The idea [not a concept] of a God is borne out of an inherent psychological desperation pulsating at the subliminal levels of the mind and this is reinforced by faith. Analogically this is like the control of “zombie parasites” over the minds of their hosts.
This belief in a God comes in degrees depending on the psychological theistic state of the person from being a dogmatic fundamentalist to an agnostic.
The point is once a belief in God provides a soothing relief to the related psychological angst it is difficult for theists to let go of theism and they will defend such a belief to the extreme most of even killing disbelievers when they feel their security of theism is threatened.
Because the psychological stakes are very high, theists will come with all sorts of defense arguments to justify God exists, but these arguments are all without substance and real groundings.
Because the idea of God is borne out of psychological desperation and conjured without evidence [except by faith], no one has ever been able to prove with evidence god exists as real.
The belief in a god out of psychological desperation has ‘evolved’ over the ages from an empirical related God [the bearded man in the sky] to the highest and greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] one can think of.
However the greatest absolutely perfect God [ontological] is baseless and as the OP proved such a God relying on absolute perfection is an impossibility.
The only validity and utility for the idea of God is solely a psychological one and must be resolved on such a psychological basis. Since thousands of years ago, many [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and the likes] has resorted to its true nature, i.e. the psychological factor to deal with that associated inherent existential crisis.
Point is the that ‘zombie’ effect [psychological impulses] is active in the majority of humans who are atheists and others, while it is dormant in genuine non-theists who has the capacity to modulate or suppress such impulses.
In humans it is not actually a parasitic infection, but the state of the human mind [as evolved] is such that it enable a kind of neural and mental processes to emerge that drive humans [zombie-liked] into theism and other secular psychological issues.
Although an interesting theory, what you seem to be missing is that you are infected. Frankly, according to the theory, how would you (or anyone) know? As long as you have an opinion (as you obviously do) you are suspect for infection.
As an evolved human being, DNA wise, yes I am inherently infected with this “zombie parasite”.
But since I am not a theist, it meant that this “zombie parasite” [theistic aspects] must be inactive and dormant within my brain. Point is I understand its processes and how it work, and I am able to suppress and get immunity from it at present.
This inherent zombie parasite is dormant in my system but there is no guarantee it will be permanently dormant. It could reactivate and be active in me if I am not careful or is caught in certain conditions that could trigger it to be active. So I am treading very carefully to ensure this inherent “zombie parasite” don’t get reactivate within my brain.
Note the once world famous atheist, Anthony Flew turned deist in his later life when the “zombie parasite” got reactivated and he turned to God.
How would any one know?
By default if one is a theist, then the “zombie parasite” is active and one is subliminally compelled to believe in a God to soothe the rising psychological angst.
In the secular world, those with an active “zombie parasite” would turn to drugs to soothe their psychological pains [explicit or subliminal] and they cannot stop [when under control by the “zombie parasite” ] even when many understand the heavy risks/threats of the side effects of drugs to their life and others.
Beside compelling many to being drug addicts, the “zombie parasite” also drive many to commit other evils and negatives that negate the well-being of the individual and that victim while aware of the danger, could not do anything about it but continue to destroy oneself.
Some can wake up and suppress the “zombie parasite” but the majority cannot.
Since the problem is psychological, the solution to it has to be psychological, i.e. psychotherapy as in Buddhism, various Eastern Religions, existential psychology and the likes.
Yes, but as Satyr will insist, that all revolves around understanding “human nature” in precisely the same manner as he does. And that revolves in turn around certain “biological imperatives” relating to such things as race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. And those who grapple with things like value judgments and religion [God] are only rational to the extent that they share his own narrative.
Why? Because he does not see it as just another subjective narrative at all. On the contrary, he construes himself as embodying the whole objective truth regarding every and all human behavior.
And there are many, many more just like him. Yes, they do share his judgment that there is but one whole objective truth here, but they assure him that it is not his. How could it be when it is theirs? And just as Satyr sees all the other objectivists [more or less derisively] as “one of them”, all the other objectivists see him [more or less derisively] as “one of them” too.
What I do is to explore the extent to which individual “goals” are rooted existentially in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts derived from actual sets of experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge.
Then I invite folks like Satyr to examine their own value judgments by bringing them “down to earth” and exploring actual contexts in which their own value judgments precipitated conflicting behaviors with others.
I invite him to probe his own assessment of where genes stop and memes begin.
Yes, people are different genetically. And people have entirely unique interactions with others in the world of memes. How then are we to understand the interaction between nature and nurture pertaining to a particular context out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view? What can philosophers tell us definitively here? Are there entirely natural and entirely unnatural behaviors? Are there behaviors judged by God? Are there moral obligations derived rationally [deontologically] from categorical imperatives? Are there political ideologies rooted in Science [Marxism] or in Reason [Objectivism]?
Yes, this seems reasonable to me. But it still all comes down to the distinction that I make between those who “argue” or “define” God and absolute/objective value judgments into existence “in their head”, and those able to demonstrate empirically, scientifically, logically, epistemologically etc., that what they believe in their head is what all reasonable/rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Whether that means demonstrating that God is an impossibility or demonstrating that, sans God, mere mortals are able to describe philosophically the difference between right and wrong, good and bad behaviors
Okay, but how is this assertion not just another example of a proposition said to be true because the manner in which you define the meaning of the words used in the proposition itself [in that particular order] is by default to be accepted as true by everyone reacting to it?
Instead, what we often find [on threads like this] are dueling “intellectual contraptions”, “intellectual concepts”. Nothing is ever really resolved because “truth” here revolves entirely around words defining and defending other words.
And you have demonstrated this — how? Instead you merely assert it given your own understanding of the words that encompass the assertion itself!
Clearly, if God is not an impossibility there are. But how would that be demonstrated?
So, how far out on the limb are you willing to go here? Mathematics, the scientific method, the laws of physics, chemical interactions, meteorology, geology, technology, engineering, logic etc. Nothing here [in the seeming either/or world] can be “proven” or “disproven”? In what sense — solipsism? Hume’s correlation/cause and effect disjunction? A Sim world? demonic dreams?
You argue both that there is plenty of evidence for “intelligence” but that nothing can either be “proven” or “disproven” using this intelligence. I must be misunderstanding you.
Again, though, when I note…
You note…
We are clearly stuck then. While insisting that “…my study of intelligence, contrary to what you’re trying to say here, is based on observations of how living organisms act…”, you project [to me] as but one more or less autodidactic insisting that only if others accept your own scholastic conclusions [encompassed in your own world of words] regarding how they act, are they really intelligent at all.
Which, by and large, is basically what they are saying about you. Then around and around [“conceptually”] you [and folks like James] go.
“ill” ?? that is your rhetoric.
Within all humans there is a range of psychological problems and it is critical all humans recognized and accept they have these problems. Denial will hinder prevention and psychological progress.
Generally what is term ‘ill’ is recognized in the DSM-IV
Theism is not listed in the DSM-IV so I would not termed it “ill” but theism is nevertheless some sort of psychological problem suffered by the majority of humans.
There is no denial, throughout the history of mankind theism has caused untold sufferings to humans when SOME believers are inspired by their God to commit terrible violence and evils.
Therefore it is critical we research to find out the ultimate root causes that inspire such violence and all sorts of theistic related evils. A philosophy forum is one of the most appropriate place to discuss these ideas.
I believe once we have understood the origin, mechanics, operation and process of this “zombie parasite” in the human brain on a neural basis, humanity will be able to prevent much of theistic related evils and violence. [note all evils and violence must be addressed but this theistic related forum is not the place]
We can’t even discuss your syllogism without you going into your views on the psychology of theists. It taints all your threads.
I think what James was saying when he called you a theist is that you are a preacher on a soapbox and you are as blinded by your beliefs as a “true believer” theist preacher. In your case, the savior is Kant and the bible is the collection of his writings.
Ask yourself what the impact would be if Kant’s writings turned out to be wrong.
God is a mirror of our soul, a narcissistic tool to enable to see ourselves as a separate being , the author of the beginning of.the creation of our conscious awareness of our self.
Exactly. A “theist” is merely a single minded theorist, stubbornly worshiping his own little theory, a thought too far above the OPer for his consideration.
A definition cannot be followed without first interpreting it. You need to “complete it” with necessary information that is not specified within it.
As I’ve said before, in order to determine whether any given shape is a circle or not you have to choose a finite number of points on the boundary of that shape.
You choose a finite number of points on the boundary and you check to see that every point is at an equal distance from the center of the shape.
If that’s the case, you declare the shape is a circle.
If it is not, you declare the shape is not a circle.
The definition DOES NOT specify how many points you should pick.
The definition says that “every point must be the same distance from the center”.
But what does “every point” mean?
It must be interpreted.
If you interpret it to mean “every point that can be identified at every viewing distance” then no test can be performed because the number of viewpoints is not specified.
You must choose a number of viewpoints. You don’t have to it do consciously though. You can, for example, say that you are not choosing a number of viewpoints. But if your actions consider only a finite number of viewpoints, which they have no choice but to do so, then it’s almost the same as if you consciously chose a number of viewpoints.
The number of points does not have to be determined by need.
It can be determined by anything else, such as, for example, a dice roll.
It does not matter because in both cases the missing information is defined by context.
And what is context but information that surrounds (i.e. it is outside of, it is external to) the information that you are focusing on?
In humans, the number of points is to a great extent determined by visual system.
The definition takes things . . . out of context.
It makes them simple.
It is a big mistake to put aside the psychological factor whenever it involves human thoughts and actions.
I have to take JSS literally, he did not put the term theist in ‘…’
I do not agree with Kant on a 100% basis. I have spent 3 years full time on Kant’s theories and have understood them sufficiently to be reliable and his theories complement with those of Buddhism.
When arguing for my thesis in this case, I refer other fields of knowledge, psychology, Buddhism, biology [e.g. zombie ants], neuroscience and others.
Yes, God is a critical psychological necessity due to an inherent existential crisis driven by "zombie parasites.’
It is like a child needing a security blanket to cling to and talking to imaginary friends for psychological comfort and other reasons.
But psychological necessity do not translate to possibility and reality.
If you insist God is a possibility [empirically] then prove it.
In my book, there is only one ~~ that of total mystery.
The more characteristics we give to this god, the more imperfect it becomes since it is based on human assumption, projection and subjective thinking.
