The Psychology of "Finding God"

[earl]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Depends what you mean by "prove." I think the very fact that this organ or whatever exists and that it functions to produce exactly what humans have since the beginning of recorded history described as god suggests to a very large extent that it may be the link between "god" and humans. The fact that there are more religious people among epileptic patients than in the population at large also figures large into the equation.

People who don't want to believe always find reasons for their unbelief.

Those who choose to believe that the capacity of the brain to respond "spiritually" indicates there is a corresponding "reality" to which they are responding do make that leap. But as Tao's reaction suggests, those on either side of the "belief" equation will attempt to use the same research findings to establish their conclusions. earl

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by earl

Tao, scientific research of any kind including brain research will never prove or disprove any metaphysical claims. I could of course link you to all kinds of evidence relative to a similar discussion as to whether consciosness/mind is simply and only a matter of neurons firing-i.e. brain creates mind vs. mind as quasi-independent of brain. But, as I said earlier, no evidence will affect those who are heavily predisposed to a certain view. earl

Yup....you said it!!

tao

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by earl

Those who choose to believe that the capacity of the brain to respond "spiritually" indicates there is a corresponding "reality" to which they are responding do make that leap.

I see you found reason for your unbelief, as I predicted.

You couldn't see were it not for the eye. You couldn't taste were it not for the tongue. You couldn't smell were it not for the nose. Nor could you have spiritual experiences were it not for the god spot on your brain.

That you try to push the responsibility for your own spiritual feelings off into the universe only shows the extent to which you have chosen to reject the evidence.

But as Tao's reaction suggests, those on either side of the "belief" equation will attempt to use the same research findings to establish their conclusions. earl

I don't know about Tao. I know about myself. I had this wierd intuitive hunch one day a few years ago that it would make sense that god began and ended in the human psyche but I really hadn't a clue how it was supposed to work. Then I came across an article that supported my view. However, the article was ten years old. It was terribly exciting and I believed it tentatively. But was it true???

You, earl, seem to reject it out of hand because it does not jibe with your previously-held beliefs and for no other reason. That's childish. Finally, a year after finding the article, I heard others talking about it. That's when I found out that the research was on-going. I also understand that it has not been repeated successfully by anyone else, and therefore it does not yet have the status of scientific fact.

You, however, reject it just because, and won't reconsider for those same reasons. As stated, with slight adaptation: People who don't want to believe can always find justification for their unbelief.

[earl]

Ruby, what is my "disbelief?" I think it's pretty obvious to most here what side of the belief equation I'd come down on. earl

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by earl

Ruby, what is my "disbelief?" I think it's pretty obvious to most here what side of the belief equation I'd come down on. earl

"Belief equation." If you mean "religious belief," then you seem to be right up there with the best of them. But when it comes to believing the evidence of certain new scientific investigation you seem to be very skeptical and an unbeliever in the real sense of the word.

For your information, I very seldom use the term "unbeliever" with reference to atheists and agnostics because most of us believe in a lot of very important things. The only thing we don't believe in is supernatural beings and events. I think you are atheist, too, with regard to most gods. I just go one god further--or three, depending on whether or not the Christian Trinity is considered one or three gods.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

That statement could be made only by a person who has chosen to disregard the evidence. In my opinion, the hard sciences are the worst possible approach to the topic of god because "god" is not a substance. In my experience, the social sciences hold the key--cultural anthropology and social and behavioural psychology have produced much important information. I would call it evidence. Why do you disregard the evidence I produce in my several posts on the RDF thread? There are three or four posts in all.

Tao, thank you.

I suppose it is due to the nature of my own education and experiences. Evidence, whether hard or circumstantial, is tangible. Even, should a person for example, confess to an action, jurisprudence demands that the investigation continues in order to find tangible evidence for or against the confessor's declaration.

Wherein social science extrapolation of cultures and psychology, may produce trends and patterns and "historical evidence" of continuous ways of living, it still does not present an absolute; as far as the existence of or lack of existence of a god (supreme intelligence, entity, force, etc.).

v/r

Q

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I have to endure so often here the charge that my questioning of what religion IS seems often like an attack on the individual mental balance of those I 'argue' with.

I hope this thread can for once clarify that question and prove that this accusation can only be upheld by assuming I do not ask a valid question. I believe I do, however uncomfortable it is for the 'believer'.


Finding God is highly personal. Those that have been inculcated from birth have not 'found' it till they have first rejected it. Often they go on to rediscover in a new denomination or religion. The reasons for rejection and rediscovery are highly personal but often intimately linked. But what exactly creates the right conditions to find God independent of these individual circumstances?

Before I give my opinion I offer the floor to any who care to give their opinion.



tao

I think you ask very valid questions Tao. I think that the right conditions are created when a person is open and still (for even just a moment). Usually the question in the back of the mind is "what if" or "could it be". Somewhere along the way those questions are answered in a satisfactory manner for the one questioning.

The "irritating" speck, begins to become a "pearl"...

[path_of_one]

That's interesting. I find that the senses are rather limited and not very good at all at helping me define or understand reality.

I find it odd to dismiss my experiences as a mystic as only in my head, while believing my experiences in other states of consciousness as real. It simply isn't very logical to me. I either live in an imaginary world all the time, or a real one all the time, or a real one that I can't fully know because I am too limited (I bet on option #3).

In my case, as a mystic, if #1 is true then you all, myself, my society, my world, and my God are all equally figments of an imagination that doesn't really exist. If #2 is true, then you all, myself, my society, my world, and my God all exist exactly as I "sense" them. If #3 is true, then it's what I do with these things that matters, as I can never know the "real" you, me, society, or God.

The arguments about mystics all speaking the same language being evidence for "all in our head" qualities of our experiences is no more valid than the argument that such unity is evidence for response to the same Divine Being. Both require belief. Neither are proven. That (some) human brains have the capacity for mystical experience doesn't mean that it is not a response to external stimuli (or internal stimuli, if God is part of or within us). That is like saying that human brains and eyes have the capacity for 3D vision but some other animals do not, so three dimensions are really just a figment of the mind and vision center. More to the point, some cultures do not describe color beyond black/white/red. So is color a "real" thing or an imagined thing? In our heads or in the rods and cones in our eyes? The biological capacity to experience something doesn't indicate a total independence from response to a real environment, be it social, physical, or spiritual/energetic.

If my experience of God feels as real as my experience of my husband, my dog, or my colleague... and certainly more real than my experience of you all- who are simply (for the most part) a bunch of words on a virtual space (and so not really existing outside my mind and a social construction)... why would I privilege the "realness" of some entities and not others?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And materialistic reductionism is the "trick of words" that theists attempt to "invoke" to dodge "hard" truths.

tao

Not really. This concept has been heavily debated among anthropologists and mostly tossed out. And all this by a field that is predominantly filled with atheists.

It is not just an issue to theists. It is an issue in science.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Not really. This concept has been heavily debated among anthropologists and mostly tossed out. And all this by a field that is predominantly filled with atheists.

It is not just an issue to theists. It is an issue in science.

Its not really within the remit of anthropology though. There is ample neurological evidence however. Quite aside from that Ruby has explained himself very well and his reasoning is absolutely sound and to my mind very simply so. Earl uses a device to get round that but that is all it is in this case, a device of avoidance.

tao

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If my experience of God feels as real as my experience of my husband, my dog, or my colleague... and certainly more real than my experience of you all- who are simply (for the most part) a bunch of words on a virtual space (and so not really existing outside my mind and a social construction)... why would I privilege the "realness" of some entities and not others?

This is beyond my comprehension. People on the internet acquire just as real personalities for me as do the people in "real life." Tone of voice, attitude toward others--these things come through in choice of words and patterns of interaction and are the "stuff of life" so far as I am concerned. "God" is the same. The problem is when there is NO evidence of his existence. See my Post 60 (I think) for my descriptions of what I expect of God's demonstration of existing.

Q, I saw your post but see no demonstration on your part of having read any of the stuff I referenced so I cannot take your answer seriously. Sorry. I think I provided solid evidence for my position. Your post describes the general approach of sociology as opposed to the specific items I think I mention.

[earl]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

"Belief equation." If you mean "religious belief," then you seem to be right up there with the best of them. But when it comes to believing the evidence of certain new scientific investigation you seem to be very skeptical and an unbeliever in the real sense of the word.

For your information, I very seldom use the term "unbeliever" with reference to atheists and agnostics because most of us believe in a lot of very important things. The only thing we don't believe in is supernatural beings and events. I think you are atheist, too, with regard to most gods. I just go one god further--or three, depending on whether or not the Christian Trinity is considered one or three gods.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

Ruby, I am amazed at how you draw conclusions about me that my own words have not even justified, (but then I think you just like to look for opportunities to arguethat is I think you're 1 of those folk that if a person says black, you'll say white even if they never said black in the first place). When in doubt re where I'm coming from, if my words aren't sufficiently clear, you could check the visuals. the last words I'll leave you Ruby on this thread are simply may peace be with you, earl

[earl]

Though it's not likely to matter to tao, this 1 is for him on the apparent separability of consciousness and brain function relative to NDE's:

Consciousness during Clinical Death and after Irreversible Brain Death

have a good one, earl

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Its not really within the remit of anthropology though. There is ample neurological evidence however. Quite aside from that Ruby has explained himself very well and his reasoning is absolutely sound and to my mind very simply so. Earl uses a device to get round that but that is all it is in this case, a device of avoidance.

tao

Sorry; I was under the impression that a whole field of scientists who do feel it is in the jurisdiction of anthropology counted for something. I see now that as long as your ideas agree with Ruby's, science and academia count for nothing in your mind, since you two agree and the rest of the world should simply follow suit or be "avoiding" the truth you've so aptly found.



Forgive me if I remain partial to the realm of academia and science, and think any discipline can continue to explore the matter as they deem necessary.

As FYI, anthropology is the holistic study of the human being, and so incorporates neuroscience and biological data. Materialist reductionism is not only debated in anthropology, but also in biology, ecology, and the natural sciences. There is a very big literature on the subject, if you care to read it. But generally, from what I've seen, you don't care to seriously read viewpoints with which you disagree, even if they come from your beloved scientific mode of inquiry.

Eh, I'll stick with the realm of academic and scientific inquiry, myself. I am not saying Ruby does not have her strong points, but I don't think she's necessarily agreeing with reductionism (as you think she is) either. Neuroscience studies how the brain functions, not what external stimuli are causing such functioning. I've looked at some of these issues more than you know, and my ideas are not founded on fluff. But, as I disagree with you, I am sure you'll see my thoughts as simply "avoiding" the issue. Fortunately, real science takes criticism of such poor theory more seriously.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

This is beyond my comprehension. People on the internet acquire just as real personalities for me as do the people in "real life." Tone of voice, attitude toward others--these things come through in choice of words and patterns of interaction and are the "stuff of life" so far as I am concerned. "God" is the same. The problem is when there is NO evidence of his existence. See my Post 60 (I think) for my descriptions of what I expect of God's demonstration of existing.

Q, I saw your post but see no demonstration on your part of having read any of the stuff I referenced so I cannot take your answer seriously. Sorry. I think I provided solid evidence for my position. Your post describes the general approach of sociology as opposed to the specific items I think I mention.

Yes, but you are defining the terms of evidence. Anyone can define them differently.

I have exactly the same amount (if not more) evidence in my own life of God's existence as the existence of you, Tao, earl, and all these internet folks. I have a bunch of communications, some amount of sentiment, some guesses about personality. I do experience a tone of voice, an attitude toward myself... of God (or I should say, of manifestations of God). And I have experiences that are far more real and memorable of God than of any of you (no offense, I do love y'all).

Except none of you have ever been here with me in meditation, in times of distress, and so forth. I've never gone out of body and found you guys. You seem to pretty much exist only in this little space in a virtual world, which for all the world seems like it could be all in my head and a visual illusion.

Just because you have defined certain terms for God's existence and found them lacking in your own life does not negate my terms for God's existence and their reality in my own life. This is my point. Most of the time, atheists rest their case on their own definitions and their own lack of evidence, or alternatively, as Tao is trying to do, on the existence of neurological wiring that supports experience of God. But both arguments are fundamentally faulty and both are not scientifically valid.

You can't comprehend my world where God is as real as you are, and I can't comprehend a world where God is not present at all. This is why I'm generally in accord with option #3- my world is as real to me as yours is to you, but arguing about whose world is the "real" real one is pointless and not scientific (and also has little practical value). If anything, we've learned that humans view things through the lens of culture, of personality, of neurological wiring (which differs in different people), and so forth-- so we construct the reality we experience, whether it includes God or not. This has little bearing on whether the "real" reality has God or doesn't, has you virtual people or doesn't, and so forth... well, it does in a way if some ideas from quantum mechanics is correct, but that is an aside that probably should not enter the equation here. My point is that "real" reality for some folks includes a world that has no color blue or green, whereas for others of us we see those colors in the sky and trees. Whose world is real? Is it simply for the Western elite to determine, or does the whole world get a say? Do some cultures and societies have the only valid ways of knowing and seeing reality, or do all humans get an equal say in what their worlds consist of?