The Ultimate Ground of God is Psychological.

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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?

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.

I agree.

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.

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.

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

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

What in human experience isn’t inherently psychological?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

This is a very bad argument as indicated above.

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.

No ifs, it is already being done. Note

and note;

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 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

Note my point in an earlier post;

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

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.

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.”

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;

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?