The Psychology of "Finding God"

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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?

Do you allow atheists equal say in this or only theists? I ask because you descibed how you think atheists define God and how the world looks to atheists. What you wrote did not resonate with me at all and I am an athiest. Your challenge about "equal say" coming on the back of that sort of catches me by surprise. Thus, I wonder whether you allow me an equal say in what my world consists of or if you only allow this right to theists....

Earl, thank you for wishing me peace. I don't know what I want with more than I already have but thanks anyway. And if you don't want to talk with me, that is fine, I guess. It seems you feel offended by something I said. I am sorry about that, though I haven't a clue what it is you are offended about.

[earl]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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?

That link I provided as to evidence re the separability of consciousness and brain function seems quite supportive of the point of view that consciousness functions through the brain but is not to use a term used in this debate simply an epiphenomenon of brain. Rather, it seems to support 1 commonly used analogy in the mind-brain discussion: the brain is like a radio receiver for mind, et al. Some folks' receivers function better or more clearly than others and certainly "broken" receivers really scramble the messages. Now for my speculations re to Path's point. Path did not mention it here but has elsewhere here that in addition to her "visionary" tendencies, she is rather psychic and comes from a family of pyschics. There is plenty of suggestive evidence that psychic ability is at least partially genetically determined. Psychics, of course, seem able to sense things most of us can't. If the brain is simply the interface between mind and the material-physical sensory data, mind functioning through brain, it is quite possible that some folks inherit brains more capable of more "sensitive" attunement to realms not otherwise "receivable-" wish I got some of your stations in Path. The suggestive evidence for a natural psychic ability of very young children which seemingly disapears with age-maturational changes in the brain-further seems to support a hypothesis that the "brain interface" affects our sensitivity to data beyond ordinary physical sensory experience. So, then, if Path says she grooves to a different tune, perhaps that music is actually playing "out there." earl

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Do you allow atheists equal say in this or only theists? I ask because you descibed how you think atheists define God and how the world looks to atheists.

I was describing a process through which you defined the evidence for God, and then claimed God did not exist. I pointed out that others could define the evidence differently and so claim God does exist. I don't see how that is affirming either viewpoint. I argue, rather, for a neutral and unbiased view that we all have limited capacity to perceive reality and so theism and atheism are both equally relevant viewpoints.

Because of this, I think I am allowing equal say to all people and agreeing that all perceptions of reality are likely to be because of the intersection of neurology, culture, and some sort of "real" world. For each individual, their own "reality" is the most relevant one by necessity, but we can learn from each other. What I argue against is the tendency among predominantly first world atheists to suppose that their perception of the "real" world is correct, that others are less enlightened or under some sort of illusion.

I never said that described you, but it does describe many atheists I know (and I do know many). It certainly could describe Tao, given his history of communication with me. Even so, I think Tao and I have had great conversations. We rile each other up in a mostly friendly manner and I certain don't seek to silence him (or others) as much as to assert the philosophy, logic, and science behind my own viewpoints. I daresay, based on Tao's other conversations with me, that he'd prefer a world with little religious diversity (basically, one where people everywhere are atheist). I prefer a world filled with diversity, including atheism. I fail to see how that is an attempt to silence anyone or to treat people unequally.

I hope that explains my view. I welcome atheistic viewpoints as much as any, but I draw the line at anyone who claims to have The Truth about anything, and thus seeks to silence other views, or to ridicule them, or to assume a position of cultural or intellectual superiority. Just as Western Christianities often do this, so too does Western atheisms.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

if God exists and if there is an afterlife, God can't deny me admittance to heaven.

Yeah I like that too; haven't seen that idea before: having your no-cake and eating it.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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?

Sheesh, ain't folks just crazy?

Distinguishing blue from green in language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Yeah I like that too; haven't seen that idea before: having your no-cake and eating it.

s.

Tao keeps God honest. He'll be there. earl

[lunamoth]

Reminds me of a saying, "May you have two feet in heaven before the devil knows you're dead."

So, that may be kind of ambiguous (if I got it right), but I always interpretted it to mean once in heaven you have squatter's rights.

[RubySera_Martin]

Yes, that clarifies your position, path-of-one, thank you.

[Tao_Equus]

POO,

In an above reply to Ruby, (sorry Ruby for inferring you were male in an earlier post ), you said that my view tended toward reducing diversity in culture. And that I somehow supported such a notion. I would like to reply to that.

First and foremost my belief is that we are now very much a Global Community. As such we are in need of a set of values on which we can all agree. My opposition to religions stems primarily from the recognition of that idea. In a sense my atheism and my argument against religions are separate matters.

For a future where Global harmony is a fact, where all nations are at peace, I believe it is an absolute requirement that religions hold no political stage. This is the opposite of the current situation where religion is for the common man a culturally imposed artificial separation from his fellow man. I believe few "leaders" have a religious bone in their bodies but most are all to quick to harness this most effective and well proven method of controlling populations. Currently religion and politics are inseparable on the world stage and the argument is that because so many people "believe" religion has every right to political representation. And that is a difficult point to argue against.

If we want a peaceful and progressive future for our children there has to be some hard truths faced. Do you want to live in a world where the Mullahs or evangelical pastors dictate to you what you can or cannot wear, paint, read or write? Of course not and such a world will never come about. The drives of the people toward such a dystopia will always breed opposition such as mine and so we would have no peace. So the only way toward lasting global peace is by removing religion from the political equation. Despite my vigorous opposition to the established super-faiths I do recognise that for most individuals the message of their faith is one of peace. It is what happens to it when it grows into a mass movement of political influence that concerns me.

I am an atheist. This makes it easy for me to look in on faith as a totality. Doing so I have no conflict with the individual desire, need, compulsion or right of any individual to interpret their thoughts as they wish. In a world free from institutionalised religion we would not see less diversity but more. People freed from towing the dogmatic line of the political religions would create and describe a richer and far more honest expression of their existential and spiritual experience. So I refute that I am against diversity, quite the opposite is true.

Its seems so often here that people confuse my opposition to religion as an opposition the belief itself. It happens so often that it must be at least partly my fault. But also I feel there is this tendency amongst some to interpret what is a dialogue against the institutions of religion as a personal attack. The psychology of this has barely been touched upon yet, and I was hoping it would be here, and until it is I can see little chance of real headway being made in mutual understanding. I am not an atheist because I do not understand spirituality. I feel I am an atheist because I do understand spirituality. I have yet to see anyone here of a spiritual leaning actually accept that. The psychology of that is revealing.

Finally, and I think not for the first time, I say that I always welcome your replies and never ever take them as a personal affront. Unlike some I know what a debate is and am not afraid of any questions or answers.

The resident to55er,


tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Yeah I like that too; haven't seen that idea before: having your no-cake and eating it.

s.

Good aint it!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Finally, and I think not for the first time, I say that I always welcome your replies and never ever take them as a personal affront. Unlike some, I know what a debate is and am not afraid of any questions or answers.

I had a question: why do you believe a psychological explanation for "finding G-d" has more potential than a sociological one? It seems to me that the frame of reference that has been selected is arbitary and will remain so until it is justified.

[Francis king]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Can you prove I exist? Or am I just a ghost in the machine?

I cannot prove you exist... here, on the surface, you appear to exist, as "Quahom", yet...

1) Quahom does not "exist"- Quahom is just a onscreen name...
2) even if your name was really Quahom, you might not be Quahom but someone else masquerading as Quahom,
3) you might not even be a person in the flesh called Quahom or even a person masquerading as Quahom, but an advanced computer generated response...

so, the only way to really prove your existence would be to meet you...

however; even if we met, how could either of us prove that this reality is the actual reality?

4)One or the other of us could be deluded, hallucinating the other, one of us could be dreaming, or in a coma, for instance.

So then, I would have to show you to another person, but then...

4)One or the other of us could be deluded, hallucinating the other, one of us could be dreaming, or in a coma, for instance.

and on it goes...

[path_of_one]

Exactly, Francis.

You said it more poetically than I... Reality is what we make of it, and to me it is likely that there is not one at all, or we are all a dream... that possibility is more logical to me than the idea that what I experience as reality is the real, true, and right reality.

[earl]

Some are inclined to suggest the experiences/insights into other "realities" one has via such altered states as NDE or psychedelic drug use are the "dream" while ordinary consciousness is the Reality, while others suggest it is the reverse. earl

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Francis king

I cannot prove you exist... here, on the surface, you appear to exist, as "Quahom", yet...

1) Quahom does not "exist"- Quahom is just a onscreen name...
2) even if your name was really Quahom, you might not be Quahom but someone else masquerading as Quahom,
3) you might not even be a person in the flesh called Quahom or even a person masquerading as Quahom, but an advanced computer generated response...

so, the only way to really prove your existence would be to meet you...

however; even if we met, how could either of us prove that this reality is the actual reality?

4)One or the other of us could be deluded, hallucinating the other, one of us could be dreaming, or in a coma, for instance.

So then, I would have to show you to another person, but then...

4)One or the other of us could be deluded, hallucinating the other, one of us could be dreaming, or in a coma, for instance.

and on it goes...

An advanced computer generated response...I like that !!!

Or as Commander Ryker said to LCDR Data, "nice to meet you, Pinochio"