God as a Mental concept

[Willamena]

Agreed. :yes:

Doubly agreed!

Doesn't excuse him from answering the questions, though.

I'm off for lunch; will look later.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Doubly agreed!

Doesn't excuse him from answering the questions, though.

I don't see any questions I didn't answer...

 

[Willamena]

I have to assume so.

I'm sorry, you'll have to be more clear.

Sorry, I was in a rush and typing too fast. I meant, are mental concepts exempt from objective truth? Or are they objectively true things? Is "objective truth" a mental concept?

You had said that we have to assume that objective truth exists outside one's head. I was just wondering where that leaves the mental concept.

Mental concepts are real in that they exist, but they are not entities . . .

What are they, then?

. . . nor do they necessarily correspond to objective reality outside the mental environment where they are being formed/perceived.

Agreed, but not real relevant.

Not sure of the relevance of your line of questioning.

Just trying to see the truth of pictures painted, so I can paint true pictures. I'll drop it, if you prefer.

 

[Willamena]

I don't see any questions I didn't answer...

Didn't mean to imply you hadn't answered any . . .

 

[Mr Cheese]

I think we face the problem of observer and observed...
and the nature of logic
...

Anythign we observe is a part of us, as we "conceptualize it" just by "looking" at it...
we filter a cup, when we look at a cup. We see it is red and made of clay. If we were insects we would see somethign else, as we would have a different filter.

Logic of course logically states there will be something beyond it. Like teaching a dog how to read esperanto. In the end the dog is going to continue to lick himself and eat his food. Esperanto is beyond him.

In Gnosticism we find another futher concept, the idea that to truly know somethign we must become it

"
God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water.


It is not possible for anyone to see anything of the things that actually exist unless he becomes like them. This is not the way with man in the world: he sees the sun without being a sun; and he sees the heaven and the earth and all other things, but he is not these things. This is quite in keeping with the truth. But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father. So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself, but in that place you do see yourself - and what you see you shall become. "

....

In many systems of esoteric thought, we understand that God is beyond any concept..

”Innerspace” by Aryeh Kaplan

”One of the basic axioms of the Kabbalah is that nothing can be said about God Himself. It is for this reason that God is called Ain Sof, which means literally, the One without end or limit. God is infinite and therefore undefineable and uncharacterizable. He is limitless Being and Existence before the act of creation as well as subsequent to it. Even conceptually, there is no category in existence which can define God. This is what the Tikuney Zohar means when it says ‘Not thought can grasp Him.’

On the level of Ain Sof, therefore, nothing else exists. Every concept and category associated with existence must be created from nothing…..

Since no quality can be ascribed to Ain Sof, it follows that if God has or uses ‘Will,’ He must have created it. The Zohar explicitly states that God does not have ‘will’ in any anthropomorphic sense. Rather, to the extent that we can express it, in order to create the world, God had to will the concept of creation into existence. In order to do this, He had to create the concept of ‘will.’ This, of course, leads to an ultimate paradox, for if God is going to create ‘will,’ this in itself presupposes an act of will. This means that going back to Ain Sof, to God Himself, involves an infinite regression…..

Ain-Nothingness…..This is not a nothingness which implies lack of existence. There is no deficiency in the Ain, only fullness beyond the capacity of any created being to experience directly. Rather, it is nothingness because of the lack of a category in the mind in which to place it. Ain is therefore only ‘nothingness’ relative to us. It is the nothingness of ineffability and hiddenness. It is no-thing because it is so much more rarified than the some-thing of creation. In this sense, like God Himself, it is ultimately unfathomable and beyond our ability to comprehend.

On the other hand, God’s Will permeated the entire system of creation. The continued existence of creation, in fact, depends entirely on God’s willing it. Since only God exists in an absolute sense, everything else exists because God wills its existence continually. A human architect can design and construct a building and then forget about it. But God’s creation is more than that. Nothing can exist without God constantly willing it to exist. Without this, it would utterly cease to exist.”
​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, I was in a rush and typing too fast. I meant, are mental concepts exempt from objective truth? Or are they objectively true things? Is "objective truth" a mental concept?

Mental concepts exist. They are not necesssarily true in that they accurately correspond to anything outside the thinker's head. I'm not sure what you mean by "exempt from objective truth."

Objective truth, like any other idea conceived by humans, is a "mental concept." Isn't this obvious?

You had said that we have to assume that objective truth exists outside one's head. I was just wondering where that leaves the mental concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where that leaves the mental concept." Please be more concrete in forming your query.

What are they, then?

Concepts that are consciously perceived.

Agreed, but not real relevant.

It is when discussing whether somebody's perceptions are objectively true or not.

Just trying to see the truth of pictures painted, so I can paint true pictures. I'll drop it, if you prefer.

Just don't know what you're asking/getting at...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Doesn't excuse him from answering the questions, though.

I don't see any questions I didn't answer...

Didn't mean to imply you hadn't answered any . . .

Assuming I'm the "him" you were referring to, I'm not sure what else you could have meant. Could you please clarify?

 

[Willamena]

Dune wasn't talking about god as a mental concept.

Neither am I talking about Dune. I'm challenging the idea that of two people with differing beliefs, one must be wrong. The statement was made that if one person knows god exists and another knows god does not exist, one of them must be wrong. They can both be right if god is a mental concept. Our mental concepts of everything in the world compose the framework by which we each understand (stand under) the world. One framework can include god and another not. Both reflect the world.

 

[Willamena]

So objective truth exists outside one's head.

I have to assume so.

Mental concepts exist. . .
Objective truth, like any other idea conceived by humans, is a "mental concept." Isn't this obvious?

Just striving for some clarification.

 

[dogsgod]

Neither am I talking about Dune. I'm challenging the idea that of two people with differing beliefs, one must be wrong. The statement was made that if one person knows god exists and another knows god does not exist, one of them must be wrong. They can both be right if god is a mental concept. Our mental concepts of everything in the world compose the framework by which we each understand (stand under) the world. One framework can include god and another not. Both reflect the world.

One would have to be wrong, God exists or he/she/it doesn't.

 

[JustWondering]

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?

People want to believe that there is a cosmic force that enforces their idea of what is "fair". That is where God came from. Unfortunately the universe does not agree with humanity on what is fair and unfair.

 

[Willamena]

One would have to be wrong, God exists or he/she/it doesn't.

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is there a universe outside of a leaf?

A caterpillar's universe is the leaf, aand the plant, and maybe the field it grows in. It is totally unaware of McDonalds hamburger resteraunt in Tokyo....

Not for that caterpillar.

Where does our own concept of the universe begin and end?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

Knowledge is the object of knowing, and belief is the object of believing. When we believe something, we are stating that we are sure something exists, and when we know something we are stating something exists.

I have to concede that there is a difference, but I'm still liable to put belief in the category of knowledge, because it appears to be an act of "knowing."

In the case of your hermit friend and your hermit friend's friend, they are both working from sensory information given to them through mental processes. It is quite irrelevant that one has a brain lesion and hallucinates: for him, there are wind chimes. At one time, the wind blew and there was ringing and he conceptualized it. At other time for the friend, the wind blew and there was ringing, and he conceptualized it.

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.

I don't mean to change the case (if I am). But sometimes I have odd avenues of thought.

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.

For the first case (wish fulfillment), how did that person arrive at a belief in God? We understand that person wishes for it, but where does the concept originate?

 

[Dunemeister]

Knowledge is the object of knowing, and belief is the object of believing. When we believe something, we are stating that we are sure something exists, and when we know something we are stating something exists.

Philosophically, that's at best imprecise. Belief is an attitude we take toward a proposition. When we believe it, we take an attitude of "I am confident this is true" toward it. So if I (fully) believe 3 + 2 = 5, it means I'm confident that 3 + 2 = 5 is true.

Knowlege is a normative notion. It is a status we baptize a subset of our beliefs with. I believe lots of things, but not all my beliefs constitute knowledge. I believe my grandmother lives in Town A. But I haven't seen her in 20 years, and it could well be that she's moved. I just haven't heard one way or the other. Even if by some fluke she still lives in Town A, I don't know that. Why? Well, for one thing my belief is outdated. Given the myriad circumstances that could have happened in the last couple of decades, I can't well claim to know that she lives in Town A (unless I know something else about her that would make me think she couldn't have moved).

I have to concede that there is a difference, but I'm still liable to put belief in the category of knowledge, because it appears to be an act of "knowing."

Prephilosophically, there's no problem with that, but when you try to get more philosophically precise, you need to be clearer about the distinctions. Ever since Plato, there has been a remarkable consensus in the western philosophical tradition that knowledge is related to belief, but not in the way you suggest. As I said earlier, knowledge is a sort of privileged belief. Intuitively, it's one thing to say I believe Bismark is the capital of North Dakota. It's true. But if I believe it because I have a brain lesion that compels me to believe that, or if I believe it out of an acid trip hallucination, I don't know it. On the other hand, if I learn it in school from a competent authority backed up by current political maps, or if I grow up there and visit the state legislative buildings, then I can be said to know it. The belief is no longer "mere" belief, it's knowledge.

In the case of your hermit friend and your hermit friend's friend, they are both working from sensory information given to them through mental processes. It is quite irrelevant that one has a brain lesion and hallucinates: for him, there are wind chimes. At one time, the wind blew and there was ringing and he conceptualized it. At other time for the friend, the wind blew and there was ringing, and he conceptualized it.

Just a slight correction. In the case, the issue isn't the belief that there are wind chimes but the status of the belief that the wind is blowing.

Again, the issue isn't whether they get "conceptions" or "conceptualize" things. Of course they do. The question is which person's belief has a privileged status we call "knowledge". Knowledge is not just having conceptions. I might conceptualize a whole raft of things, but if those things are not true, or if those things happen to be true but my belief in them is the result of capricious Alpha Centaurian cognitive scientists, a Cartesian evil demon, dumb luck or brain lesion, I can't be said to know them. Back to our case. Intuitively, the man subject to hallucinations forms the belief The wind is blowing, but there is something amiss with his so believing. It's true the wind is blowing, and he believes the wind is blowing, but the connection between the way the world is and his belief is skewed. He doesn't believe the wind is blowing because of the way the world is but because he suffers from hallucinations. His friend, on the other hand, comes by his belief through the proper functioning of his sensory organs and his cognitive faculties. Thus his belief is (or at least can be) knowledge.

For the first case (wish fulfillment), how did that person arrive at a belief in God? We understand that person wishes for it, but where does the concept originate?

The concept may originate where you please. But the man's belief in the concept arises out of a psychological need unrelated to truth. That's why, even if it's true that God exists, if you come by your belief in this way, your belief isn't knowledge.

My main point is that every concept is mental, but not every concept is knowledge. Knowledge a belief that is formed by truth-conducive methods. The world and the belief are appropriately related by sensory and cognitive processes that are aimed at providing true beliefs. To the extent that our beliefs are not so formed, they don't constitute knowledge.

 

[Dunemeister]

That's one way of looking at it.

Yep. The one right way.

 

[Dunemeister]

People want to believe that there is a cosmic force that enforces their idea of what is "fair". That is where God came from. Unfortunately the universe does not agree with humanity on what is fair and unfair.

That's the wish fulfilment angle I mentioned in response to Guitar's Cry. If a person believes in God through a mechanism like this, the belief may be true, but there's little to be said for it from an epistemic point of view. It's true but just by dumb luck. At best, we wouldn't know how to assess such beliefs and agnosticism would appear to be the appropriate stance to take.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm challenging the idea that of two people with differing beliefs, one must be wrong.

Back to Aristotle, eh?

Trivially, beliefs might be different but both might be right. I believe that 3 + 5 = 8, and you believe that Bismark is the capital of North Dakota. Both of these propositions are different but both are true.

Also trivially, beliefs might be different but both might be wrong. I believe that 3 + 5 = 7, and you believe that Bismark is the capital of South Dakota. Both of these propositions are different and both false.

But I don't think that atotalstranger has something like that in mind. Rather, the idea is probably that contradictory propositions can't both be true at the same time and in the same way. You believe that Bismark is the capital of North Dakota. I believe that Bismark is not the capital of North Dakota. These beliefs cannot both be true. Either Bismark is the capital or it's not. Period. I think it's this idea that underlies what atotalstranger is on about.

 

[dogsgod]

Back to Aristotle, eh?

Trivially, beliefs might be different but both might be right. I believe that 3 + 5 = 8, and you believe that Bismark is the capital of North Dakota. Both of these propositions are different but both are true.

Also trivially, beliefs might be different but both might be wrong. I believe that 3 + 5 = 7, and you believe that Bismark is the capital of South Dakota. Both of these propositions are different and both false.

But I don't think that atotalstranger has something like that in mind. Rather, the idea is probably that contradictory propositions can't both be true at the same time and in the same way. You believe that Bismark is the capital of North Dakota. I believe that Bismark is not the capital of North Dakota. These beliefs cannot both be true. Either Bismark is the capital or it's not. Period. I think it's this idea that underlies what atotalstranger is on about.

Invisible God/s exist or they don't.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Knowledge is the object of knowing, and belief is the object of believing. When we believe something, we are stating that we are sure something exists, and when we know something we are stating something exists.

I have to concede that there is a difference, but I'm still liable to put belief in the category of knowledge, because it appears to be an act of "knowing."

Actually, come to think of it, I should say I put knowledge in the category of belief.