You have made some sweeping statements about theists. Now it seems that you are backtracking.
I didn’t ask who has been diagnosed by using the DSM or how they are diagnosed. I asked where you draw the line between theists who are mentally ill or “psychologically desperate” and theists who are not mentally ill or “psychologically desperate”. I suspect from reading your posts that you don’t think any theist falls into the latter category.
Just because you have one explanation for it, does not mean that’s the only explanation.
The fact that you see stars when hit on the head does not mean that there are no stars in the sky.
[attachment=0]Scamp_Stars.jpg[/attachment]
“Your philosophy is shallow” is a personal attack. It’s not much different from saying “you’re dumb”. It’s an insult.
You don’t need to retaliate. You are choosing to do so.
You rationalize it and you think that it’s okay. It’s not okay. It destroys rational discussion. That’s what happened in the threads … they became not much more than bitter personal attacks.
You didn’t help anyone … people became defensive and retaliated. That was predictable.
Your targets are less likely to reconsider their positions as a result of the interaction.
Those one-liners also can be rationalized as “necessary” and as a “beneficial suggestion to get medical help”.
Both your attacks and their attacks are inappropriate.
This indicate my empathy and compassion for Muslims as human beings and that extend to all theists as human beings.
But if theists bash me, I am not going to be a sitting duck and stay still to be attacked.
There is a difference between “mentally ill” and "psychologically desperate’.
Mentally ill is as per the DSM-V.
I have stated many times ALL humans has the inherent unavoidable existential crisis, i.e. existential psychological desperation.
It is just that such inherent unavoidable existential psychological desperation are active in a range of degrees, some very active while others has less active desperations.
Those with very active psychological desperation comprised of theists and non-theists. While the psychological desperate theists turned to God, the psychological desperate non-theists turn to non-secular solutions like non-theistic spirituality, drugs, addictions, etc.
I did not say that is THE ONLY explanation. I stated ‘likely’ and such empirical likelihood is more reasonable than a God which I have demonstrated to be impossible and a non-starter.
In addition there are already non-theistic approaches that deal the above psychological causes.
Buddhists also experience the so-claimed “God experiences” but they don’t recognized it has anything to deal with a God but rather these are all effects of neural activities.
Note:
Whatever the “stars” it has to be justified empirically.
Btw, the “stars” you see in the sky are merely the effect of light waves hitting your retina. It is likely re the stars you see [light from light years away], there is no real time star at all as it could have already exploded some time ago.
I understand your points.
I don’t have the natural tendency to attack, all I am interested is to focus to express my views and with an expectation of more in depth counter views rather than agreement.
But if I am attack from people like James and Aminius I will definitely counter or avoid.
I don’t see persistent one-liners as necessary at all. Usually this is against the rules in a forum for Philosophical discussion.
In response to Snark’s one-liners I kept asking him for justified arguments.
If in a normal discussion [no provocative attacks from the other side] if I see anyone’s views as shallow, narrow, ignorant or immature, I don’t even bother to mention to them in the ways you propose. I just don’t bother and continue to express my views, suggest a reading of such such a book or philosophers and offer alternative views.
Right. You’re saying that there is not a single theist who looks around and says that God is a reasonable explanation for the stuff that he/she sees. (no desperation involved.)
That’s what I said that you said.
And I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems. (And then there lots of ordinary people who don’t seem very desperate.)
The high profile theists do not have DSM type psychological problems but they do have a reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of.
Note “desperation” in this case comes in degrees in terms of activeness. While a jihadist terrorist may be 99% desperate psychologically, a high profile theists like the Pope may have say 20%.
I believe the above can be objective in terms of fMRI imaging of brain activities.
I’m going by the content of their writings and their biographies and I have to admit that I’m making a guess about their mental states since I don’t have personal access to these people.
Please don’t use numbers when you don’t have any data to support those numbers.
Those people didn’t get scanned. Maybe some test subjects have been scanned. How many of them were jihadi terrorists? None?
Scanning people in particular actions doesn’t really say anything about the “psychological desperation” of a belief in God. It just says that there is a pattern of activity at those times.
I do not know them.
I am going by your claim,
“I happen to disagree because there have been many high profile theists throughout history who did not have psychological problems.”
I agree as I have not read of reports of high profile theists, e.g. Popes, Scientists and others, as having DSM symptons by any qualified psychiatrist and considered as mentally ill.
As for their,
“reasonably active psychological desperation of the existential kind which they are not conscious of” this is based on an inference, i.e.
All theists has some degree of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.
Your mentioned these high profile people as theists.
Therefore these these high profile people as theists has some degrees of of psychological desperation re the existential crisis.
As for P1, the proof is a long and complex one. However I have pointed to the example of Abraham’s desperation to the extent of willing to kill his own son for God and other examples.
Please don’t use numbers when you don’t have any data to support those numbers.
Yes, I don’t have precise numbers. The above numbers are merely to represent the relative comparison of high to lower degrees of activeness. Note my use of ‘maybe’.
In the above I stated it is possible. I did not claim it has been done.
Various research has been done in the related areas and my hypothesis can be tested using such research facilities to prove my thesis. This is very possible.
Again, based on existing research, it can be extended to test my hypothesis re “psychological desperation”. First we need to identify the mechanics related to “psychological desperation” then work on it.
At present the processes are very crude.
The field of neuroscientific knowledge is expanding at an exponential rate and there is the Human Connectome Project to map the neural connection of the whole human brain. When humanity has reached a certain critical milestone on this project, humanity will be able to identify the neural activities related to this ‘psychological desperation’ and test to verify its existence, then proposed the necessary improvements.
You have a lot to cover in this area of knowledge.
To differentiate the “desperate” and “not desperate”, it will be the following;
Desperate = all theists
Not desperate = the more advance non-theistic Buddhist practitioners and the likes.
Therefore ALL theists-proper* by default has various degrees of desperation within their subconscious mind that compelled them to believe in a God of various forms.
not fake ones, e.g. pretend to be theist to marry their theistic girlfriend and other reasons.
Let take the example of the sexual drive which is the same but not as deeply fundamental as the existential drive and its complex existential crisis.
The really desperate [99%] who are controlled by their sexual drive are those rapists, sex perverts, sex addicts, and the likes.
The half desperate [50/50] are the average person who has sex say 3 times a week during their active and peak sexual phase.
Those who are “a little desperate” are those who has low active sexual drive, maybe having sex once a month.
Obviously for those in 2 and 3 there is no noticeable desperation, but the term degree of desperation is valid when we put them on a continuum of desperation.
If our continuum is based on ‘not desperate’ then the % would be reversed.
The principles and use of desperation within a continuum as in sex can be used for the psychological desperation re existential crisis.
I have used the above relative principles within a continuum in relation to ‘evilness’.
If genocide is 99% evilness then relatively petty crimes could be 1% evilness along the same continuum of evilness.
“Why believe in that for which there is no evidence?” is a very common (and presumptuous) question skeptics ask theists. It presumes God is an object of empirical knowledge like any other thing in nature, but that is not the case nor has it ever been. Whether fear-based or based on awe of sheer being, the sense of the sacred is a universal phenomenon as old as humankind. And if it has evolutionary, psychological and biological underpinnings as skeptics argue, then the absence of the sense of the divine is the anomaly, not the sense of the sacred.
According to Dr. Joseph Dispenza, a leading pioneer in the fields of neuroscience, the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information a second but we are only aware of 2,000, or .000005% of those bits. Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature.
Abraham Maslow, a well-known psychology professor, wrote:
Prismatic’s downleveling of the human condition is as dark as it is irrational. Even if his information is right, and to some extent it is, the focus of his attention is like a millstone around the neck of anyone willing listen.
I have never presumed God is an object of empirical knowledge.
My point is, to prove God is real within an empirical-rational reality, then God must be proven on that basis.
My argument is the idea of God is an illusion and impossibility and thus is moot and a non-starter. Therefore the idea of God cannot even be considered at all within the perspective of an empirical-rational reality.
Note the truth and comments on Dr. Joseph Dispenza:
Dr. Joseph Dispenza is not a neuroscientist!!
Note this in counter to your reliance on Maslow;
Thus both your supporting references do not lend credibility to your claims.
Your above use of reference is “irrational”.
What you are doing in this case is merely preaching based on some dogma of yours.
I invite you to give more credible supporting arguments.
But I am very confident the basis of the idea of God arise from psychological factors and no matter how you argue you will never be able to produce any convincing proofs God exists are real within the most reliable basis of reality i.e. the empirical rational reality.
The only realistic way a theist can justify for a belief in God is via the psychological basis.
Btw, I am not arguing here to convince you to be a non-theist at all.
I would not recommend any theist to convert to be a non-theists AT PRESENT* unless s/he has an effective alternative replacement to deal with that inherent unavoidable existential crisis.
not future within next 50, 100 or > years.
If you are a panentheist, it is not advisable to do it alone. It is recommended for one to adopt some establish spiritual Framework and System that provide practices for one to reinforce the necessary related neural circuits.
Advaita Vedanta [besides others] is one good Framework and System. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
Can’t have it both ways, preacher. If God is not an object of empirical knowledge, your objection is a nonsequitur.
I stand corrected about the man, but he did his research. The numbers stand so your objection irrelevant.
I know. So what? The fact that anyone can have such experiences supports what I said about the absence of the sense of the divine being the aberration.
I see. So as far as you’re concerned, even an atheist psychologist who seems to imply that your ranting is based on paranoid-like suspicion is not credible. I guess I can understand that.
BTW, how is Spectrum’s thread on the same subject coming along? You should learn from Dark Matter: “If you want to learn, beware of learning THE TRUTH.”
Even if Dispenza is a quack, his statement seems to be essentially correct: “Therefore, it follows that how we perceive reality on the conscious level and how we relate to the world depends on how we focus our attention. With so much information and technology to distract them from the things that really matter, little wonder why modern-day skeptics find themselves in an irreligious mindset that is, even by their own accounting, contrary to human nature.”
Not that the distraction is a modern problem. It’s as ancient as philosophy and religion. The modern spin is a reliance on science and technology.
That’s not actually a counter to what Snark is saying. Your reply does not address his points nor do you discredit his claims.
You have simply defined “belief in a god” as a sign of desperation. Therefore you say that all theists are desperate.
Here you define a “spectrum of desperation” where at the lower end there is no desperation in any reasonable sense.
It makes no sense to call the lower end “desperation” if there is no indication of desperation.
It’s a useless definition.
Well at least here you have something observable at the 1% level. However, calling petty crimes “evil”, trivializes the word. Heck, even opening an egg on the “wrong” end can be called “evil” at some very small level. It all becomes very silly and fundamentally meaningless.
Given your definition of psychological desperation, you think that all theists are psychologically desperate.
I don’t think that “belief in god” alone is enough to say that someone is psychologically desperate … there has to be more to it than that.
If those theists don’t show any signs of desperation, then they are not desperate. And they serve as a counterexample to your theory that theists are psychologically desperate.
A questionable example. That’s one story in a book. It may or may not have happened. Most theists would probably not act as Abraham.
