The Psychology of "Finding God"

Nick_A said:
The answer is in the following but few will come to admit it:
Click to expand...

So far my favourite answer. I hope there are more yet. I hope that maybe I may even be pre-empted.That my thoughts are superfluous and I can at last learn from it... I really do not live to talk but to learn. I thank God, and the tooth fairy, that I was grown free of the root of tyrany on my selfs integrity. I know far from all are so fortunate.


Tao


PS: I am away for 10 days so you all have plenty of time!
 
Nick_A said:
The answer is in the following but few will come to admit it:
Click to expand...
Your quote was good.

I've taken to a bit more contemporary poet:

I'm looking at the man in the mirror, I'm asking him to change his ways, no message could have been any clearer;

if you want to make the world a better place you've got to look at yourself and make the change...
Click to expand...
 
path_of_one said:
I think that there is evolutionary purpose in humanity's overall tendency toward animism of some sort-- whether that attributes person-hood to spirits in nature, or to multiple gods, or to one God, or whatever. The evidence from anthropological studies in religion are that religion generally serves important social functions and the basic animistic mindset is grounded in the way human brains work. In a small percentage of the population, there seems to be an innate tendency for a "shamanic" type of cognition, what could be compared to the INFP or INFJ personality types of Myers-Briggs- the types that in traditional societies fulfilled roles of shamans and mystics, and in modern society have no official role but most commonly become teachers and psychologists/counselors (interesting enough).
Click to expand...

Excellent post! I read all of it. I think we've talked before but not in a long time. I see a number of familiar names. I almost responded to wil's post then saw others I wanted to read first. Now I'm here. Two years ago when I was here last, was a last desperate search to "hold onto god." When I read posts like your's and wil's I feel very comfortable. However, in reality I conclude that "god" begins and ends in the human psyche. What do you think of studies such as are being done by Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada?
 
From Dr. Persinger's bio:
Within the commercial setting, we have pursued the possibility that control of experience, from depression to memory, may be simulated by transcerebral application of complex magnetic field patterns associated with activity of either endogenous or exogenous ligands at the synapses.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain this to me? What are endogenous and exogenous ligands?

Chris
 
Hi, Ruby. I disagree that `G-d' is (only) a human construct, though I do so admire the wisdom and good humor of Voltaire:
"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
(If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.)"
-- [Voltaire, "Epîtres, XCVI"]

"If God made us in His image we have certainly returned the compliment."
​
Anyway, good to see you again.

Namaskar,

Andrew/Taijasi
 
Thanks for all your welcomes, folks. I replied to one post that contained a quote from another so I thought I was replying to two people. I forgot that this forum does not include several levels of quotes.

Chris, re your question on the quote from Dr. Persinger's bio. I personally don't know enough science to explain it. I don't know what half the words in the quote mean. :)

I think that I, as a human being, am more than the sum of my parts. Even scientists admit that some facts of life continue to elude them. Have you ever seen the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins? I guess he knows the scientific parts of the systems that make up the human body--and many other parts of the universe--yet it does not keep him from being filled with awe as he takes in the beauties of nature. That feeling of awe for something so large and so beautiful seems to be part of the human experience no matter how we interpret it. Some of us think it is God outside of our own selves, some of us think we have scientific evidence that it is part of the human body that allows us to experience the feeling, some of us have another interpretation. I think all of us experience it as a very positive and affirming phenomenon.
 
RubySera_Martin said:
I think that I, as a human being, am more than the sum of my parts.
Click to expand...

Hello again, Ruby! We had talked quite a bit but not in some time... last time we spoke you were entering a graduate program (if I remember correctly) and I was still in mine... now finished! :D

I agree that there is a quality of emergence in life. I think this occurs at all levels, both those that we can demonstrate through scientific observation and those that we can only access through mysticism or shamanism- that is to say, through the human experience.

Just as individual organisms are more than the sum of their parts, so too entire ecosystems. Human groups have emergent properties that are greater than the sum of their members. I believe the Earth has emergent properties greater than the sum of all places and entities on earth. Personally, I also believe this about the Universe as a whole, which is what someone could call God or Spirit.

I somehow "hold onto God" but that is due to my individual experience and journey. I do not think it really matters if someone holds onto God or not, however, in the grand scheme of things in this life (despite my love of debating Tao ;)- it's just good plain fun and of course I must put forth my little tidbits of thought). I think ultimately what is, is. I believe God is. So it's a bit irrelevant, if that is the case, what anyone thinks about It.

I think what truly matters is not belief, but action and intent. If an atheist is acting for justice, for forgiveness, for love... ultimately for life and the dignity of living beings... then to me they are in the Spirit of God whether they acknowledge it or not. (How d'ya like them apples, Tao? LOL :p:cool:)

The Kingdom of God is within us...
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
From Dr. Persinger's bio:

Can someone explain this to me? What are endogenous and exogenous ligands?

Chris
Click to expand...

Any substance that binds to a receptor is known as a ligand: those ligands that activate receptors are called agonists, while antagonists occupy receptors without activating them and thereby prevent the action of agonists. In normal circumstances, the ligands acting on our receptors are ‘endogenous’, i.e. they are substances produced within the body itself. However, many drugs cause their therapeutic actions on the body by specifically binding to particular receptors. These drugs are generally not themselves identical to the endogenous ligands, rather they are different substances, extracted from plants or other animals, or synthesized, which act as ‘exogenous’ ligands. There are two reasons for not using endogenous substances as therapeutic drugs. Firstly, many agonist drugs are actually much more effective at activating their receptor than the naturally-occurring endogenous ligand. Secondly, in the case of drugs that work by preventing overactivity of bodily systems, what is needed is an antagonist that binds to the receptor, blocking the action of the endogenous ligand.
membrane receptors: Information from Answers.com

Luckily I had been reading up on them in regard to endogenous viral combining in bacteria.
 
Namaste Ruby,

Great to see you around again.

In a live discussion just this weekend, I was commenting how I thought that G!d and Christianity would be saved by the dogmatic, literal, fundamentalists, not by those raised in more liberal traditions.

My reason being, those folks brought up in that world have a foundation when combined with reality that can look back at scripture and shine a new light. Those with the ideas and the light but without the 'book learnin' have a struggle to validate...

Now anyone confused didn't really expect me to make sense did they?
 
wil said:
Namaste Ruby,

Great to see you around again.
Click to expand...

Good to see you again, too.

In a live discussion just this weekend, I was commenting how I thought that G!d and Christianity would be saved by the dogmatic, literal, fundamentalists, not by those raised in more liberal traditions.

My reason being, those folks brought up in that world have a foundation when combined with reality that can look back at scripture and shine a new light. Those with the ideas and the light but without the 'book learnin' have a struggle to validate...

Now anyone confused didn't really expect me to make sense did they?
Click to expand...

Yup, I expected you to make sense. Wasn't I supposed to? Better try another language maybe.

Well, I've been talking with fairly fundamentalist Christians and they're dogmatic alright, but sense is one thing they don't make to an atheist. Their dogmatism doesn't end with their own beliefs; they will dictate what the atheist's world view must of necessity contain, and what atheists can and cannot believe. :rolleyes:
 
Tao_Equus said:
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?
Click to expand...
Walk through a city and envision the masses there who aren't aware that you even exist, and you will start to feel very small. I've best heard this feeling described as dealing with the infinite, and it is a strong feeling because there comes an awareness of your own death as you sense the infinite pressing upon you. In the most religion-unspecific sense I can think of, 'Finding God' is a realization of our own smallness and so think of it as dealing with the infinite. As people walk through that city and come near to the infinite they deal with it in different ways. Some people do it by...conquering the city in some way. Most avoid thinking about it, but some cannot. Others embrace everyone in the city like family trying to forget themselves and somehow remove the pressure of the infinite from their minds.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Any substance that binds to a receptor is known as a ligand: those ligands that activate receptors are called agonists, while antagonists occupy receptors without activating them and thereby prevent the action of agonists. In normal circumstances, the ligands acting on our receptors are ‘endogenous’, i.e. they are substances produced within the body itself. However, many drugs cause their therapeutic actions on the body by specifically binding to particular receptors. These drugs are generally not themselves identical to the endogenous ligands, rather they are different substances, extracted from plants or other animals, or synthesized, which act as ‘exogenous’ ligands. There are two reasons for not using endogenous substances as therapeutic drugs. Firstly, many agonist drugs are actually much more effective at activating their receptor than the naturally-occurring endogenous ligand. Secondly, in the case of drugs that work by preventing overactivity of bodily systems, what is needed is an antagonist that binds to the receptor, blocking the action of the endogenous ligand.
membrane receptors: Information from Answers.com

Luckily I had been reading up on them in regard to endogenous viral combining in bacteria.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top