The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:42 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:There is another term to God which Kant used, i.e. the Ens Realisimum.

What's your beef? Ens Realisimum = "the most real being" = God
Confirmation bias jumping in. This is one reason why theism is psychological.

The Ens Realisimum which is non-thestic is still an impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.

Ens Realisimum can be equivalent to the idea of God but is more of philosophical idea rather than a heavily theological based idea with its negative baggage.
It is necessary to bring in the idea of Ens Realisimum [not God] with discussing the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:49 am

Ierrellus wrote:The ultimate ground of God is the self-aware experiences of biological evolution, which indicate teleology.
If such is based on self-aware experience, it has to be empirically-based.
But as I had demonstrated the idea [non empirical] of God is not empirically possible, i.e. it is impossible within an empirical rational reality.

The idea of God is only a mental thought/idea within the mind only. Such an idea is driven by psychological factors within the brain/mind. I have given evidences for this.

One again--God is a verb, not a noun. God is a force, not a thingy.
"The force that though the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age.. ."Dylan Thomas
If "it" it is a force is may not be a physical object, but nevertheless it is still a thing-in-general.
Kant has demonstrated a thing-in-itself [like the idea of god] do not exists in empirical rational reality except as a thought with the brain/mind of theists.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm

Kant was unaware of the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel. This makes much of his psychology abstract and impractical. If the brain/ mind were incapable of discovering something of reality in things outside the body, we would not survive. Brain/mind seeks nourishment in the complementation of chemical elements. We eat those chemicals and their compounds that are identical to those that compose our physical body. It was not though trial and error that we learned what not to eat; it was though the accuracy of our senses that we learned what was edible and nourishing. The "thing in itself:" is a fun bit of philosophical mysticism that has nothing to do with here and now, practical ideas. Without biology, there is no psychology; without biologically grounded psychology, there is no need for theism. This has little or nothing to do with theism as being caused by existential angst.
"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: 12368
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:07 am

Ierrellus wrote:Kant was unaware of the discoveries of Darwin and Mendel. This makes much of his psychology abstract and impractical.
Kant may not be informed of genetics but he was not far from the basis of the evolution of the species.

Evolutionary Theory and Kant's Critique
Nineteenth-century theories of evolution, especially Darwin's, added factual details to Kant's theory and improved it by removing many objective difficulties, but they changed nothing in the basic framework. On the other hand, compared to Kant's theory, the theories of the nineteenth century actually represent a huge step backward on account of the decline of theoretical culture and the consequent naiveté with which relatively insignificant details are considered important and lauded as progress in treating the question, while the crucial speculative-theoretical basic questions are overlooked.

Kant deals briefly but thoroughly with these crucial questions in a few sentences appended to the well-meaning consideration of the possibility of a real descent of species. He points out that if the radically immanent theory of evolution were accepted, researchers would have to ascribe to the universal mother, with her generative power, an expedient organization geared to all the creatures that have come forth from her and without which the appropriate forms of the animal and plant worlds would be impossible. "They have then only pushed the basis of explanation further back and cannot claim to have made the development of those two kingdoms independent of the prerequisite of ultimate causes." In this one sentence the idea of the inner law of evolution is carried to its conclusion—at the same time that its theoretical significance is blunted.
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/evolution_and_kant.html


My point with reference to Kant has nothing to do with the psychological factors yet.
What Kant presented is from reason not psychology.
It is like logically a square-circle is an impossibility.
Along this line of logic and sense, the idea of God [God-in-itself] is an impossibility.
Thus the question of whether God exists as real is irrelevant.

The idea of God is only relevant for a personal psychological reasons to soothe the existential angst. It is like a tranquilizer to soothe one's stress and anxieties which cannot be pinpointed to a specific spot.

If the brain/ mind were incapable of discovering something of reality in things outside the body, we would not survive. Brain/mind seeks nourishment in the complementation of chemical elements. We eat those chemicals and their compounds that are identical to those that compose our physical body. It was not though trial and error that we learned what not to eat; it was though the accuracy of our senses that we learned what was edible and nourishing. The "thing in itself:" is a fun bit of philosophical mysticism that has nothing to do with here and now, practical ideas. Without biology, there is no psychology; without biologically grounded psychology, there is no need for theism. This has little or nothing to do with theism as being caused by existential angst.
I have argued; for something to be known, it must be empirically possible, i.e. it must be empirically based.
For example, scientists will discover new germs and bacteria, new kinds of food, etc. and all these must be empirically verified and justified with evidence.
It is even possible for human-liked aliens to exists somewhere in the Universe but this is very slim and can be easily confirmed if there are available evidences that can be verified and justified.

It is also possible for an empirical-based anthropomological God like the "bearded man in the sky" like the image below [this is empirically based thus possible] to exists but obviously that is very slim awaiting evidence if any. Such a God is inferior to the ontological God.

Image

Now the standard God that is believed by most theists is the ontological God [an absolutely perfect Being] which is an impossibility because it has no empirical elements but it is a fully mental idea only - equivalent to a square-circle.

Without biology, there is no psychology; without biologically grounded psychology, there is no need for theism. This has little or nothing to do with theism as being caused by existential angst.
That is the point, your argument;
- with biology [empirical] there is theism [empirical].
If the conclusion is empirically based, then it has to be empirically verified and justified. But since the idea of God first emerged there is no empirical evidences to justify the existence of a God [as defined].

The existential angst is related to biology and from there arise theism to soothe the existential angst. If you refer to the Abrahamic religions, it is very obvious the central driver is existential, i.e. salvation from physical existential mortality to eternal life in heaven. It is the same with all other forms of theism albeit more subtle.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Snark » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:07 am

Prismatic567 wrote:I have argued; for something to be known, it must be empirically possible, i.e. it must be empirically based.


OMG #-o
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:27 pm

Existential angst may have been the drive to believe in God by primitive man; but the history of theism does not prove that this is the case. It is more likely that the drive is prompted by something like a hunger for fulfillment, a drive to be whole. As is true of any natural appetite, inner need is not without outer fulfillment. God is inside and outside. The Humean/Kantian idea of senses being unable to reveal anything of things in themselves is a philosophical conundrum. Of course there are things in existence which the senses cannot fathom. God is not one of these and cannot be compared to them. God is as real as hands and feet.
"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: 12368
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:13 am

Ierrellus wrote:Existential angst may have been the drive to believe in God by primitive man; but the history of theism does not prove that this is the case. It is more likely that the drive is prompted by something like a hunger for fulfillment, a drive to be whole. As is true of any natural appetite, inner need is not without outer fulfillment. God is inside and outside.
The basic drives [sex, hunger, security] that are embedded deep in the brain and they do not change significantly even within millions of years. The hunger and sex drives we have is fundamentally [essence] the same as the primitive people and even the same with other animals as it was million of years ago. It is only the forms that is changed, e.g. the ways we produce and take in our food.

The existential angst manifests from the existential drive which is more deeper than the sex, hunger and security drives.
Throughout history, there is no change in the evil manifestations of the existential angst when it is threatened or the impulse to sustained it.

In fact, the existential angst and its manifested theistic-based evils are more threatening comparing to the past due to the evil prone theists getting access to greater technologies and more advanced weapons.

Note the existential drive and angst is embedded in ALL humans and active in most which drive them to the easiest solution, i.e. theism. But it also drive other humans to non-theistic measures, such as non-theistic spirituality and also the negative like drugs, etc.

The Humean/Kantian idea of senses being unable to reveal anything of things in themselves is a philosophical conundrum. Of course there are things in existence which the senses cannot fathom. God is not one of these and cannot be compared to them. God is as real as hands and feet.
It is not a philosophical conundrum for Kant who has demonstrated the position of the thing-in-itself as an impossibility within the empirical world. Where the thing-in-itself is believed as God [as real], that is illusory.

Where the senses cannot fathom, whatever is conceived as real has to be empirically possible and justified to be true. God cannot be fathom by the senses and it is not empirically possible, i.e. it is an impossibility.

If God is as real as empirical hands and feet, where is the empirical evidence for God?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Snark » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:38 pm

"Existential angst" is philosophy, a belief, not psychology. One could just as easily and justifiably say all religions stem from the experience of the numinous.
Snark
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users