Believers. Would you consider the possibility that God is something existing inside your own head which is so powerful as to convince you otherwise? (afterall, our brain is trapped from the world by our senses, how, therefore can it possibly know there is a god outside it’self?)
If so. Would you then consider the possibility that this ‘God’ was put there by years of mental conditioning by being around people with the same thing in their heads?
And would you consider that the reason it’s in their heads is that they were conditioned in the same way? And that this has happened all the way back to the time when enough people agreed in this idea of God (because they had no better explanation at the time) that it began to stick in that early society?
This, in a broad sense, is how I see religion, and why I’m an atheist. That and the lack of evidence for God existing outside people’s heads. (and being brought up in a society relaxed about religion, so I’ve not had that conditioning).
I believe that if the conditioning is strong and sustained and consistent enough, then the courage required to challenge it would be far greater than the person is capable of, so, assuming we atheists are right (we are only human, we could be wrong) then we should understand believers, for also being human.
This, is also being posted ad 6:19 am because I CAN’T BLOODY SLEEEP!
That, is why I drink. To stop my head from thinking up these stupid philosophical ideas that keep me awake.
I hope all those believers here who I know and consider friends can forgive this early morning insomnia post. I don’t mean to offend people.
Sure. That’s pretty much my actual belief on alternate Saturdays. Doesn’t make much of a difference to me, honestly; I tend to consider all epistemologies to be toolsets. The extent to which the mode of approach is metaphorical as opposed to factual strikes me as much more of a “two am drunken bullshit session” type question than something that fundamentally matters.
I’m a convert. Essentially everyone in my extended religious community is a convert. Most of us left mainstream religious practices (mostly, but not always, Christian) because the whatever-it-is in our heads was not compatible with the “conditioning” about what stuff in our heads was supposed to be. As a result, I tend to be doubtful about the idea that religious belief is constructed purely socially; the set of people who broke with their upbringing because it didn’t agree with their thing-in-head is pretty visible from here.
I can’t say that I know much about the whole experience of conditioning, compared to others in my religious community – a fair number of modern pagans have issues with “overcoming” what they perceive as either Christian programming or damage from earlier religious practices – as I was not raised in an especially religious household.
(Thank you for raising an atheist/theist question that I could actually potentially contribute to, btw; I generally find that the usual run of such discussions around here is so Abrahamic on both sides that I can’t figure out how to get a thought in edgewise.)
One thing I can’t help but notice is the strong similarity between various rabid atheists and many evangelical Christians. Both sets seem so convinced of the absolute truth and rightness of their belief that they need to go out and convince everyone else of it, too.
Lobsang would you be willing to entertain the idea that some theists have experiences that might be beyond your ability to comprehend or understand? Some people don’t practice their religion our of fear or lack of thought but rather they have undergone an experience that convinces them of validity of their faith. I AM such a person.
You might want to check out the work of Dr. David Hufford of Penn. University. He’s created the “experiential source hypothesis” after collecting data on various “supernatural” experiences. His data indicate that people come to believe in various “supernatural” phenonemon because they’ve undergone an experience rather than because of any previous belief.
By definition God exists in your head if you believe. Is there any demonstrable proof of the existence of God? A credit card receipt, perhaps? Nope. That’s why it’s called faith.
So yes, I will be perfectly willing to admit that God exists in my head. He exists as the only reasonable explanation as to why I am here.
We are all “believers”. We wake up in this prison and choose an explanation for our plight. We take a position. The needle of our Belief-O-Meter oscillates, and comes to rest.
It is possible (some argue probable!) that I live in a simulation - that my own mind has been conditioned by “external” stimuli and “other people” into believing something which is not real, that those inputs I have encoded are synthesised I simply have not the courage to challenge it, to find Morpheus and take his red pill.
My own mind, after decades of those inputs, currently outputs the decision that only the physical exists, that thoughts, concepts, truth and maths are themselves physical in that they are the product of offal-based memories being manipulated and cross-filed by a neural network, and that all this confusion came from a primate evolving brain functtion and capacity far greater than its ability to understand.
Many people find that hard to believe. I can’t say I blame them.
Sorry, no. Because my whole point is that the ‘god’ in people’s brains is capable of convincing them of the validity of their faith as you put it, without that faith being necesarily valid. People hundreds of years ago might have been as ‘convinced’ as you that the earth was the centre of the universe (or some other now thoroughly disproven thing)
Don’t you consider the theory of evolution as reasonable?
If you admit he exists in your head. Do you admit he is a creation of your head, and nothing more.
The point I am trying to make is, the possibility that God is nothing more than a human creation, and that there is in fact no all powerful creator external to people’s brains. That god is not supernatural at all, just a powerful thought. Like Love.
Sometimes, I wish my God were in my brain, so that at least I could comprehend Him fully. As to the topic at hand, I agree with Sentient completely. Ours is a subjective reference frame. We are limited only to that small world of our own experience. We, as he put it, take a position. I suppose that what happened to me was something akin to an earthquake. I looked up suddenly to find myself standing somewhere else.
Sure I do. But what did we evolve from, and what is the origin of the life of that being? When you get down to it, life came from, well, nothing. How did that happen? Until you come up with some irrefutable scientific proof that life was created spontaneously I will continue to credit God with my origin. Actually, now that I think about it, even spontaneous origin has God’s hands all over it, because there had to be a catalyst.
No.
Sure, that’s entirely possible, and no more or less reasonable than belief in God.
What did you expect to happen with this thread? Did you expect to shout “The Emperor is naked!” and have everyone gasp with your insight? C’mon, dude.
People have believed in the “supernatural” from time immemorial. Whcih is more likely–That this belief reflects at least something true about the Universe (that is, helps the animal adapt), or that it it is utter nonsense (in which case it would have no adaptive value)?
No, I don’t think it comes 100% from conditioning, although the form it takes certainly can, and usually does.
Lobsang, I’m not a believer, but I’m not really sure what tree you’re trying to bark up.
Sure, our human experience is defined and limited by our senses and what sense our brain can make of them. People who claim to have experienced God in their lives cannot have done so outside of the context of their own physical perceptions, just as those who claim to have eaten at McDonald’s cannot have done so outside of the context of their own physical perceptions. Because everything happens this way, ‘existing in one’s own head’ doesn’t seem to be a good criteria for accepting/rejecting something’s validity.
It sounds like what you’re doing is simply bad science, then.
You’ve already ready reached your conclusion and now you’re working backwards finding the evidence to support it.
I’ll willingly admit that you may be right, there is no god. However, you’ve not presented any evidence to prove that point (that god doesn’t exist). On the other hand, like Lord Ashtar, I have the evidence I need for the proof. True, it’s subjective and personal and it works for me, only. But I’m also not going around challenging people that god does exist and any other viewpoint is wrong.
I think the “reality vs. senses” dichotomy is philisophically untenable. If we grant that we cannot know Reality itself, how can we know whether our senses match it accurately or not?
We know that a pencil placed in a glass of water is not really bent precisely because we know more about reality than the immediate input of our senses.
While the idea of an “one, all-powerful creator” is central to the Abrahamic faiths, I’m not so certain that it’s central to many other religions. What does that do to your hypothesis?
Actually, Airman, abiogensis is pretty solid these days - if you’re looking for God “in the gaps” then the gaps are getting smaller every decade, to the extent that there is now a feasible (if not yet falsifiable) explanation for the entire universe and everything in it, including life and human thought. Far better, I would advise, to follow Lib’s lead and simply consider God to be something other than the universe.