Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[wellwisher]

There two sides of the brain, with side processing the data in different ways. The left brain is more differential and logical while the right brain is more spatial. As an example, the spatial right brain integrates and allows us to see commonality such as oriental features in a large set of human data. The differential left brain notices differences, allowing one to pick out an individual.

In terms of science and religion, science is more left brained, while religion is more right brained. Science tries to isolate and differentiate the details of reality, while religion is more about basic ideas that integrate. God is a spatial concept that integrates all the details of the universe into a single concept.

Science tries to use the left brain to explain this right brain perception by trying to reduce it to a single 1-D observation. The expectation and the needed proof needs to be a left brain detailed observation or it does not exist to science. Whereas many in religion looks for a simple integrated explanation, such as creationism for reality, since they may not be conscious of all the details of left brain science. Science can't see 3-D, so it assumes randomness; scrambles beyond the details.

In terms of human evolution, right brain perception is older. Our instincts provide an integrated way to interact with reality that is common to an entire species. Language is processed in the left brain. The invention of complex language, during the start of civilization, was implicit of increasing access to the left brain. Increased access to the left brain will also allow one to differentiate oneself; unique with will power apart from collective determinism.

The story of the tower of Babel where everyone starts to speak different languages would be an example, of spatial right brain (3-D general communication instinct) feeding the left brain (2-D differentiation into different languages). That story was about further movement into the left brain by making use a number of language matrices.

The right brain or integral brain did not go away but remains semi-conscious via religion; intuitive. But since this is unconscious to science, it is assumed not to exist in their differential world view. This is true for 1/2 brain science.

The future of human evolution will more equally balance consciousness between right brain and left brain. This allows observation of details via the left brain, with more ability for integration via the right brain. Currently we are generating differential information faster than we integrate it due to left brain bias and lack of right brain access.

 

[spidergoat]

I've already given you examples earlier:

"I don't want theists to be in ruling positions, because this would challenge me beyond my comfort zone, and I will do everything in my power to prevent that."
"I am terrified of life in this Universe, and I dread everything that in any way reminds me of these terrors. So I want to do away with those things that remind me of these terrors."
.

I don't think like that. I don't care that theists are in ruling positions, only that when some of them are, they erode the constitutional separation between church and state.
While some things in the universe are terrifying, quite a lot of those terrifying things are the product of superstition, religion, and irrational belief.

 

[James R]

wynn:

And by "God exists," you think of things like "a rock exists" or "an electron exists"?

Yes. What other kind of existence is there? Existing in our minds but not in reality, perhaps? Like Santa Claus?

What do you mean by "God exists"?

If so, why should we have faith?

This is actually a question that you should ask yourself, and provide an answer for yourself.
Nobody can do that for you. Others may give you their reasons, or give suggestions, but in the end, it is up to you.

I've already done that, thanks. Now I'm asking you.

Unless you are a devoted solipsist, you already believe that explicit terms exist.

Not in the way that lightgigantic has described them. Specifically, I do not believe that objects have properties beyond what is (in principle, at least) empirically examinable. And by "empirically examinable", I mean accessible, possibly with the help of scientific instruments, to our normal senses of sight, hearing, smell, touch etc.

For example, the conclusion that man invented the idea of God to explain the unknown, to give comfort that death is not the end, etc. etc. can contextualise all these different approaches.

Sure. See how long you can live with that outlook, and under what circumstances.

Thanks. I will.

If you'd grow up in a strict theistic monoculture, you'd probably have no doubts as to whether God exists or not; you'd per default believe He does. As many people have and do.

Yes. Lack of knowledge or even consideration that there is an alternative available may be the norm in such a monoculture. Luckily for you and me, we do not live in such a monoculture. Compare Dan Barker's situation when he was religious. I used him as an example in another thread. He didn't know any atheists, didn't know anything about atheism, and wasn't aware of any of the arguments against Christianity or the existence of God. It wasn't until this isolation ended that his views began to slowly evolve towards atheism.

You are contextualized by the workings of your mind and body, by the society you live in, and these are further contextualized by the environment, the Universe, which are eventually contextualized by God.

But you don't believe that yourself, do you? You're an atheist, right?

At the end of the day, though, personal experience is precisely what one is left with.
That is, one has to decide for oneself what one will reflect on, what one will stand for. Nobody else can do that for one.

Yes. I agree.

People sometimes resort to empiricism and science in an effort to avoid this personal responsibility.

And some other people resort to religion.

Do you have any other senses than the ones of standard empiricism?

No, I don't think so. Do you?

We have to posit that explicit terms exist, otherwise we end up in solipsism. And solipsism is the refuge of madmen.

I think you mean something different from lightgigantic when you talk about "explicit terms".

Do you believe explicit terms are accessible to empirical investigation?

From another perspective, the essential problem of reality can be framed as a matter of a detailed investigation of one's own intentions.

No, that definitely won't cut the mustard. Compare, for example, Aristotle's physics with modern experimental physics. The former was based on an internal dialogue - i.e. purely theoretical speculation about why the world is as it is, combined with some simple observations - which the latter has, since Galileo, been based on theory tempered by detailed empirical investigation.

Investigating ones own intentions only is guaranteed to lead one up the garden path and off into Fairyland.

 

[wynn]

I don't think like that.

Then how do you think?

Do you have no intentions, no desires, no needs, interests and concerns?

 

[wynn]

Yes. What other kind of existence is there? Existing in our minds but not in reality, perhaps? Like Santa Claus?

What do you mean by "God exists"?

Since God is usually defined as a being much bigger, much more important, much more powerful than myself, etc., it doesn't occur to me to think of God in the same way I think about rocks or dust.

So I naturally think of God as someone who is to be approached with respect, on their terms. It doesn't occur to me to investigate God's existence in the same way I would investigate the existence of rocks, or dust.

I've already done that, thanks.

What's your answer?

Earlier, you said that these things are important to you because if, say, Christianity is right, then it would be vital for you to comply, in order to avoid negative consequences.
Is this still the case?

Now I'm asking you.

I'm not telling anyone they should have faith in God.

Thanks. I will.

Let us know how it goes.

Yes. Lack of knowledge or even consideration that there is an alternative available may be the norm in such a monoculture. Luckily for you and me, we do not live in such a monoculture. Compare Dan Barker's situation when he was religious. I used him as an example in another thread.

He didn't know any atheists, didn't know anything about atheism, and wasn't aware of any of the arguments against Christianity or the existence of God.

This is why I think he wasn't much of a theist, nor religious. He apparently didn't have the external circumstances nor intellectual stamina (he started off very young) in which he could develop his theism or religiosity as a matter of contradistinction to alternative or opposing perspectives.

I think it is crucial for any stance, not just a religious one, that it has developed in the process of surmounting alternatives or opposition. Ie. it has proven itself under fire.

With someone who has never experienced any significant challenges to their stance, it's hard to tell how strong, how stable that stance really is. Such a person may still hold a stance, and firmly so - but it's a very vulnerable stance that can easily crumble under fire, or require fanaticism to keep it up. - As it happens to so many people who develop their religious, or any other stance, while sheltered from alternatives or opposition.

But you don't believe that yourself, do you? You're an atheist, right?

I think I am quite a different atheist than you.

Do you have any other senses than the ones of standard empiricism?

No, I don't think so. Do you?

If you agree with this -

At the end of the day, though, personal experience is precisely what one is left with.
That is, one has to decide for oneself what one will reflect on, what one will stand for. Nobody else can do that for one.

then there is more to your senses than the ones of standard empiricism.

I think you mean something different from lightgigantic when you talk about "explicit terms".

Do you believe explicit terms are accessible to empirical investigation?

Only to a limited extent; which is why such investigation is metonymic, tacit.

No, that definitely won't cut the mustard. Compare, for example, Aristotle's physics with modern experimental physics. The former was based on an internal dialogue - i.e. purely theoretical speculation about why the world is as it is, combined with some simple observations - which the latter has, since Galileo, been based on theory tempered by detailed empirical investigation.

Investigating ones own intentions only is guaranteed to lead one up the garden path and off into Fairyland.

Not at all.
It seems like you are working out of some odd idea of introspection, especially as far as intentions are concerned.

 

[Write4U]

Wynn,

Not at all. For example, the conclusion that man invented the idea of God to explain the unknown, to give comfort that death is not the end, etc. etc. can contextualise all these different approaches.

Sure. See how long you can live with that outlook, and under what circumstances.

maybe 2000 BC - Present? Show me what is actually different from what was posited. Every single function and practice of worship is very much alive and only illegal practices are no longer obvious.

 

[wynn]

maybe 2000 BC - Present?

So you are about 4000 years old?


My suggestion to James was to actually live with the outlook that man invented God, and to check how long he, ie. James, can maintain that outlook, and under what circumstances.

 

[Write4U]

So you are about 4000 years old?

My suggestion to James was to actually live with the outlook that man invented God, and to check how long he, ie. James, can maintain that outlook, and under what circumstances.

My observation was that mankind seems to have maintained that outlook for some 4000 years

 

[Motor Daddy]

So you are about 4000 years old?


My suggestion to James was to actually live with the outlook that man invented God, and to check how long he, ie. James, can maintain that outlook, and under what circumstances.

I can't speak for James, but I've maintained that outlook my entire 49 years on this rock. While I have had tremendous spiritual experiences, none of those experiences were anything other than my spiritual universe inside my brain.

I caution you, though, imaginary concepts in your head can have real world implications. They are not irrelevant to the universe.

 

[spidergoat]

Then how do you think?

Do you have no intentions, no desires, no needs, interests and concerns?

I told you. I have a desire for theists to not interfere with my life and the lives of innocent people, to not inhibit science or education, and to not claim a monopoly on morality.

 

[spidergoat]

So I naturally think of God as someone who is to be approached with respect, on their terms. It doesn't occur to me to investigate God's existence in the same way I would investigate the existence of rocks, or dust..

That's special pleading. You can't just define something as beyond rational investigation. If it has any effect on the physical world, it is subject to empirical investigation. If it doesn't have any effect on the physical world, then it's irrelevant.

 

[elte]

I told you. I have a desire for theists to not interfere with my life and the lives of innocent people, to not inhibit science or education, and to not claim a monopoly on morality.

Morality likely came about during the struggle of mammals to avoid pain and to survive. That's my way of putting it.

 

[wynn]

I told you. I have a desire for theists to not interfere with my life and the lives of innocent people, to not inhibit science or education, and to not claim a monopoly on morality.

And as I've already asked - why is it that you do not want theists to interfere etc.?
So far you've listed some of the external consequences that you predict would come about if theists would be allowed to come into positions of power; and that it is those consequences that you do not want to come about.

But I've been asking you why it is that you don't want those external circumstances to come about.

Let's try a simpler example:
You probably don't want your house to burn down. Can you detail why? You'd be homeless, etc. is the external reason. The further question is why you don't want to be homeless etc. How deep can you go in this analysis of your intentions and desires?

 

[wynn]

So I naturally think of God as someone who is to be approached with respect, on their terms. It doesn't occur to me to investigate God's existence in the same way I would investigate the existence of rocks, or dust.

That's special pleading.

For starters, it's common decency.

 

[wynn]

My observation was that mankind seems to have maintained that outlook for some 4000 years

And we now live in heaven, of course, thanks to that outlook.

 

[spidergoat]

And as I've already asked - why is it that you do not want theists to interfere etc.?
So far you've listed some of the external consequences that you predict would come about if theists would be allowed to come into positions of power; and that it is those consequences that you do not want to come about.

But I've been asking you why it is that you don't want those external circumstances to come about.

Let's try a simpler example:
You probably don't want your house to burn down. Can you detail why? You'd be homeless, etc. is the external reason. The further question is why you don't want to be homeless etc. How deep can you go in this analysis of your intentions and desires?

Um, because if they burn me for being a heretic, it will hurt real bad.

 

[wynn]

Um, because if they burn me for being a heretic, it will hurt real bad.

Okay, can you tell why that is bad, why you don't want that to happen?


(Hint: If you'd be enlightened, you could probably answer that question easily. )

 

[Motor Daddy]

And we now live in heaven, of course, thanks to that outlook.

That's a mighty fine observation you've made there, wynn.

I agree! We do live in heaven. Can you think of a nicer place to live than the universe? Nothing compares to the beauty of nature, LITERALLY.

 

[wellwisher]

Religion is more right brained, while science is more left brained. The right brain is more spatial, while the left brain is more differential. As an example of this contrast, Science tries to reduce reality to data, and cause and effect, while maintaining differentiation via different areas of specialty. Religion is more integral; same one book for all, and seems to oversimplify (in the mind of science) via broad concepts (creation) which attempt to integrate all specialties. The debate between religion and science is like one between man and woman, where neither can fully understand the other, yet each judges the other by their own limited standards.

Science wants observational details of god so God is differentiated; needed as proof. Without the differentiated or sign God is not provable to science. Religion says proof of god is done by faith with is more spatial (nebulous).

The right brain is older in terms of evolution. It originally integrated humans with their spatial instincts. It is not designed to differentiate the universe, but rather to bring observation into broad concepts; god is in everything. The 3-D hunger instinct generalizes the urge the eat regardless of type of food; If this right brain output (3-D intuitive) was to reach the left brain, the spatial would differentiate into details. I have an urge to eat a cheese burger. This process is how the wide variety of religions differentiated. This is a common human 3-D perception, which when it reaches the left side become a unique religion. As the left side of the ancient brain stored more and more creative data, eventually consciousness begins to migrated more to the left side. This could explain the dark ages, where advancement of higher cultures seems to regress and go backwards; strangers in the new neural landscape.

If you look at the age of enlightenment, the singular Christian Church; Catholic, starts to dissociate into smaller and smaller churches until today a church can be only dozen people. This reflects cultural movement from right brain into the left brain, as the left brain was being solidified by differential science. The next logical step is migration back to right brain, while maintaining what we have gained in the left brain. This would allow integration of the vast data that is being generated.

I am a scientist, but I also like religion. This paradox is resolved within me by using two side of the brain, with religion providing age proven ways to gain better access to the right brain. I fight the urge to become differentiated to only 1/2 brain.

The right brain is different in terms of data processing, if one decided to investigate and develop right brain access. It works in 3-D which is strange at first. Instead of the usual cause and effect, we get cause, effect, cause and effect, cause, effect. Effect, cause and effect is how the schema of creationism works. God is the first effect, who started the cause and effect seen by science.

I am not saying this is left brain proven. I am showing you a glimpse of 3-D right brain processing. Creativity, which is right brain, works the same way. The initial effect is an intuitive hunch.. This slowly differentiates into a cause and effect processes; artists uses his skills to paint the urge within the mind. The first effect of effect, cause and effect, is mysterious and could explain why it was personified with the gods of mythology; a particular god effect, was inferred by the final cause/effect output.

 

[James R]

wynn:

What do you mean by "God exists"?
Since God is usually defined as a being much bigger, much more important, much more powerful than myself, etc., it doesn't occur to me to think of God in the same way I think about rocks or dust.

How do you think of God? What is God? Clearly, God is not supposed to be made of matter or energy. That would seem only to leave some kind of disembodied "spirit" as an option. Is that how you think of God?

So I naturally think of God as someone who is to be approached with respect, on their terms. It doesn't occur to me to investigate God's existence in the same way I would investigate the existence of rocks, or dust.

How can you hope to know anything about God's terms?

I've already done that, thanks.

What's your answer?

Why should we have faith in God? If there's no evidence of God, I can't see any rational reason in having faith in him/her/it. Can you?

Earlier, you said that these things are important to you because if, say, Christianity is right, then it would be vital for you to comply, in order to avoid negative consequences.
Is this still the case?

I don't think I said that. But if I gave the impression that it might be ok to believer in God due to fear of adverse consequences for oneself, then let me make it clear that I don't think that's would be a very good reason. Surely a God who was out to get us would not be a God worth worshipping.

I'm not telling anyone they should have faith in God.

Ok.

Yes. Lack of knowledge or even consideration that there is an alternative available may be the norm in such a monoculture. Luckily for you and me, we do not live in such a monoculture. Compare Dan Barker's situation when he was religious. I used him as an example in another thread.

He didn't know any atheists, didn't know anything about atheism, and wasn't aware of any of the arguments against Christianity or the existence of God.

This is why I think he wasn't much of a theist, nor religious. He apparently didn't have the external circumstances nor intellectual stamina (he started off very young) in which he could develop his theism or religiosity as a matter of contradistinction to alternative or opposing perspectives.

I think it is crucial for any stance, not just a religious one, that it has developed in the process of surmounting alternatives or opposition. Ie. it has proven itself under fire.

With someone who has never experienced any significant challenges to their stance, it's hard to tell how strong, how stable that stance really is. Such a person may still hold a stance, and firmly so - but it's a very vulnerable stance that can easily crumble under fire, or require fanaticism to keep it up. - As it happens to so many people who develop their religious, or any other stance, while sheltered from alternatives or opposition.

I'm sure that in the 20 years that he was a minister, Barker would have come across many things that challenged his faith. But he had very little exposure to rational thinking about God, and his religious tradition and environment actively discouraged such questioning. This is a common feature of most conservative religious environments.

I think I am quite a different atheist than you.

I'm not sure you're an atheist at all.

Why do you not believe in God?

If you agree with this -

At the end of the day, though, personal experience is precisely what one is left with.
That is, one has to decide for oneself what one will reflect on, what one will stand for. Nobody else can do that for one.

then there is more to your senses than the ones of standard empiricism.

Thinking isn't a sense. Senses are ways you connect to the world. Thinking is something that happens inside your brain. It doesn't give you access to the world; it makes sense of what you already know.

Do you believe explicit terms are accessible to empirical investigation?

Only to a limited extent; which is why such investigation is metonymic, tacit.

To what limited extent do you think that the existence of God is accessible to empirical investigation?