God as a Mental concept

[nonbeliever_92]

Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing, people usually just say "Oh you just don't understand" which I don't disagree with, but I wish they would help me understand by giving me a clear definition of god. it's really quite frustrating

Anyway, does anyone else believe that god makes perfect sense as a conceptual idea and much less sense in the aspects of actually existing?

 

[Wandered Off]

*raises hand*

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nonrealism-god-imperative-not-indicative.html

 

[Francis]

Er, i dunno. I don't get it myself. But somehow, God is PERFECT love, and a being unto himself? I'm unsure. Peace!

 

[Dunemeister]

If you are inclined toward atheism, OF COURSE it makes sense to relegate God to the realm of the psychological or the word "God" to the imperative form. But from a Christian perspective, both of those claims are the height of ridiculous. This is a perfect case of what counts as "reasonable" depends crucially on one's starting point.

 

[Willamena]

"God" is as much a mental concept as "mental concept" is a mental concept.

And everything else.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I would agree that God is a mental concept, but what do we experience isn't? How can we experience anything without it being a mental concept, and how is something being in our heads difference from something outside our heads when our heads (inside and all) appear (appear) to be inextricably a part of the outside?

In other words, where do we draw the line between concept and non-concept when we first have to conceptualize non-concept?

 

[Dunemeister]

I would agree that God is a mental concept, but what do we experience isn't? How can we experience anything without it being a mental concept, and how is something being in our heads difference from something outside our heads when our heads (inside and all) appear (appear) to be inextricably a part of the outside?

In other words, where do we draw the line between concept and non-concept when we first have to conceptualize non-concept?

The OP, I think, takes for granted that we all have notions of "God." By calling these notions "mental", I think the OP is arguing that it makes more sense to think of our having these notions in nonrealistic ways. That is, we don't have these notions because we encounter an actual being "out there" that is God. Rather, we have various other psychological experiences and on the basis of them form beliefs in God. But the psychological experiences themselves are not caused by any such being as God. They might be caused by myriad other causes: lack of food, undigested beef, following certain religious practices such as prayer, fasting, chanting.... But those practices and experiences don't put us in touch with God. Rather, they provide us with experiences that we interpret as coming from God. And it would be better for us to realize this than to wallow in the ignorant assumption that our concepts of God answer to anything in the real world.

At least, I think that's what the OP means.

 

[PureX]

Does anyone disagree that god makes much more sense as a mental aspect rather than a physical being or force.
There are people who'd like to compare god to love, yet insist that he is like love. Whenever I try to explain that love is just a mental concept and not an actual physical thing, people usually just say "Oh you just don't understand" which I don't disagree with, but I wish they would help me understand by giving me a clear definition of god. it's really quite frustrating

Anyway, does anyone else believe that god makes perfect sense as a conceptual idea and much less sense in the aspects of actually existing?

Mystery is a concept, too. If you think of the actuality of "God" more in terms of a great mystery, maybe you'll have better luck with it. "God" is the great mystery source and sustenance of all that exists. Like love, "God" has a reality, but it's complex, and always changing, and it's visceral, not logical or practical, necessarily. It's not confined by cause and effect, nor defined by scientific method. It's more holistic and intuitive then that.

Embrace the mystery. Enjoy the ignorance of the human condition, relative to the "divine". Relax, and let be so.

 

[dogsgod]

I would agree that God is a mental concept, but what do we experience isn't? How can we experience anything without it being a mental concept, and how is something being in our heads difference from something outside our heads when our heads (inside and all) appear (appear) to be inextricably a part of the outside?

In other words, where do we draw the line between concept and non-concept when we first have to conceptualize non-concept?

Everything we experience takes place inside our central nervous system of which our brain is a part of. We experience nothing outside. All our senses are stimulated by information that we receive.

 

[Dunemeister]

We experience nothing outside.

So you hold to a sort of mental monism, then? There really isn't anything "out there." There is no "out there"? No mountains, no stars, no human bodies, no other minds?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The OP, I think, takes for granted that we all have notions of "God." By calling these notions "mental", I think the OP is arguing that it makes more sense to think of our having these notions in nonrealistic ways. That is, we don't have these notions because we encounter an actual being "out there" that is God. Rather, we have various other psychological experiences and on the basis of them form beliefs in God. But the psychological experiences themselves are not caused by any such being as God. They might be caused by myriad other causes: lack of food, undigested beef, following certain religious practices such as prayer, fasting, chanting.... But those practices and experiences don't put us in touch with God. Rather, they provide us with experiences that we interpret as coming from God. And it would be better for us to realize this than to wallow in the ignorant assumption that our concepts of God answer to anything in the real world.

At least, I think that's what the OP means.

Nicely said!

But still I ask, what would be the difference? If all our experiences happen mentally, where is the separation between the "real" world and the "mental" world?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Everything we experience takes place inside our central nervous system of which our brain is a part of. We experience nothing outside. All our senses are stimulated by information that we receive.

Sure, there is the barrier of us only being able to understand what we receive through sensory data that can be modeled, and that's partially my argument. But where does the sensory data come from?

 

[dogsgod]

So you hold to a sort of mental monism, then? There really isn't anything "out there." There is no "out there"? No mountains, no stars, no human bodies, no other minds?

It's "out there" but our experience of it is recreated in our brain and we only experience what our senses pick up. Our visual senses pick up a very small amount of available bandwidth, there is much "out there" that we can't see and what we do see is what's recreated in our brain.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's "out there" but our experience of it is recreated in our brain and we only experience what our senses pick up. Our visual senses pick up a very small amount of available bandwidth, there is much "out there" that we can't see and what we do see is what's recreated in our brain.

Gotchya. Just checking.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So you hold to a sort of mental monism, then? There really isn't anything "out there." There is no "out there"? No mountains, no stars, no human bodies, no other minds?

That would be solipsism. A fun word to say, but an unpopular notion.

The problem is in the defining line of "out there." If we hold that there is an out there, then our mental faculties are also out there from another perspective. If we hold that there is only the "within," then there is no "out there" and therefore no "within."

 

[Willamena]

The problem is in the defining line of "out there." If we hold that there is an out there, then our mental faculties are also out there from another perspective. If we hold that there is only the "within," then there is no "out there" and therefore no "within."

Ha! I'd have worded it just the other way around, and it'd mean the same thing.

 

[Dunemeister]

Nicely said!

But still I ask, what would be the difference? If all our experiences happen mentally, where is the separation between the "real" world and the "mental" world?

'Tanks!

Well intuitively, isn't there a difference between our acquiring a belief through the proper functioning of our sensory and cognitive apparatus and acquiring it through some noncognitive method? For instance, traditional Christians say we form a belief in God quite rightly under certain circumstances because we are so designed. Freud, for example, disagrees, saying that our beliefs in God arise as a result of wish fulfillment. According to the Christian view, it's possible for at least some of us to form correct beliefs about God. On Freud's view, it's impossible; or at least, if there's a god and we form true beliefs about him, it's a matter of fluke because the part of our cognitive apparatus responsible for the beliefs isn't concerned with forming true beliefs but with something else, specifically fulfilling neurotic desires. Thus if things are related as Freud says, we should be less inclined to think of our beliefs as true because we obtain the concept only through machinations in our minds. But if things are related as the Christians say, we should think that at least some of our beliefs about God are true because God, "out there" caused our beliefs "in here".

 

[dogsgod]

Sure, there is the barrier of us only being able to understand what we receive through sensory data that can be modeled, and that's partially my argument. But where does the sensory data come from?

Electrons and photons. Photons of light are charged packets, or quantum of light that excite our visionary senses. Everything we touch and feel is an interaction between electrons.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

'Tanks!

Well intuitively, isn't there a difference between our acquiring a belief through the proper functioning of our sensory and cognitive apparatus and acquiring it through some noncognitive method? For instance, traditional Christians say we form a belief in God quite rightly under certain circumstances because we are so designed. Freud, for example, disagrees, saying that our beliefs in God arise as a result of wish fulfillment. According to the Christian view, it's possible for at least some of us to form correct beliefs about God. On Freud's view, it's impossible; or at least, if there's a god and we form true beliefs about him, it's a matter of fluke because the part of our cognitive apparatus responsible for the beliefs isn't concerned with forming true beliefs but with something else, specifically fulfilling neurotic desires. Thus if things are related as Freud says, we should be less inclined to think of our beliefs as true because we obtain the concept only through machinations in our minds. But if things are related as the Christians say, we should think that at least some of our beliefs about God are true because God, "out there" caused our beliefs "in here".

I think there are differences, sure. Our reality is built of differences. But in the end, God is what we know and experience of God. What would change between the different ways of acquiring the concept? Would we still believe in the same way?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems that our senses are to what they sense like a thermometer is to heat. The thermometer does not re-present heat. It does not replicate it. It would be closer to the truth to say that it symbolizes heat. That is, that it turns the information it receives into a symbol -- i.e. temperature -- of heat.