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: 1907
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: 1907
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: 12493
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: 1907
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: 121
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: 12493
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: 1907
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: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:35 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Throughout history, there is no change in the evil manifestations of the existential angst when it is threatened or the impulse to sustained it.
Angst is culturally dependent to an incredible degree and it is most pronounced in Western societies and in civilization in general. and then your use of 'evil'??? Why would what you consider an unchanging natural drive or reaction be evil, especially to a secular person?
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.
It seems to me the main access to nuclear weapons is not by theists, even if on the US side presidents must pretend they are theists.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:46 pm

Snark wrote:"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.

I agree.
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:23 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Throughout history, there is no change in the evil manifestations of the existential angst when it is threatened or the impulse to sustained it.
Angst is culturally dependent to an incredible degree and it is most pronounced in Western societies and in civilization in general. and then your use of 'evil'??? Why would what you consider an unchanging natural drive or reaction be evil, especially to a secular person?
As I had stated the existential angst from an existential crisis is not directly cultural but manifested from how our DNA is structured. It is Nature not Nurture.

Besides theism and theology, the existential crisis is expressed in many aspects of life. One of this is tribalism in the secular perspective. The basic responses of "tribalism" is an initial sense of existential threat from another group of humans who are different- the us versus them instinct. This generate existential angst [feeling of threat, anxieties] and if the other group is more aggressive or dominant, then there will be terrible fears.

In the initial clash of two different groups, there could be fightings & wars and thus the evil of killing each other or even genocide.
If two tribes manage to live in village near to each other, there will be clashes that involved evil acts, stealing, killings, raping, violence etc.

Isn't the above is the truth of what was has been going on within the history of mankind.

The same as been going on with theism as driven by the existential crisis and its angst.

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.
It seems to me the main access to nuclear weapons is not by theists, even if on the US side presidents must pretend they are theists.
Looking into the future it not difficult for a rogue Islamic State to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction and Nukes [lots of blackmarket activities] just like how North Korea sneaked through with their nuclear power.

As far as the evil prone believers of the Religion of Peace are concern, the destruction of the human species is not an issue because regardless of what happen they are assured of a place in Paradise [with virgins thrown in]. According to their holy texts, if they exterminate the human species [and all their perceived 'vermins' therein] they will get greater rewards.

As for the nuclear threat secular, there is at least MAD to rely on. Nevertheless all such threats must be addressed but it [secular matters] is off topic here.
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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:31 am

Ierrellus wrote:
Snark wrote:"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.

I agree.
Existential angst manifests and emerges from the activities of the brain/mind which is inherently psychology.

Wiki wrote:Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope and diverse interests that, when taken together, seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of epiphenomena they manifest.


That is the problem when one is too cocksure from the basis of the absence of the relevant knowledge.
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 » Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:32 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Existential angst manifests and emerges from the activities of the brain/mind which is inherently psychology.
What in human experience isn't inherently psychological?

That is the problem when one is too cocksure from the basis of the absence of the relevant knowledge.

That's what everyone has been trying to tell you! Don't be so cocksure of yourself.

Stop pretending you're some kind of expert in the "psychology" of existential angst. It's a belief based on Kierkegaardian and Neitzien philosophy, not a science, not psychology. Using the concept as you do is a perversion of how its used in real psychology.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:49 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:
Snark wrote:"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.

I agree.
Existential angst manifests and emerges from the activities of the brain/mind which is inherently psychology.

Wiki wrote:Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope and diverse interests that, when taken together, seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of epiphenomena they manifest.


That is the problem when one is too cocksure from the basis of the absence of the relevant knowledge.

The brain/mind emerges from activities of matter. So is matter psychological? Or is God an idea based on our actually existence of being in and of matter? Angst is not the cause of belief in God. The cause is somehow connected to the evolutionary drive to advance.
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:54 am

Ierrellus wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Existential angst manifests and emerges from the activities of the brain/mind which is inherently psychology.

Wiki wrote:Psychology is the science of behavior and mind, including conscious and unconscious phenomena, as well as thought. It is an academic discipline of immense scope and diverse interests that, when taken together, seek an understanding of the emergent properties of brains, and all the variety of epiphenomena they manifest.


That is the problem when one is too cocksure from the basis of the absence of the relevant knowledge.

The brain/mind emerges from activities of matter. So is matter psychological? Or is God an idea based on our actually existence of being in and of matter? Angst is not the cause of belief in God. The cause is somehow connected to the evolutionary drive to advance.

The brain/mind emerges from activities of 'matter', but at the same time 'matter' also emerges from the brain/mind. The point is brain/mind and 'matter' [the perceived not the perception] are interdependent. As such the basis of 'matter' per se is psychological.
The only credible truth of what is matter is based on Science and its scientific theory.
Note;

    Scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
    'What is matter' is SOLELY based on a Scientific Theory.
    Therefore 'what is matter' is a polished conjecture.

Thus your one-sided claim re matter as based on Science [a polished conjecture] is not ultimately credible and thus a limited truth.

The debate on the interdependent basis of matter is based on quite a complex set of philosophy, e.g. Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical anti-Realism.

The idea of God [an empirical impossibility] arise from primal crude reason as driven by the existential crisis and angst. This is the same angst (manifesting in a small degree) that activated a child's mind to conceive imaginary friends.
The idea of God arising within the brain/mind of teens and adults is more sophisticated and with the absence of any empirical elements. The ultimate basis is psychological.

Note I have given evidences as clues to the point the idea of God is psychological.
In addition, I have also pointed out there are many Eastern spirituality addressing the same existential angst on a psychological basis, e.g. Buddhism.

What is critical is, because theism do not recognize the true psychological origins of the idea of God in relation to the existential angst, theism-as-a-whole naturally and by default contain inherent malignant elements of evil potentials. This is very evidence in the Abrahamic theistic religions.
OTOH, the Eastern spirituality that address the same existential angst on a psychological basis do not has any inherent evil elements at all.

Therefore it is very rational for humanity to take a look [discuss and critique] at theism from its true psychological basis rather than the falsehood of God existing as real when in fact God is an impossibility to start with.
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 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:00 pm

The human brain /mind has never created matter; it has only learned how to manipulate matter for its own devices and needs. Humans create inventions by referring to their own physical mechanisms--a camera for an eye, a computer for a brain, etc. We create what we are. That being said, the God concept must have evolved from human experience in the creation and extensions of matter.
Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Mind, as you observed is an epiphenomenon of neuronal firings and sensory feedback in brains. According to one neuroscientist heaven and hell are located at the synapse where neurotransmitters qualify the electrical impulse that is fired from an axon and retrieved by a dendrite. Modern psychiatry appreciates the chemical contributions to sanity. Isn't it time philosophers faced the notion of a chemical basis of religious ideas? In other words, religion may be objectively described.
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:42 am

Ierrellus wrote:The human brain /mind has never created matter; it has only learned how to manipulate matter for its own devices and needs.
I did not claim the human brain/mind created matter.
My point is what is matter is always interdependent with the human brain/mind.
What is 'matter' do not pre-exists without the brain/mind.
This is 'weird' to many but this is a heavily debated issue within the philosophical community.

Humans create inventions by referring to their own physical mechanisms--a camera for an eye, a computer for a brain, etc. We create what we are. That being said, the God concept must have evolved from human experience in the creation and extensions of matter.
Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.
Mind, as you observed is an epiphenomenon of neuronal firings and sensory feedback in brains. According to one neuroscientist heaven and hell are located at the synapse where neurotransmitters qualify the electrical impulse that is fired from an axon and retrieved by a dendrite. Modern psychiatry appreciates the chemical contributions to sanity. Isn't it time philosophers faced the notion of a chemical basis of religious ideas? In other words, religion may be objectively described.
If as you refers,
"heaven and hell are located at the synapse where neurotransmitters qualify the electrical impulse that is fired from an axon and retrieved by a dendrite"
then,
so can the idea of God be 'located' within the activities of neurons.
If the idea of God is located within the neurons, then there is no God existing independently out there in the Universe.

I agree it is definitely time for philosophers to understand every religions ideas and thoughts thence to religious behaviors are driven by the neurons [and its activities] within the human brain.mind and not by a God [empirical as claimed] existing independently out there in the Universe.
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 » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:30 pm

I thought I had already pointed out that what is internal to an organism is also external. We eat what we are, chemically and we mate with our own kind. The God concept on a neuronal level suggests the existence of a God outside the body. We have no internal needs that are without external sources of supply. The God need in most folks, maybe in all,(See Schweitzer) suggests existence of a God outside the human body. If science and religion are to come together to study human nature, what better place to begin than with the firings and feedback among neurons. That this activity supports the God concept, does not make that concept unreal.
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:03 am

Ierrellus wrote:I thought I had already pointed out that what is internal to an organism is also external.
This is not a good thesis to begin with.
The thinking of a square-circle internally is impossible to be real externally.
What is internal to humans can only be possibly real if it is empirically possible.
God [internally generated by thoughts] as I had demonstrated is an impossibility within reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

We eat what we are, chemically and we mate with our own kind. The God concept on a neuronal level suggests the existence of a God outside the body.
This is a very bad argument as indicated above.

We have no internal needs that are without external sources of supply. The God need in most folks, maybe in all,(See Schweitzer) suggests existence of a God outside the human body.
Internal sexual needs can be satisfy without any external sources of supply -e.g. a person of the opposite sex or even same sex. Note self-satisfaction.

If science and religion are to come together to study human nature, what better place to begin than with the firings and feedback among neurons. That this activity supports the God concept, does not make that concept unreal.
No ifs, it is already being done. Note

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.
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/


and note;

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain.
But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer.


Science need empirical evidences to prove whatever the theory.
But as I had demonstrated God CANNOT be empirical, thus God is an impossibility within Science and impossible to be real in the philosophical rational perspective.
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 » Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:51 pm

The square circle argument is a straw man. Of course we can imagine illusions and impossibilities. What matters is that we have no innate need to do this.
About the neuronal evidence of a God experience, most enlightened individuals do not see this as a conflict of realities, but as evidence that the brain can do more than one thing. It considers far more than what can be objectively proved. BTW, objectivity amounts to the greatest possible consensus of subjective opinions. Communication is possible between two individuals given that they can share synonymous qualia; otherwise sheer "Facts" cannot be communicated. Science, with its methods of prediction, gives only our best guess to date of how the universe behaves. (See Popper).
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:19 am

Ierrellus wrote:The square circle argument is a straw man.
No. It is a very relevant near equivalent. A square-circle is only possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality.
The idea of God (note idea) is also possible in thought but not within the empirical rational reality. Otherwise produce the proof.

Of course we can imagine illusions and impossibilities. What matters is that we have no innate need to do this.
One can imagine empirical related illusions - e.g. a mirage with empirical elements. However one cannot imagine illusions that are impossibilities. To imagine one has to have images in the mind. Can you produce or draw and image of a square-circle or an ontological God?

As I have been arguing re OP, DNA wise ALL humans has the potential [innate] for an existential crisis where there is a critical psychological need [innate] for the majority to rely on a belief in God [the easiest and most effective] to to deal with the crisis in various degrees.

About the neuronal evidence of a God experience, most enlightened individuals do not see this as a conflict of realities, but as evidence that the brain can do more than one thing. It considers far more than what can be objectively proved.
It is not evidence the brain can do more than one thing. Given there are no direct evidence of God, the neuronal evidence prove the God experience is nothing more than neuronal activities.

What is very obvious is these neuronal activities are driven by various psychological factors including proven mental illness, brain damage, drugs, hallucinogens, electrical wave stimulations, and other objective methods. I have provided evidences on research done in these areas.

That theists believe there is a real God [actually an illusion] existing out there is actually self-deception to ensure psychological security. This is because theists are ignorant of the fact of how the idea of God arise within their consciousness deep from their psyche as driven by psychological factors related to the existential crisis.

What theists actually experience is, a belief in a 'real' God enable them to feel psychological ease of mind and security, otherwise they feel very uneasy and uncomfortable.
I accept this is necessary given theists don't have more efficient choices other than what they have now. But theists should not ignore the fact [psychological] which is a catch-22 and not an easy task to do.

You don't seem to get the point from what I linked earlier.
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.
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain.
But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer.


Now if Science in its specific field of Neurotheology cannot answer the question of whether God exists "out there" or not, then what else can?
I bet you cannot have any better answers than 'The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.'

BTW, objectivity amounts to the greatest possible consensus of subjective opinions. Communication is possible between two individuals given that they can share synonymous qualia; otherwise sheer "Facts" cannot be communicated. Science, with its methods of prediction, gives only our best guess to date of how the universe behaves. (See Popper).
I am very familiar with 'objectivity is intersubjectivity' and Popper who stated Scientific Theories are at best 'polished conjectures'. Regardless of the above, the fact is Scientific theory works, are credible, repeatable, testable and justifiable.
The point is Science deal only with empirical based elements whilst supported by logic, mathematics and its Scientific Method and others.
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 23, 2018 2:55 pm

Neuroscience is in its infancy. Who is to say what it can or cannot discover?
The underpinnings of psychology are material reactions. It cannot be said that these reactions do not contribute to what is thought. You cannot limit mind/brain to logic about things currently considered empirical.
Between the late 1980s and the current decade I've read dozens of works on neuroscience and its effects on philosophy. I find few scientists who would admit that neuroscience is as limited as you tend to believe.
Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being.
"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: 12493
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:48 am

Ierrellus wrote:Neuroscience is in its infancy. Who is to say what it can or cannot discover?
Note my point in an earlier post;
Prismatic wrote:Science need empirical evidences to prove whatever the theory.
But as I had demonstrated God CANNOT be empirical, thus God is an impossibility within Science and impossible to be real in the philosophical rational perspective.

The principle is the question of God is an impossibility to fit within the ambit of Science, thus neuroscience or whatever faculty of Science.

The underpinnings of psychology are material reactions. It cannot be said that these reactions do not contribute to what is thought. You cannot limit mind/brain to logic about things currently considered empirical.
Between the late 1980s and the current decade I've read dozens of works on neuroscience and its effects on philosophy. I find few scientists who would admit that neuroscience is as limited as you tend to believe.
Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being.
Scientific knowledge is the most objective and credible source of knowledge within empirical-rational reality.
As stated above the question of God cannot be within the ambit of Science at all.
Now you tell me what other modes of reality can you prove the reality of God?

Theists will insist God is real is a possibility but cannot provide justifications for a starting basis to begin to justify God's existence.

Yes, Psychology is not the ultimate ground of Being, but psychology provides the reason why theists must believe in a God [illusory] to soothe the inherent and unavoidable existential angst.

It is psychology and psychiatry that expose the basis of the experience of God is from the brain when triggered by various things, like mental illnesses, brain damage, drugs, meditations, etc.

There are non-theistic religions and spirituality that recognize this psychological existential basis and dealt with the same issue psychologically.

Do Buddhist believe in god?
No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. The Buddha, like modern sociologists and psychologists, believed that religious ideas and especially the god idea have their origin in fear. The Buddha says:
    "Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
    sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".
    Dp 188

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
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 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:42 am

Given there are [sic] no direct evidence of God, the neuronal evidence prove [sic] the God experience is nothing more than neuronal activities.


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. Everything you believe "is nothing more than neuronal activities."
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 7:05 am

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?

My basis and starting point to critique the existence of God arise from this;

Image

plus all other evils from this religion and other theistic religions.

Those Muslims involved committed the above atrocities as a divine duty to please a God which they believe is real and had promised them eternal life.
This is crazy as I have proven the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility and believers are relying on such an illusion to kill non-believers.

I have also proven with evidences the basis of a belief in a God is psychological and thus as Buddhism has done should deal with the same existential issue psychologically.

Have you ever asked why you are so SNARKY when you feel your belief and psychological security is threatened uncomfortably?
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

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users