Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Usually we consider it truth if it reinforces our existing mental model.
-
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!
God as a Mental concept
- Thread starter nonbeliever_92
- Start date
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Right, but that reinforcement must also be a mental model?
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
In the same sense everything else is I suppose.... I'd say it's a part of the mental model, which relies on a reinforcement mechanism for ongoing stability.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
My take on it is that God is reality, obviously. I would even go so far as to say that reality is intersubjectively verifiable, via trance states. Yet, we who believe must always bear in mind that the reality of God is beyond both comprehension and the scientific method.
So, while God exists, it is true that concepts of God are as much our imagination as anything.
So, while God exists, it is true that concepts of God are as much our imagination as anything.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
One of the theories of modern learning theory is that we learn by building cognitive frameworks: we can't go beyond what we already know without first adding some new models to build off of.
So I think this is a useful way of looking at it.
When we use the word "true" in the sense that atotalstranger used it, are we simply comparing one cognitive framework to another? It seems that truth is a perspective, especially when it comes to a concept like God. When we compare Love and God, we are suggesting that these are malleable experiences that exist as truth because they are potent influences.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
No, they don't. Knowledge implies truth.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
I'm not particularly impressed with Wikipedia as a source for philosophical notions such as belief. I much prefer what I learned during my university studies, which is basically that a belief is an attitude one takes to a proposition. Specifically, if one believes a proposition, one thinks the proposition is probably true.
Knowledge is trickier. One of the largest questions in philosophy is what (and how) do we know and how do we know that we know? The puzzle arises from the fact that we might believe a true proposition, but just by accident. For instance, take an Austrian hermit who, when he hears the chimes outside his door, he forms the belief that the wind is blowing. Our hermit, as he gets older, loses his hearing but also develops a brain lesion that causes him to randomly hallucinate the sound of the wind chimes. It could well happen on an occasion when the wind is blowing, the chimes actually sound; and at the same time, he hallucinates the sound of the wind chimes. He thus forms the belief that the wind is blowing. He's right, of course. The wind is blowing. But he doesn't know it.
Compare the Austrian hermit with his friend without the hearing problem or the brain lesion. At the same time as his hermit friend, he hears the wind chime and forms the belief that the wind is blowing. HIS belief counts as knowledge but the Austrian hermit's doesn't.
You're changing the case. If you come to believe through evidence, you may be justified in your belief, but you may still not have knowledge. In that case, your belief (just as mine) may in fact be true but just by dumb luck.
Let's get back to the case as I described it. My belief is not knowledge because the mechanism whereby I obtained the belief is not aimed at providing true beliefs. Wish fulfillment may help me in various psychological ways, but this mechanism is not designed to provide me with true beliefs. It may happen that there is such a being as God. So the propositon that God exists is true and I believe it. But I still don't know there's a god because the connection between my belief and the way the world is is skewed. I believe a true proposition all right, but it's just by dumb luck.
Contrast this with you, who come by your belief as a result of a set of cognitive faculties that (a) are aimed at truth; (b) are in good working order; (c) are designed well for the purpose; and (d) are operating in an environment for which they were designed. It seems to me that you have knowledge and I don't.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
BZZZZT!
Many people know that Islam is the one true religion.
Many people know that Christianity is the one true religion.
Many people know that homosexuality is immoral.
Many people know that homosexuality is not immoral.
Knowledge is a perception that you think something is true. Doesn't make it so.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Claims of knowledge aren't the same as having knowledge. One can be sure without having knowledge.
And no, knowledge is not the perception that something is true. That's called BELIEF. Knowledge is a subset of our beliefs. They are the beliefs that have a certain privileged status because they were formed the right way.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
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?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I agree that the mere perception that something is true is belief, not knowledge.
What I was originally responding to:
Originally Posted by Wandered Off
Just to play Captain Obvious here, of course god (or gods) exist as a mental concept in any brain that conceptualizes god(s). What we can't know is whether there's a territory corresponding to that map.
Dunemeister said:
You have the perception that god exists - you believe it. You do not know it. If you claim to know it, then my example that knowledge can be incorrect applies. Pick a definition and stick with it.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
My definition applies. I know God exists. How? The proposition "God exists" is true, I believe that God exists, and it's not a mere coincidence that "God exists" is true and I believe it. I take it that a belief B is knowledge if and only if it is produced by well-designed cognitive faculties accurately aimed at the formation of true beliefs in a cognitive environment conducive to the faculties in question. My belief in God was so produced. Of course, that claim crucially hinges on certain theological ideas, but so what? The point is that my world view provides me an account whereby I can know that God exists. If you want to disclaim that knowledge claim, you need to show that the theology is wrong. Now, my knowledge that God exists doesn't help the skeptic much. (Actually, the claim will probably be met with a certain skepticism, which is par for the course!) In a debate, I'd still have to provide arguments.
By contrast, if we assume atheism, nobody can know anything, for our cognitive faculties are designed not to get us true beliefs but to perform the four F's (fighting, feeding, fleeing, and reproducing). And there's no essential connection between the four F's and possessing cognitive faculties that get us true beliefs. There is therefore no way to determine just how well they get us true beliefs. We should therefore not hold any beliefs with any confidence. In other words, atheism entails global skepticism, which I take to be a reductio ad absurdum argument.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Others know that god doesn't exist.
One of you must be wrong, ergo, knowledge does not correlate to truth.
That assumes the truth isn't that 'god exist for one and not for the other'. That's a belief.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Actually, I would say that neither of them really know that thing. I would say they both believe one way.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
Or it assumes that existence is independent of cognition, also a belief.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Well, I guess this is about as meaningful as assuming the truth about the earth is that 'it's flat for one person and spherical for another'.
They both can know they are right, but they can't both be right in an objective sense.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Me too.