides others] is one good Framework and System.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:34 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I have never presumed God is an object of empirical knowledge.
My point is, to prove God is real within an empirical-rational reality, then God must be proven on that basis.

My argument is the idea of God is an illusion and impossibility and thus is moot and a non-starter. Therefore the idea of God cannot even be considered at all within the perspective of an empirical-rational reality.


Can't have it both ways, preacher. If God is not an object of empirical knowledge, your objection is a nonsequitur.

Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!


I stand corrected about the man, but he did his research. The numbers stand so your objection irrelevant.

It is important to note, however, that Maslow considered himself to be an atheist--thus, by his conceptualization of transcendence, any individual can have such experiences.


I know. So what? The fact that anyone can have such experiences supports what I said about the absence of the sense of the divine being the aberration.

What you are doing in this case is merely preaching based on some dogma of yours.

I invite you to give more credible supporting arguments.


I see. So as far as you're concerned, even an atheist psychologist who seems to imply that your ranting is based on paranoid-like suspicion is not credible. I guess I can understand that.

BTW, how is Spectrum's thread on the same subject coming along? You should learn from Dark Matter: "If you want to learn, beware of learning THE TRUTH."
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:41 pm

Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!
Even if Dispenza is a quack, his statement seems to be essentially correct: "Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature."

Not that the distraction is a modern problem. It's as ancient as philosophy and religion. The modern spin is a reliance on science and technology.
Note this in counter to your reliance on Maslow;

It is important to note, however, that Maslow considered himself to be an atheist--thus, by his conceptualization of transcendence, any individual can have such experiences.
http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime. ... maslow.htm



Thus both your supporting references do not lend credibility to your claims.
That's not actually a counter to what Snark is saying. Your reply does not address his points nor do you discredit his claims.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:07 pm

To differentiate the "desperate" and "not desperate", it will be the following;

1. Desperate = all theists
2. Not desperate = the more advance non-theistic Buddhist practitioners and the likes.


Therefore ALL theists-proper* by default has various degrees of desperation within their subconscious mind that compelled them to believe in a God of various forms.
* not fake ones, e.g. pretend to be theist to marry their theistic girlfriend and other reasons.
You have simply defined "belief in a god" as a sign of desperation. Therefore you say that all theists are desperate.
Let take the example of the sexual drive which is the same but not as deeply fundamental as the existential drive and its complex existential crisis.

1. The really desperate [99%] who are controlled by their sexual drive are those rapists, sex perverts, sex addicts, and the likes.
2. The half desperate [50/50] are the average person who has sex say 3 times a week during their active and peak sexual phase.
3. Those who are "a little desperate" are those who has low active sexual drive, maybe having sex once a month.


Obviously for those in 2 and 3 there is no noticeable desperation, but the term degree of desperation is valid when we put them on a continuum of desperation.
Here you define a "spectrum of desperation" where at the lower end there is no desperation in any reasonable sense.

It makes no sense to call the lower end "desperation" if there is no indication of desperation.

It's a useless definition.
I have used the above relative principles within a continuum in relation to 'evilness'.
If genocide is 99% evilness then relatively petty crimes could be 1% evilness along the same continuum of evilness.
Well at least here you have something observable at the 1% level. However, calling petty crimes "evil", trivializes the word. Heck, even opening an egg on the "wrong" end can be called "evil" at some very small level. It all becomes very silly and fundamentally meaningless.

I prefer words to have clear meanings.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:24 pm

As for their,
"reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of" this is based on an inference, i.e.

1. All theists has some degree of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.
2. Your mentioned these high profile people as theists.
3. Therefore these these high profile people as theists has some degrees of of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.


As for P1, the proof is a long and complex one.
Given your definition of psychological desperation, you think that all theists are psychologically desperate.

I don't think that "belief in god" alone is enough to say that someone is psychologically desperate ... there has to be more to it than that.

If those theists don't show any signs of desperation, then they are not desperate. And they serve as a counterexample to your theory that theists are psychologically desperate.
However I have pointed to the example of Abraham's desperation to the extent of willing to kill his own son for God and other examples.
A questionable example. That's one story in a book. It may or may not have happened. Most theists would probably not act as Abraham.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:15 pm

“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists.
The question is "loaded" with the idea that "there is no evidence".

There are at least two answers :

Yours : Evidence is not required.

Mine : There is evidence. Therefore the question is not relevant.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Snark » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists.
The question is "loaded" with the idea that "there is no evidence".

There are at least two answers :

Yours : Evidence is not required.

Mine : There is evidence. Therefore the question is not relevant.

Right on both counts. :)
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:30 am

phyllo wrote:
To differentiate the "desperate" and "not desperate", it will be the following;

1. Desperate = all theists
2. Not desperate = the more advance non-theistic Buddhist practitioners and the likes.


Therefore ALL theists-proper* by default has various degrees of desperation within their subconscious mind that compelled them to believe in a God of various forms.
* not fake ones, e.g. pretend to be theist to marry their theistic girlfriend and other reasons.
You have simply defined "belief in a god" as a sign of desperation. Therefore you say that all theists are desperate.
Let take the example of the sexual drive which is the same but not as deeply fundamental as the existential drive and its complex existential crisis.

1. The really desperate [99%] who are controlled by their sexual drive are those rapists, sex perverts, sex addicts, and the likes.
2. The half desperate [50/50] are the average person who has sex say 3 times a week during their active and peak sexual phase.
3. Those who are "a little desperate" are those who has low active sexual drive, maybe having sex once a month.


Obviously for those in 2 and 3 there is no noticeable desperation, but the term degree of desperation is valid when we put them on a continuum of desperation.
Here you define a "spectrum of desperation" where at the lower end there is no desperation in any reasonable sense.

It makes no sense to call the lower end "desperation" if there is no indication of desperation.

It's a useless definition.
I have used the above relative principles within a continuum in relation to 'evilness'.
If genocide is 99% evilness then relatively petty crimes could be 1% evilness along the same continuum of evilness.
Well at least here you have something observable at the 1% level. However, calling petty crimes "evil", trivializes the word. Heck, even opening an egg on the "wrong" end can be called "evil" at some very small level. It all becomes very silly and fundamentally meaningless.

I prefer words to have clear meanings.
You don't seem to understand the concept of continuum and its use and relevance in certain specific perspective.

For example in class or grade there are a distribution of score marks among students with a percentile scoring above 80% and a percentile scoring less than 20% and the rest are in between.
One can call those above 80% smart and intelligence and one can call those <20% stupid.
This type of branding is not progressive.
Rather we should identify the range of student score in terms of a continuum of 'learning abilities'. In the case those with >80% has higher learning abilities and those <20% has lower learning abilities relative along the same continuum.
From the same perspective and continuum we can make comparison on the same scale and take corrective actions.

It is the same with psychological desperation within theism.
Putting them in the same continuum mean we recognize a common problem.
The mechanics and process of the desperate psychology of theism the same for all but the difference is only in the degree of activation which can change anytime.
What we do is to focus on the more problematic, in this case the higher degrees >80%. However we also must take note of those not so critical at the lower potential of psychological desperation but within the same continuum they have the potential to become malignant.
Note the many reports of shock of parents, relatives and friends when they discovered their goody-two-shoe sons or daughters were caught as a jihadist terrorists.

It is like cancer cells, if there are insignificant numbers it does not mean you should ignore them. We have to consider them within the bigger picture and potential.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby phyllo » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:44 am

You don't seem to understand the concept of continuum and its use and relevance in certain specific perspective.

For example in class or grade there are a distribution of score marks among students with a percentile scoring above 80% and a percentile scoring less than 20% and the rest are in between.
I understand that desperation is not a general behavior ... it's already a negative behavior. The full range goes from "Not at all desperate" to "extremely desperate".

The same goes for "evil". It's one end of the range : "good" - "bad" - "evil".

You're redefining these very basic words.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10963
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:55 pm

Tell me how psychological desperation applies to the works of Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, etc. If these twentieth century apologists were not psychological desperate how could their teachings be about despair? If the song is desperate, is the singer?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12533
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Anomaly654 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:43 pm

I've studied studiously but am unable to find evidence that Prismatic567 exists. The evidence is the same for God or Prismatic: words in a book (God) or on a computer screen (Prismatic) exhorting me to believe one set of tenets or the other. Not a hard decision; God has better, more poetic writers who make wonderful use of metaphor. Prism, you're out. Sorry.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:01 am

phyllo wrote:
Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!
Even if Dispenza is a quack, his statement seems to be essentially correct: "Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature."

Not that the distraction is a modern problem. It's as ancient as philosophy and religion. The modern spin is a reliance on science and technology.
Note this in counter to your reliance on Maslow;

It is important to note, however, that Maslow considered himself to be an atheist--thus, by his conceptualization of transcendence, any individual can have such experiences.
http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime. ... maslow.htm

Thus both your supporting references do not lend credibility to your claims.
That's not actually a counter to what Snark is saying. Your reply does not address his points nor do you discredit his claims.
Why not?

As with almost everyone, I agree there is more to the conscious mind, more within the subsconcious mind. But how did Dispenza get to the conclusion this difference led skeptics to be irreligious. This is a ridiculous conclusion.

Snark [theist] is trying to link Maslow's views [a non-theist] to theism.
But logically it cannot follow that Maslow's [non-theistic grounds] will ever lead to a theistic conclusion.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:11 am

phyllo wrote:
You don't seem to understand the concept of continuum and its use and relevance in certain specific perspective.

For example in class or grade there are a distribution of score marks among students with a percentile scoring above 80% and a percentile scoring less than 20% and the rest are in between.
I understand that desperation is not a general behavior ... it's already a negative behavior. The full range goes from "Not at all desperate" to "extremely desperate".

The same goes for "evil". It's one end of the range : "good" - "bad" - "evil".

You're redefining these very basic words.
I say my concept of continuum is very relevant to my point.
To make anything objective we need measurements.
For measurements to be effective we need a common denominator, e.g. 100% desperate to 1% desperate, 100% good to 1% good or 100% evilness to 1% evilness.

To use "good" - "bad" - "evil" for the purpose of objectivity and efficient in a philosophical issue is not efficient since we have to define what is "good" - "bad" "evil" and results in greater disagreements and needing to reconvert them for comparison.

Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and one of its good feature is to make it as simple as much as possible. If you are good in this you will note the use of "good" - "bad" "evil" to discuss the problem of evil will be very clumsy.
Last edited by Prismatic567 on Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: No Evidence For God, Why Still Believe?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:26 am

Ierrellus wrote:Tell me how psychological desperation applies to the works of Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, etc. If these twentieth century apologists were not psychological desperate how could their teachings be about despair? If the song is desperate, is the singer?
As I had stated there is a continuum of psychological desperation, from 100% to 1%.
People like Tillich, Niebuhr. Schweitzer, Lewis, Buber, and others who had not been known to display obvious explicit desperations may have say 1-20% desperation. Muslims jihadists who had commit terrible evils and violence would have >80% psychological desperations.

Note this 'psychological desperation' exists as a potential in ALL humans.
Such a potential is 'desperate' by default just like one cancer cell is potentially malignant by default.
Non-theists may have 0% of such theistic related 'psychological desperation' but circumstances can change overnight or in a short time to activate their 'psychological desperation' into active mode.

Note even the once world's most notable headstrong atheist i.e. Anthony Flow turned to theism [deism] in the later part of his life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
I estimate Antony_Flew had his theistic 'psychological desperation' activated from 0% in his early days to 20% the finally up to 50%, thus he adopted deism.

Age [as with Anthony Flew] is a factor in increasing the theistic 'psychological desperation' as the inhibitors atrophized with age.

https://www.livescience.com/19971-belief-god-atheism-age.html
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot]