That would be my goal as well.
Hmmm. Dark matter wasn't apparent until the early 20th century and so was silent on the matter until it became apparent. Doesn't that support my position?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: What Do Gods Do?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
That would be my goal as well.
Hmmm. Dark matter wasn't apparent until the early 20th century and so was silent on the matter until it became apparent. Doesn't that support my position?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position. I appears to me based on your last few posts that your position is that anything that is not apparent should be rejected as fiction. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
No, that would be my position. If it is not apparent, then there is nothing for science to consider, correct? Science did not consider dark matter until it became apparent that what matter science felt it could account for did not seem sufficient to explain the observed speed of galaxies, or something to that effect.
Let's take this tack. What are the universal properties or characteristics that qualify something as belonging to the set 'gods'? How are each of those universal properties or characteristics apparent to science?
Okay, fair enough. You using "apparent" in a slightly different meaning than I am, but I can work with that.
Human character and behavior. Belief in gods creates very specific character traits in humans as well as specific behavioral patters.
Through manifestations of behavioral patterns and neuroimaging. There areas of the medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior cingulate cortex that light up on scans during prayer and meditation which indicates that these areas are activated by these activities.
Last edited:
Here is the problem. In your example, the scientifically observed event or phenomenon is human traits and behavioral patterns, and there is an observation that those can be affected by the self-reported beliefs held by human beings. This of course does not speak to how the beliefs are acquired, simply that if held, it appears to have a statistically significant affect on the behavior of the belief holder. This example tells us something about people, not about 'gods'. There are other non-gods abstract constructs that are not existent outside of thought that also statistically affect human behavior. The ability to affect behavior does not make a belief a corporeal or existent thing outside of the mind.
Anything else to establish the category 'gods' as something other than fiction?
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
What happens in the mind also "exists". All the more so when it effects activity beyond the mind's imagination.
Fiction is real. You seem not to understand this. Being 'representational' does not mean that it's not real. A newspaper drawing of Donald Trump is not Donald Trump. But it's a representation of Donald Trump. And it is just as 'real' as Donald Trump. Likewise, the idea of Donald Trump in our mind is not Donald Trump. It's an imagined representation. But it's still just as real as Donald Trump is.
Before we move on with your “what else ya got” proposition, you entirely gleaned over the neuroscience.
Also, why are we assuming “corporeal” for the existence of gods? I don’t recall stipulating this.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Dark matter is not apparent, that's the point. The consensus in cosmology is that the gravitational effect of as yet undetected matter, is necessary to explain the stability of galaxies. Dark in this instance means unobserved.
My apologies. I thought it was OBE given my answer to the first part. I'll address directly. You said:
First, is all meditation (my assumption is you meant meditation not mediation) on or about gods, or more specifically, is the observed effect only occurring when the meditation concerns god beliefs? Do other non-god related activities produce the same effect? Has it been evaluated?
As a follow-on to my previous post, I hope you would agree that people can believe in things that are demonstrable not true and such false beliefs, held as true, can affect their behavior. Is it simply earnestness that produces the neuroimaging effect regardless the veracity of the belief?
No, not assuming corporeal, but do require discernability if we are sticking to scientific standards.
Yes, bit of a semantic point there. What was apparent was the discrepancy between the observed speed of the galaxies and the expected speed based on the amount of matter that was observable, yes? And what can science say about it other than their appears to be unobservable matter and simply give it a placeholder label until we gain a better perspective and make more clarifying observations. Or shall we just chock the extra speed up to "God" and leave it at that.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
The semantic point is incidental. The significant point is that science regularly hypothesises about phenomena that have not been directly observed or detected.
I’m not suggesting cosmologists should hypothesise a creator; though some (including the atheist Stephen Hawking) have occasionally taken philosophical diversions into that territory.
They don't hypothesize phenomena out of the blue, though. They hypothesize phenomena or mechanisms that predictively explain what is actually observed. The value and confidence in a particular hypotheses is commensurate with the confidence in the underlying evidence used to support that hypothesis, regardless however, the confidence will only rise to the level of a hypothesis until corroborated through testing or other confirmatory observations, etc.
Just to be clear, this side conversation started in regards to establishing whether the category 'gods' represented a category solely of myths and can therefore be dismissed as such, or whether the category represented a group of real and existent things independent of anyone's thoughts.
Are we to entertain a third option, that it is a category of explanatory hypotheses?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Can you demonstrate that anything exists, independent of a conscious observer which perceives it?
If your position is beliefs affect behavior, the member of the set labeled 'gods' is a set of myth beliefs, and believing in those god myths affect the believers behavior, then I'm fine with that. No argument from me there.
The word 'real' in your phrase "just as 'real'" has it in single quotes for a reason. That beloved blurring of distinctions you so often employ. The newspaper drawing of Donald Trump and our abstract thoughts of Donald Trump are what they are, and are definitely not the living, breathing version of Donald Trump nor a duplicate living, breathing Donald Trump. They are not real in the same way.
It is more than appropriate to distinguish between the way abstract fictional constructs are real, from the way abstract constructs that represent physically existing things outside the mind are real, and the way things that exist in reality independent of anyone's thoughts are real. For one thing, existent things independent of minds are bound by physical laws, abstractions are not.
Yes, I mean meditation, not mediation. Apologies. I'll fix that momentarily.
Tests have been conducted during prayer and have found a significant increase in these areas during praying vs. other non-god related activities. But we are straying off the topic. I don't want to derail this thread into "does god exist" thread. We have plenty of those on this forum.
You and I were discussing whether or not it's productive to reject something and call it fiction because it lacks corporeal appearance. My contention is that it is not.
Doubtful given the evidence. If you're interested, Dr. Andrew Newberg has quite a bit of literature available on the topic.
Andrew Newberg
Dr. Andrew Newberg is the director of research at the Marcus Institute of Integrative Health and a physician at Jefferson University Hospital. He is board certified in internal medicine and nuclear medicine.
www.andrewnewberg.com
Discernible between existing and not existing? What are your thoughts on the corporeality of thoughts?
I don't like to even use the words "god" and "deity" because they are far too often presumed to indicate something shaped by Abrahamic expectations.
Generally speaking I tend to view gods as personifications of some combination of concepts, values, ethnic origins, virtues or ideals.
Part of that is accepting that their exact meanings and roles are to a significant degree a personal matter tied with a corresponding degree of personal responsibility. Not very usual in Abrahamic environments, but a central element of god-related practice as I see it. Belief is no substitute for sincere effort of discernment IMO.
Myself, I like best the deities that are strongly tied to ideals of transcendence and/or feminility. It goes back to the time when I was part of an Occultism group (long story) and was told the tale of when Isis rescued Osiris from destruction. It just felt right, felt like a nugget of valuable wisdom in the form of a tale.
Later I learned of Shaktism and to this day find it intriguing, although I must hasten to add that I have very little notion of what it actually is like. I would love to have the opportunity to find out in person, though. Of course, I have to assume that the actual value of the experience is as much a factor of choosing wisely as of anything else.
Speaking from a very personal level, I tend to think of Shakti as a principle as well as a category of sorts; full blown, powerful reminders that there are times to let go of our cravings and appreciate the sacred miracles of what is. At the risk of being perhaps too personal, I will also say that I associate Shakti with my situations of duty meeting inadequacy.
In a very real sense, Shakti is to me a reminder that I can't always afford to be worthy of what I pursue or fortunate enough to be given the choice. Situations of having to make do as I actually am at any given moment are all too real and often both humbling and inspiring, and I think of Shakti at those times. It helps me focus.
Is that wrong? Beats me. I don't know who would have the authority to tell me either way, either. Maybe I will someday.
Generally speaking I tend to view gods as personifications of some combination of concepts, values, ethnic origins, virtues or ideals.
Part of that is accepting that their exact meanings and roles are to a significant degree a personal matter tied with a corresponding degree of personal responsibility. Not very usual in Abrahamic environments, but a central element of god-related practice as I see it. Belief is no substitute for sincere effort of discernment IMO.
Myself, I like best the deities that are strongly tied to ideals of transcendence and/or feminility. It goes back to the time when I was part of an Occultism group (long story) and was told the tale of when Isis rescued Osiris from destruction. It just felt right, felt like a nugget of valuable wisdom in the form of a tale.
Later I learned of Shaktism and to this day find it intriguing, although I must hasten to add that I have very little notion of what it actually is like. I would love to have the opportunity to find out in person, though. Of course, I have to assume that the actual value of the experience is as much a factor of choosing wisely as of anything else.
Speaking from a very personal level, I tend to think of Shakti as a principle as well as a category of sorts; full blown, powerful reminders that there are times to let go of our cravings and appreciate the sacred miracles of what is. At the risk of being perhaps too personal, I will also say that I associate Shakti with my situations of duty meeting inadequacy.
In a very real sense, Shakti is to me a reminder that I can't always afford to be worthy of what I pursue or fortunate enough to be given the choice. Situations of having to make do as I actually am at any given moment are all too real and often both humbling and inspiring, and I think of Shakti at those times. It helps me focus.
Is that wrong? Beats me. I don't know who would have the authority to tell me either way, either. Maybe I will someday.
An observation requires an observer, but there are mechanisms to corroborate that what is being observed is not solely the product of one's mind. Would you disagree?
The only thing I can think of that gods do (that nothing else does) is suspend the laws of nature. Humans, today, have weapons way more powerful than Zeus's thunderbolts or Thor's Mjöllnir, but before we could make them, we had to figure out the sciences -- the natural laws of the universe. Apparently, gods don't need to do this, but can change the natural order by act of will.
However, I have never been witness to, nor have I ever heard of a verified example, of such a suspension of the laws of nature, and therefore it seems to me best to assume that such things are not occurring, and that therefore there are either no gods, or they are not, in fact, doing anything at all.
However, I have never been witness to, nor have I ever heard of a verified example, of such a suspension of the laws of nature, and therefore it seems to me best to assume that such things are not occurring, and that therefore there are either no gods, or they are not, in fact, doing anything at all.
Tests have been conducted during prayer and have found a significant increase in these areas during praying vs. other non-god related activities. But we are straying off the topic. I don't want to derail this thread into "does god exist" thread. We have plenty of those on this forum.
You and I were discussing whether or not it's productive to reject something and call it fiction because it lacks corporeal appearance. My contention is that it is not.
Doubtful given the evidence. If you're interested, Dr. Andrew Newberg has quite a bit of literature available on the topic.
Andrew Newberg
Dr. Andrew Newberg is the director of research at the Marcus Institute of Integrative Health and a physician at Jefferson University Hospital. He is board certified in internal medicine and nuclear medicine.
I'll have to look the info over when I have time and can give you my thoughts on it then.
Ok, getting back on track, perhaps I would step away from a word like corporeal and perhaps substitute it with "phenomena of mass/energy with spatiotemporal extension or the events that arise from the interaction of such."
Discernible between existing and not existing? What are your thoughts on the corporeality of thoughts?
My position would be that thought is physically real and existent. It is a manifestation of, and wholly dependent upon, neurochemical processes of the CNS. The content of thought is made up of abstract constructs built into abstract systems, for example language and visual memory. We can use other media beyond the CNS to represent, store, and communicate abstractions as well, such as my post here.