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 Snark » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:53 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:Ever been to a therapist, Prismatic? Ever ask what the root cause of your fear and loathing of God might come from? After all, all beliefs are ultimately grounded in psychology.
Obviously all human activities are related to the psychological. Why should I fear and loathe something that is an illusion and impossible?

That's what I'm asking. Why do you promulgate hate and fear of something that, according to you, cannot exist? What's the ultimate ground of your anti-theist beliefs? It sure as hell ain't Buddhism.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:27 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Snark wrote:Ever been to a therapist, Prismatic? Ever ask what the root cause of your fear and loathing of God might come from? After all, all beliefs are ultimately grounded in psychology.
Obviously all human activities are related to the psychological. Why should I fear and loathe something that is an illusion and impossible?

That's what I'm asking. Why do you promulgate hate and fear of something that, according to you, cannot exist? What's the ultimate ground of your anti-theist beliefs? It sure as hell ain't Buddhism.
Your views are too shallow here.

If a schizophrenic chop off your right hand because he believed his 'real' 'God -XYZ' [illusion] commanded him to do so, would you hate and fear his ''God"? Surely the attention should be focused on his psychological state.

For theists who commit evils and violence against non-believers in the believe their God is real and commanded them to carry out their divine duty, I don't hate nor fear their illusory God. Rather I am directing attention their psychology in why they believed in an illusory God and from that delusion commit evils and violence on non-believers.

That you believed I hate and fear God is your delusional belief.

I have explained in the earlier post [you missed] why I critique theism and highlight the belief in God is due to a psychology that led to real evils and violence, and not that God exists as real to be believed.
I believe your psychological reactions are the same, i.e. being snarky to my valid and rational criticisms of God.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Jan 24, 2018 2:38 pm

The ultimate ground of God is pre-psychological and can be found in the organic underpinnings of brain/mind. One does not pick the middle of a process, psychology in this case, and claim that it is the ultimate ground of anything. The ultimate ground of God is in Being and is experienced as belonging. The precedent for belonging is not found in an idea, it is found in an experience of being part of a universe that has learned to see itself.
"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: 12492
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:54 pm

Ierrellus wrote:The ultimate ground of God is pre-psychological and can be found in the organic underpinnings of brain/mind. One does not pick the middle of a process, psychology in this case, and claim that it is the ultimate ground of anything. The ultimate ground of God is in Being and is experienced as belonging. The precedent for belonging is not found in an idea, it is found in an experience of being part of a universe that has learned to see itself.


This pre-psychological has a ground which can be derived only on basis of developmental, or inclusive argument. God exists in consciousness in the same brain that's arguing. This ground is borne out by Anselm"s problem of self derivation

But the critique against it is scholastic, and does not concern with the idea of narrowing difference between things, ideas and energy.

In fact the man god anthropomorphic idea works in reverse if evolution is interpreted in terms of God in man consisting of a presumed God in man. If the objects of evolution have already been attained prior to its conscious realization, nihilizing time in its transcendental manifestation, then its object-God, has a quality of having intrinsic objectivity as its foundation.

A psychology has also a further foundation, meaning the logical distinction between theism and non-theism. Logical priority begs the pre-logical but not by way of an intrinsic logic.

So, once language is acquired the logical basis can be inferred. Hence the immediate problem with the Ultimate basis requiring embodiment of the ideal prior to the acquisition of language.

Can such an acquisition be shown as having necessary developmental manifestations of intrinsic necessity for God, exclusive of any logical argument?

I believe that the closure between ritual and language implies a historical shift away from ritual . The Reformation proves witness to the diminishing of Roman Catholic ritual as uncontestable,
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:33 am

Ierrellus wrote:The ultimate ground of God is pre-psychological and can be found in the organic underpinnings of brain/mind.
My argument is;
    1. The idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
    2. The organic underpinnings of brain/mind are empirically based elements.
    3. Therefore, the idea of God cannot [it is impossible] be linked with the organic underpinnings of brain/mind

From the above your claim is not even logical to start with, thus fallacious and false.

One does not pick the middle of a process, psychology in this case, and claim that it is the ultimate ground of anything. The ultimate ground of God is in Being and is experienced as belonging. The precedent for belonging is not found in an idea, it is found in an experience of being part of a universe that has learned to see itself.
My point is;

    1. Psychology is the ultimate ground of all human behaviors.
    2. Believing in a God is a human mental activity/behavior.
    3. Therefore 'Believing in a God' is ultimately psychological.

As such the real ground of why people believe in a God should be dealt psychologically, not because an illusory and impossible God said so as claimed.

Note the critical term above is 'experience' which is empirical.
The 'empirical' [experience] just don't jive with God which is pure reason, illusory and an impossibility [apple versus orange].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:25 pm

In both syllogisms, the premise is questionable and cannot be realized as fact from what follows. Besides a syllogism is a week form of proof
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Ergo, Socrates is all men.
"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: 12492
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:16 pm

1. Psychology is the ultimate ground of all human behaviors.
2. Believing in a God is a human mental activity/behavior.
3. Therefore 'Believing in a God' is ultimately psychological.

Hilarious. All beliefs are human mental activities.

Premise 1 is also very strange. Psychology is a field of study. But let's say you mean something like 'cognitive processes'. This premise is not going to be accepted by a large percentage of biology, who are physicalists, and are more likely to say that cognitive process are the result of physical processes.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:44 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
1. Psychology is the ultimate ground of all human behaviors.
2. Believing in a God is a human mental activity/behavior.
3. Therefore 'Believing in a God' is ultimately psychological.

Hilarious. All beliefs are human mental activities.

Premise 1 is also very strange. Psychology is a field of study. But let's say you mean something like 'cognitive processes'. This premise is not going to be accepted by a large percentage of biology, who are physicalists, and are more likely to say that cognitive process are the result of physical processes.
Actually it is your response that is hilarious which lack intelligence and based on ignorance.

Note:
Wiki wrote:Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.


    1. Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
    2. All human activities is related to behavior and mind ncluding conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought.
    3. Thus All human activities is psychologically based.

"Cognitive process" ??
Note this overlap between the physical and the mental [psychology];

The field of cognitive neuroscience concerns the scientific study of the neural mechanisms underlying cognition and is a branch of neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience overlaps with cognitive psychology, and focuses on the neural substrates of mental processes and their behavioral manifestations.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/cogn ... cience.htm


Show me again where I am wrong and is hilarious?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:29 am

Ierrellus wrote:In both syllogisms, the premise is questionable and cannot be realized as fact from what follows.
Which premise is questionable.
The P1 of the first argument is proven here,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
What are your counter arguments against that argument?
This and the first argument is NOT meant to be proven as fact but only confined to reason.

Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.

The second paragraph is can be empirically proven.
I have already given evidences of how a belief in God is linked to psychological factors in this OP.

In addition, note the origin of a belief in God is psychological unease.
The idea of God provide the psychological ease and security.
This is why when that psychological ease and security is threatened by non-believers' actions e.g. criticisms of theism, drawing of cartoons, etc. SOME highly sensitive theists will go to the extreme of killing those who critique the religion.

Snark is one good example who felt threatened by by critiques of theism, thus his shooting of intellectual arrows and barbs at me in an attempt to kill my intellectual pursuit of the issue.


]Besides a syllogism is a weak form of proof
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Ergo, Socrates is all men.
I have never claimed syllogism [via reason and intellect] is a strong form of proof.

The above syllogism is fishy,
Deductively it should be;
3. Socrates is mortal.

Note P1 is psychological [Hume] and conditional upon the past and never a certainty because who knows in the future it is possible for humans to live forever..

The path to knowledge is;
    1. Firstly it is based and leveraged on prior empirical experiences,
    2. Then the intellect conceptualize the experience as a hypothesis, via syllogism or otherwise.
    3. Finally the hypothesis must be empirically proven to become knowledge.

The problem with 'God exists' as I have demonstrated cannot even pass stage 1 to form a hypothesis in 2.
At stage 1 I have killed it with reason, God is illusory and an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:04 pm

Whatever you arrogantly claim you have killed still survives in the minds of thoughtful people. God in the mind does not prove God does not exist outside the mind as attested by numerous people in all parts of the globe. Your Hume/Kant attacks on the efficacy of the senses do not stand up beside actual experience. Logic can prove or disprove anything, including itself. Wasn't It Wittsgenstein (SP) who proved that mathematical logic cannot fathom ontology. Mathematical logic is hermetically sealed in its own way of seeing. It is not meant to be an analyzer of experiences in Being. It can substantiate reason, but fails to describe emotion.
"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: 12492
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:17 am

Ierrellus wrote:Whatever you arrogantly claim you have killed still survives in the minds of thoughtful people. God in the mind does not prove God does not exist outside the mind as attested by numerous people in all parts of the globe.
As I had provided with evidence, 'God in the mind' is also attested VERY strongly and sincerely by people who suffered mental illnesses, brain damage, drug addicts, hallucinogen, meditations, electrical stimulation of the brain, during orgasm, etc.

Based on the above, it is highly possible the so-called prophets, messengers, mesiah, godmen, and the likes could be a candidate [patient, victim] of the above reasons.

At least I have evidences of how the experiences of God lead to the false claim God exists. Note when the patients are cured they don't have the experiences of a God anymore.

Whatever exists in the mind is at best a hypothesis or speculation. The ultimate is such things in the mind must be proven with reasonable justifications. The most credible is the empirical-rational test, e.g. Science. What other basis can one verify the existence of a thing beside the most credible Science? Faith?

Your Hume/Kant attacks on the efficacy of the senses do not stand up beside actual experience.
Note my counter against the reliability of actual experience of a real 'God' as listed above. Whatever the experience it must be justified solidly.

Logic can prove or disprove anything, including itself. Wasn't It Wittsgenstein (SP) who proved that mathematical logic cannot fathom ontology. Mathematical logic is hermetically sealed in its own way of seeing. It is not meant to be an analyzer of experiences in Being. It can substantiate reason, but fails to describe emotion.
logic do not disprove itself. Logic will disprove bad thinking logically.

Wittgenstein view re mathematics versus ontology, not sure, link?
It is depend on the context related to the term ontology.
Ontology is general discussed in relation to an independent thing or being e.g. God. Such a basis of ontology as I have demonstrated is an illusion and an impossibility. The bottom line is where is the evidence and justifications of its existence as real?

Yes, mathematics and any other fields of knowledge must be qualified within its limited Framework and System. To translate any mathematics proof, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2 is real it has to be reflected within an empirical-rational reality. If not what other mode is possible?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Snark » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:50 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.

OMG :lol:

Snark is one good example who felt threatened by by critiques of theism, thus his shooting of intellectual arrows and barbs at me in an attempt to kill my intellectual pursuit of the issue.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't feel threatened by your intellectual dishonesty.

At stage 1 I have killed it with reason, God is illusory and an impossibility.


:-"
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:20 am

Snark wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.

OMG :lol:

At stage 1 I have killed it with reason, God is illusory and an impossibility.


:-"


Snark is one good example who felt threatened by by critiques of theism, thus his shooting of intellectual arrows and barbs at me in an attempt to kill my intellectual pursuit of the issue.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't feel threatened by your intellectual dishonesty.
Not that you are very conscious of it.
Your snarky remarks and impulsive one-liner attacks are the effects of a subliminal [subconscious] perceived threat you are not consciously aware of.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Snark » Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:39 pm

When someone says to a rich person that they are obnoxious and the rich person says to that person that he or she is just jealous, does that make it so? You might fool skeptics who've already made up their mind, but your pseudo-psychology is not an argument for or against God.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:21 pm

Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.
Some theists use deductive approaches. Some do not. Some expect their deductive approaches to convince others. Some have their own empirical reasons for believing.

A lot of skeptics make the assumption that if you cannot prove something to be true, it is false.

That is false.

There have always been truths that were not possible to prove - or give the kinds of evidence required in science.

Claims that someone has proved there is no God are generally criticisms of deductive arguments for existence of God, some good critiques, some not. I don't think any of the deductive proofs of God happen to work. It is however disingenous to then claim that God does not exist if the deductions do not hold up. In fact it's not scientific.

One can remain unconvinced and on good grounds. This is confused by people like prismatic for proof. And then comes the tooting one's horn.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:34 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Note the theists intended argument for the existence of God is based on pure crude reason and not direct empirical proof.
Therefore accordingly I have use reason [same sense] at a higher level to disproof the crude argument of the theists that God exists.
This is higher reason killing lower reasoning.
Some theists use deductive approaches. Some do not. Some expect their deductive approaches to convince others. Some have their own empirical reasons for believing.
Deductive reasoning is merely an effective "chute" but it is vulnerable to GIGO [garbage in garbage out] or SISO [shit in shit out] or other defects.
Now all deductive syllogism must always start with the major premise then the minor and finally the conclusion.
The rational is the idea of God cannot even qualify as a major premise to start with.
The most plausible explanation as supported with evidence is the idea of God is merely psychologically driven by deep primal impulses.

If theists rely on empirical reasons then they must prove it on an empirical-rational basis, i.e. support it with justifiable empirical evidences.

A lot of skeptics make the assumption that if you cannot prove something to be true, it is false.
That is false.
What skeptics claim is false is when theists cannot prove something to be true, they insist they are personally convinced it is true. This is basically faith which is false in relation to truth based on proofs.

There have always been truths that were not possible to prove - or give the kinds of evidence required in science.
That is an oxymoron.
If is a possible truth, then it must be possible to prove whilst awaiting the evidence to prove it.
When it is an impossible to be true, then it is not possible [impossible] to prove.
The idea of God as I had demonstrated is impossible to be true thus it is impossible to be proven.
I have also shown the idea of God is due to psychological reasons.

Claims that someone has proved there is no God are generally criticisms of deductive arguments for existence of God, some good critiques, some not. I don't think any of the deductive proofs of God happen to work. It is however disingenous to then claim that God does not exist if the deductions do not hold up. In fact it's not scientific.
I have not proven deductively 'there is no God'.
What I have done is to demonstrate the idea of God is an impossibility to be real to start with. As such there is no need to even prove whether God exists or not.

One can remain unconvinced and on good grounds. This is confused by people like prismatic for proof. And then comes the tooting one's horn.
Whatever is not proven must be shown to be possible to be proven when the possible evidences are produced.
Regardless of any tooting one's horn, the fundamental is 'where is the proof' or if possible, provide the argument why it is possible?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:21 pm

I'm not sure anymore, having read so much, that Wittsgenstein made statements about the limitations of mathematical logic as used to anaylize ontology. Maybe it was Russell who said it. Regardless of who said it the idea is true. 1+1+2 only if the 1s represent identical things. The 1s can never demonstrate the roots or ground of a thing. They represent an idea of equality. Syllogisms generally fail to prove anything because they are abut identical things or qualities at the expense of what else the things could be. Socrates is a mortal is a set proposition that one must take on faith. It is an A in A=B, B=C, C=A. It excludes the possibility that Socrates may be anything other than that. It does not describe what it is like to be mortal.
"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: 12492
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:18 am

Ierrellus wrote:I'm not sure anymore, having read so much, that Wittsgenstein made statements about the limitations of mathematical logic as used to anaylize ontology. Maybe it was Russell who said it. Regardless of who said it the idea is true. 1+1+2 only if the 1s represent identical things. The 1s can never demonstrate the roots or ground of a thing. They represent an idea of equality. Syllogisms generally fail to prove anything because they are abut identical things or qualities at the expense of what else the things could be. Socrates is a mortal is a set proposition that one must take on faith. It is an A in A=B, B=C, C=A. It excludes the possibility that Socrates may be anything other than that. It does not describe what it is like to be mortal.
Yes syllogisms do not prove anything. Syllogisms are merely tools of logic.
What is proof is always qualified to some framework and system e.g. Mathematics, scientific, legal, psychological, etc.

I have demonstrated it is impossible to prove God is real within empirical-rational reality, i.e. philosophical-scientific which is the most credible.
If you insist God is real, what other mode of proof can you do it? There is none more credible than the philosophical-rational-scientific basis.

I have also demonstrated how the idea of God is only valid and practical as driven by psychological factors [evidences provided] within the psychological perspective.

I read Mills and he stated the premise 'All Men are Mortal' is never a certainty. As with Hume this is merely psychological via habits, customs and constant conjunctions based on observation of past experiences. It is very possible for humans to be immortal in the future, thus the counter argument to that major premise.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:20 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:I'm not sure anymore, having read so much, that Wittsgenstein made statements about the limitations of mathematical logic as used to anaylize ontology. Maybe it was Russell who said it. Regardless of who said it the idea is true. 1+1+2 only if the 1s represent identical things. The 1s can never demonstrate the roots or ground of a thing. They represent an idea of equality. Syllogisms generally fail to prove anything because they are abut identical things or qualities at the expense of what else the things could be. Socrates is a mortal is a set proposition that one must take on faith. It is an A in A=B, B=C, C=A. It excludes the possibility that Socrates may be anything other than that. It does not describe what it is like to be mortal.

Note the point, mathematics is always possible albeit incomplete [Godel] but theological ontology of God is an absolute impossibility.

Yes syllogisms do not prove anything. Syllogisms are merely tools of logic.
What is proof is always qualified to some framework and system e.g. Mathematics, scientific, legal, psychological, etc.

I have demonstrated it is impossible to prove God is real within empirical-rational reality, i.e. philosophical-scientific which is the most credible.
If you insist God is real, what other mode of proof can you do it? There is none more credible than the philosophical-rational-scientific basis.

I have also demonstrated how the idea of God is only valid and practical as driven by psychological factors [evidences provided] within the psychological perspective.

I read Mills and he stated the premise 'All Men are Mortal' is never a certainty. As with Hume this is merely psychological via habits, customs and constant conjunctions based on observation of past experiences. It is very possible for humans to be immortal in the future, thus the counter argument to that major premise.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:18 pm

All beliefs are psychological. Why then pick out theistic beliefs as untrue by virtue of being psychological?
Many different beliefs assuage existential angst. Are they false because of doing this?
"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: 12492
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:11 am

Ierrellus wrote:All beliefs are psychological. Why then pick out theistic beliefs as untrue by virtue of being psychological?
Many different beliefs assuage existential angst. Are they false because of doing this?
Yes ALL beliefs are psychological.
Yes, 'many different beliefs assuage existential angst.'
BUT whether beliefs are true and objective knowledge depend whether they are Justified True Beliefs [JTB - Gettier noted].

The idea of God is purely a psychologically based beliefs and not based on Justified True Belief.
The critical factor here is 'justified' and then 'true'.

Why then pick out theistic beliefs as untrue by virtue of being psychological?

My starting point of why I critique theistic religions especially the Abrahamic religions is this;

Image

The above is an easily retrievable stats which involves only incidents with deaths. This is the last straw for me on top of the mountains of evils deeds related to religions since the emerge within the history of mankind. As a concerned citizen of humanity I have to contribute to find out why, why, why and the root causes of all those evil deeds associated with religion.

An investigation of all evil deeds related to Abrahamic religions lead to the idea of God raised within human consciousness psychologically to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

If the root cause of the terrible evils is psychological, then the solution should be psychological in seeking alternative fool proof* approaches to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

What is critical re fool proof is there will be no opportunity at all for any theist to commit terrible evils in the name of a God which is an illusion and impossibility as conjured psychologically to deal with the an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

I understand not all religions and theistic beliefs are inherently evil and violent.
The problem here is theism-as-a-whole provide the 'nursery bed' to enable malignant theistic beliefs to fester and infect the whole world with theistic-based evils. Note my point re the stats above and all other evils.

The solution is thus to find effective fool proofs replacements [with ZERO malignant evil elements] to deal with the same inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:34 pm

Ierrellus wrote:All beliefs are psychological. Why then pick out theistic beliefs as untrue by virtue of being psychological?
Many different beliefs assuage existential angst. Are they false because of doing this?
Note that his response to you above is simply rehashing what he has said before. He seems to me to be a dead end. He cannot acknowledge that he has argued that since the belief is in the brain God is not real. He now says that the issue is JTB as he has elsewhere. Well if that is the issue, why has he said so many times that the in-the-brainness demonstrates theism is false? It doesn't even add anything to his JTB argument, since, as he acknowledges, all beliefs are in brains.

That is disingenous. He could acknowledge that his theism is in the brain argument was a dead end and focus on his JTB argument, but seems to find it hard to do this. So he is acting as if you never correctly criticized his argument. This is a form of denial and rudeness. He wants to win, sees the acknowledgement as weakness or whatever.

I go into this because this pattern is likely not going to change. As most people know it is rare on the internet for people to acknowledge errors in behavior or argument. I just want to place a red flag here, so anyone who continues to engage this person has seen the red flag and is making a conscious choice to go on. It is so easy to assume that perhaps the next formulation will get the other person to admit or see what they are doing. And go on ad infinitum with such characters.

He says somewhere that English is not his native language and that explains some of the very odd formulations and that's not his fault, but I don't think he has read very much philosophy, so he doesn't have much of a grasp of fallacies and logical arguments. Couple that with the disingenousness in the response above and there is a black hole conversation waiting for anyone here.

You probably know all this, pardon me, just sometimes I feel like it has be said 'out loud'.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:51 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:All beliefs are psychological. Why then pick out theistic beliefs as untrue by virtue of being psychological?
Many different beliefs assuage existential angst. Are they false because of doing this?
Note that his response to you above is simply rehashing what he has said before. He seems to me to be a dead end.
Dead end??
Note I am moving forward with this
Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193796
any banking on various advances in knowledge beside philosophical arguments.

He cannot acknowledge that he has argued that since the belief is in the brain God is not real. He now says that the issue is JTB as he has elsewhere. Well if that is the issue, why has he said so many times that the in-the-brainness demonstrates theism is false? It doesn't even add anything to his JTB argument, since, as he acknowledges, all beliefs are in brains.
I not very sure of your point here.
My main point is as demonstrated is 'God is an Impossibility'.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
As such JTB is not applicable to the question of God, because that is a non-starter.
The starting point is this OP, The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological, thus should be dealt with psychologically.

That is disingenous. He could acknowledge that his theism is in the brain argument was a dead end and focus on his JTB argument, but seems to find it hard to do this. So he is acting as if you never correctly criticized his argument. This is a form of denial and rudeness. He wants to win, sees the acknowledgement as weakness or whatever.
Philosophy is not about winning, since as Russell asserted there are no definite ultimate answers in Philosophy to decide the final results and standing.
I have raised new questions re the idea of God toward the psychological factors and from there in anticipation of new questions thereafter.


I go into this because this pattern is likely not going to change. As most people know it is rare on the internet for people to acknowledge errors in behavior or argument. I just want to place a red flag here, so anyone who continues to engage this person has seen the red flag and is making a conscious choice to go on. It is so easy to assume that perhaps the next formulation will get the other person to admit or see what they are doing. And go on ad infinitum with such characters.
As I had mentioned many times, if you can prove where I have presented 1 + 1 = 4, then I will acknowledge that and change. Just present your counter arguments and justifications.

He says somewhere that English is not his native language and that explains some of the very odd formulations and that's not his fault, but I don't think he has read very much philosophy, so he doesn't have much of a grasp of fallacies and logical arguments. Couple that with the disingenousness in the response above and there is a black hole conversation waiting for anyone here.

You probably know all this, pardon me, just sometimes I feel like it has be said 'out loud'.

The limitation re language in my case is not a serious handicap.
FYI, I have a specific folder 'Philosophy' is my harddisk and it contains 7422 file in 473 folders comprising various philosophers and philosophical topics.
I have been in the Philosophical Forum business for a long time and have taken the trouble to cover whatever potholes [highlighted by others and own reflection] along the philosophical path via very extensive reading and research.

Don't waste your time complaining and condemning.
This is a Philosophy Forum and all you need to do is express your views, present counter arguments and its justifications especially for your own sake.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]