1a. I am aware this may be in the wrong category, but, if you read below I would need to post in two different categories to be certain of a good response, even then I’d probably be moved because of the title.
1b. This is not a debate on whether god exists.(Take that over to the many threads dealing with that subject)
2. Believers, please do not post: ‘‘GOD RULES’’ and leave, your views are welcome as long as you read rule No.1b and agree.
Some interesting points were brought to my attention on numerous threads regarding this subject. I don’t know if this statement is true, hence the ?'s.
I would like to hear if anyone has any evidence supporting this, or indeed, refuting this and if you do have evidence pertaining to the latter I would like some insight into a possible non-spiritual explanation to do with, perhaps, psychology and the like.
Check out The God Gene and some of the other books suggested underneath it, like “Why God Won’t Go Away” by Newberg and “The God Part of the Brain” by Alper.
I think that there is a strong case for a physiological/genetic predisposition to believing in some divinity. Stimulate the right area of the brain, and people will think they see the god of their believing or at least feel the presence of some “otherness” in the room.
What do you think about X’s statement TM? Do you think that a physiological/genetic predisposition might account for some folk’s belief that god is real?
Of course RC, we are naturally predisposed to find comfort, be it physically, or emotionally(which is just physically). While it may not be what some or most people use it must account for some. In fact I know someone who does and I’ve told them, but they don’t understand my logic…or half the words I use for that matter(yes one of those guys).
I don’t think it can be said to offer evidence either way. I’ve used it to argue against the existence of God before, but Ucci quite correctly pointed out that since our brain is a physical thing and our brain is able to comprehend the notion of God, it makes good sense that our brains should be able to conceive of the notion of God.
I can’t argue with that logic. Now, I don’t think it offers proof for the reverse, that God is true. Fung Yu-lan discussed the difference between the “real” and the “actual” in “The World and Principle” and I think that serves as a good argument against the ontological argument (which is where that line of thinking as proof leads). A pink elephant is “real” because I can imagine it, the concept is a real concept but it is not “actual” (there aren’t any pink elephants unless somebody pisses PETA off and uses a can of spray paint). I know there are other arguments against the ontological argument, so you can take your pick as to which one you like