God: Real or Imagined - A Titan says NO

[Atlas]

I have long been fascinated with the spiritual experience and the emotional states that we achieve in those experiences. For me, they were the very 'Touch of God' and the first hand evidence proving the existence of God. Scripture was unnecessary for the experience but brought me into a community of believers who shared similar ideas and forced an understanding of the supernatural being.

In this post I'd like to investigate the origins of those feelings. I feel there are implications for atheists and religionists alike and solicit input from all quarters on this work in progress.

What is the genesis of the spiritual emotional feeling? I am hypothesizing that the brain is hard-wired for it. We learn to achieve pleasant states, perhaps even ecstatic states, through our attachment to authority. Mothers are the first authority in our infant brain. Through her we develop knowledge of authority and experience great good feelings. As we age the number of authorities and the kinds of emotional states available increase. We learn that our near authorities serve higher authorities and we transfer measures of subservience to them (teacher/coach/priest/state). I think this is an evolved behavior that is advantageous for the individual and society.

I reference the infant brain because I believe that this goes on under the level of conciousness and we then use conciousness to manufacture rationale.

I'm concerned that once we transfer to the highest authority, (God), and are deriving good feelings from subservience to this authority, that we are manipulated externally by nearer authorities that 'define' our highest authority. And here is where we can be led to self realization or into intellectual slavery.

The brain evolved to help us feel good in service to authority (hypothesis). Apart from the fact that it can go bad - It can go quite good. One can take control and full responsibility, can become the authority of his own life, and can understand where the warm fuzzy spiritual feelings originate. Deciding their value is a separate endeavor.

Like many, an early crisis of faith left with me emotional scars only time could heal. I've been trying to understand all these years how a storyteller/priest/shaman got me so wound up. I was manic about "God and me" one day, felt rotten the next and fearful that I was a terrible sinner because I just couldn't get back to yesterday's feelings. And what did I do, I sought out the storyteller/authority once more for guidance. A vicious circle for a questioning and doubting young person. But also many days of elation. Everything about my relationship to God had to do with feelings. My thoughts of God produced feelings of joy and pain.

This led me to a strange question for a onetime Cartesian thinker... From what was my old concept of God derived: a thought or a feeling. I have answered: Feeling (Rationalizations were later employed in support of those feelings. Scripture and ritual too. )

An implication here was that the good feelings would disappear if the 'external' authority of God, implied by the concept to which I had attached, disappeared in rational annihilation. This happened and it hurt when God ceased to be.

However, I was later able to prove that those states can be reachieved in self realization combined with the will to achieve them.
By claiming the authority and responsibility for my own feelings I was able to let them all happen again. What had, in times past, been my surest evidence that God existed had suddenly become evidence that people are credulous enough to believe that an imagined entity was choosing to provide feelings (or not) based on their imagined states of sin or grace.

I think few people who say goodbye to the 'Touch of God' try to get the feelings back. It happens beacause of any of 3 reasons. They never defined God as a feeling; Or didn't value the emotional states of a spiritual experiance (they may have never had one); Or didn't have the desire to assume personal responsibility and authority for their feelings.

Coming to these conclusions, faulty or not, gave me a framework for understanding how we arrive at our notions of God and our dogmatic adherence to what can be counterproductive and mentally dishonest life strategies. Likewise it provided me a way to escape the fear when no piece of scripture or twisting rationalization returned me to the feeling that my God was near.

I offer this hypothesis as an alternative to the notion that God is a supernatural being and that God is a figment of our imagination. God is the result of our species natural and evolved inclination to serve authority. It starts in infancy and operates unconciously. It manifests in feelings that occur against the wonders of 'creation' (Sunsets, Grand Canyon, Night Sky, Lover's Embrace) that we accept as gifts from the ultimate authority over all. It goes by the names of grace, blessing, love, peace, ecstasy and the sublime. Assuming authority for our own feelings steals fire from the gods, benefits mankind and makes us Titans.

[Tricky]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

(comments later)

[Abdul Alhazred]

Excellent! Here I was already fixing to be nasty and sarcastic about you calling yourself a Titan, but I can't. Bravo!

I'll be nasty and sarcastic to you later if you stick around, but please stick around. :p

[Zero]

Don't forget the ecstatic feelings that come from group behavior, which appear in churches, temples, and revival tents. There is something primordial about a group of people chanting in unison, that seems to stimulate a certain part of the brain, and creates a "group hypnosis", almost. The true believers will call it the 'presense of God', even though you can get the same experience at a rock concert or soccer match(usually with a riot breaking out, probably because there is no priest guiding the group in that altered state, to talk them down out of their trance.)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't forget the ecstatic feelings that come from group behavior, which appear in churches, temples, and revival tents. There is something primordial about a group of people chanting in unison, that seems to stimulate a certain part of the brain, and creates a "group hypnosis", almost. The true believers will call it the 'presense of God', even though you can get the same experience at a rock concert or soccer match(usually with a riot breaking out, probably because there is no priest guiding the group in that altered state, to talk them down out of their trance.)

In college theater I had an experience on stage where for a moment in a pause of silence I felt a complete unity with and control of the audience. Afterwards I described it to myself as having them in the palm of my hand. Theater can be a good metaphor because in it the audience willingly suspends belief in what they know is real for a fiction that offers a range of psychological states.

I think too that the 'Stockholm Syndrome' might be a profound but lower order example of an irrational disorder of authority attachment. I haven't thought about it for a long time. Perhaps that is even how it was described by psychologists.

[Atlas]

I also don't want to lose sight of the implications for an individual's morality. I haven't thought this out very well. But it seems to me that the self actualized individual is comfortable within the bounds of his own authority - whether citizen, parent, preacher, or politician.

The 'God fearing' need to act as an agent of the Being they imagine offers them blessings and afterlife.

The 'God using' - Osama types - know that and exploit it.

[Dymanic]

I think that even once one assumes personal responsibility and authority for his feelings, he is left with a considerable challenge, because his feelings may not submit to his authority. The 'God concept' may be more than just a way to 'feel good'; it also has potential utility as a form of mind control that can be used on onesself. Though perhaps mentally dishonest, quite the contrary to being a 'counterproductive life strategy', such a tool might actually give its owner a distinct advantage in many situations. To say goodbye to the 'Touch of God' is to surrender this.

A lot has to do with the multi-level nature of thought and emotion. Our biological heritage includes quite a number of cognitive 'sub-processes', some of them (no doubt because of selective pressure to operate quickly) rather primitive. What we experience as consciousness is a dynamic composite of their outputs. We may not even be aware that these sub-processes are operating, but when we are, we may often find that we don't have much actual control over them. We find ourselves thinking thoughts that disturb us, disgust us, or frighten us, and be unable turn them off -- our only measure of control is to try to direct our attention elsewhere; to try to think about something else (probably without giving any thought to what other processes are providing the motivation for employing this tactic).

Perhaps even more than with (what we call) our 'thoughts', we may find ourselves at the mercy of emotions we didn't decide to have. Desire, fear, anger, etc, may arise at the most inconvenient times, and avoiding disaster may often depend on the ability to bring these under control. Sometimes, these emotions may be 'reasoned with', but it works best when it sounds convincing. The God idea fits this bill nicely because it is so consistent with the way our brains work with limited information to formulate probablistically favorable conclusions about the world around us (the idea that the world was created by an intelligent being is, after all, quite reasonable -- the whole business about the big bang, DNA, and all that is amazing largely because it is so incredibly unlikely).

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I think that even once one assumes personal responsibility and authority for his feelings, he is left with a considerable challenge, because his feelings may not submit to his authority. The 'God concept' may be more than just a way to 'feel good'; it also has potential utility as a form of mind control that can be used on onesself. Though perhaps mentally dishonest, quite the contrary to being a 'counterproductive life strategy', such a tool might actually give its owner a distinct advantage in many situations. To say goodbye to the 'Touch of God' is to surrender this...

Great post. Theres alot to what you say.

When you mentioned mind control it reminded me of an ugly scientific experiment. This has more to do with this thread than with your post...(Here's a 1 page description)

Does anybody remember The Milgram Experiment (http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)

[Dymanic]

I went exploring a little on that site and found more support for the automindcontrol theory:

This is a short table of twenty very practical weapons to use in your fight with temptation

Take Every Thought Captive - 2 Corinthians 10:5

Get Squeaky Clean on the Inside - 1 John 1:9

Go for the Positive Desire - 2 Samuel 11:1

Plead with God to Change Your Heart – James 1:14

http://www.new-life.net/weapons.htm

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Dymanic
This is a short table of twenty very practical weapons to use in your fight with temptation

Take Every Thought Captive - 2 Corinthians 10:5 ...

Dynamic,

Thanks for the tips. I agree that scripture provides many such rewarding strategies for holding oneself subservient, and for returning to the light when our passions flare. I also understand how rewarding subservience to the Ultimate Authority is. Being a slave to Jesus is the greatest wish for many. For myself and my path to self perfection, I can always use a few hints.

I, of course, no longer live by every word of holy writ. Scripture advises that the mind of God is essentially unknowable. And I believe that. It says some things that are wonderful. It tells us that Grace is a free gift... Free for the taking. That is, anyone can live a life of bliss. It could've stopped there, instead it exacts it's price. One I am loathe to pay.

So, while I appreciate that you are showing me techniques that might bring light in dark times I need you, for my sake, to go beyond Scripture. You may disagree with Polonius' advice to Laertes -- This, above all: to thine own self be true -- But you most certainly agree with that message of hope from Yogi Berra: It ain't over til the fat lady sings.

So mix 'em up. Scripture's good, so are platitudes. Let's agree there shall be - nothing by Brittany Spears or Madonna.
And it would also help if you'd give me a site that I can just click on for the revealed wisdom. Yes, I can be that lazy.

[c4ts]

I believe it was Nietzche who once said that God was a creation of man. Apparently humanity has not matured enough to have no further need of him.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by c4ts
I believe it was Nietzche who once said that God was a creation of man. Apparently humanity has not matured enough to have no further need of him.
I thought it was Emerson Lake and Palmer (http://www.hmg.hu/rock/progressive/emerson_lyrics.htm)

from "Hymn - The Only Way"

Don't heed the word, now that you've heard.
Don't be afraid: man is man made.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Atlas

I'm concerned that once we transfer to the highest authority, (God), and are deriving good feelings from subservience to this authority, that we are manipulated externally by nearer authorities that 'define' our highest authority. And here is where we can be led to self realization or into intellectual slavery.That's the problem. ;)

[neutrino_cannon]

Atlas, your post reminded me of something Carl Sagan wrote in Broca's Brain (but hey, what doesn't?).

He had mentioned something to the effect that near death experiences (and all clones thereof, like simple oxygen deprivation in a centrifuge) are all remarkably reminiscant of what would actually happen to an infant being squeezed out of the birth canal. He goes further to state he would be suprised if our manner of birth did not have huge effect on our religions.

I believe the subject is covered more in The Dragons of Eden , but I do not own that book.

Another wise and learned guru on such matters, Frank Zappa, likens life in slightly-less than-exact-terms as being a fantastically complex interplay of electrical charges and chemicals in our nervous system. When he wrote that, he was talking about it in relation to people who alter the dance of charges with drugs, but the same applies to religion and faith.

If someone alters their nero-chemical experience by believing really, really hard, or whatever it is they do (can't say I know), then how is that any different that drugs? One substance comes through a sticker they licked, the other they're making on their own.

Carring on with that analogy, Frank argued that the war on drugs was a huge waste of time for exactly the same reason prohibition was (a popular, and if I'm not mistaken, reasonable argument), so I see no reason then that religion should not be treated in the same way.

Plus, it'd be funny to see signs that say "do not operate machinery if you have prayed within the last five hours".

[Atlas]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Atlas, your post reminded me of something Carl Sagan wrote in Broca's Brain (but hey, what doesn't?).

He had mentioned something to the effect that near death experiences (and all clones thereof, like simple oxygen deprivation in a centrifuge) are all remarkably reminiscant of what would actually happen to an infant being squeezed out of the birth canal. He goes further to state he would be suprised if our manner of birth did not have huge effect on our religions.

I believe the subject is covered more in The Dragons of Eden , but I do not own that book.

Another wise and learned guru on such matters, Frank Zappa, likens life in slightly-less than-exact-terms as being a fantastically complex interplay of electrical charges and chemicals in our nervous system...


Mr Cannon,
Anyone who mixes Sagan and Zappa in the same post is not making utterences that will leave me unaffected. You're shooting protons my friend, not nuetrinos.

If Tricky above can quote Emerson, Lake and Palmer, I will, in solidarity with you, offer a pointless lyric of Zappa's. I believe it was as Billy the Mountain he cries: I've been juked by a baby octopus and spewed upon with creamed corn. A hauntingly familar description of a certain je ne sais quais of the human experience.

But it is your Sagan reference that intrigues. I should pick up those books. It is an idea that I have pondered, not exactly in the way you describe however.

I've wondered if the experience of the womb is the genesis for the spiritual experience known as: Oneness.

The womb is all of humanity's first experience. It is preconscious. Beyond that, it is a total everything experience. To the fetus, the womb is the universe. The womb and the fetus are one. If the fetus kicks, it must be an experience better defined as: The universe kicks itself.

When we are catapulted into the realm of the 'many things', the imprint of the Oneness experience lingers. It is powerfully attractive in our unconscious mind. I ponder it as the source of that yearning to feel part of the overbeing of the Oneness itself.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Atlas
I have long been fascinated with the spiritual experience and the emotional states that we achieve in those experiences. For me, they were the very 'Touch of God' and the first hand evidence proving the existence of God. Scripture was unnecessary for the experience but brought me into a community of believers who shared similar ideas and forced an understanding of the supernatural being.

In this post I'd like to investigate the origins of those feelings. I feel there are implications for atheists and religionists alike and solicit input from all quarters on this work in progress.


Your post was incredible!! I printed it out Saturday and read it my husband and we both absorbed it together. I think you are on to something!!!:)

[Atlas]

It is good for me to hear from you Ruby. Thank you very much.

[RandFan,Jr.]

RandFan here,

My son no longer uses this nic so I thought I would use it occasionally.

This led me to a strange question for a onetime Cartesian thinker... From what was my old concept of God derived: a thought or a feeling. I have answered: Feeling (Rationalizations were later employed in support of those feelings. Scripture and ritual too. )

An implication here was that the good feelings would disappear if the 'external' authority of God, implied by the concept to which I had attached, disappeared in rational annihilation. This happened and it hurt when God ceased to be.

Great thread. Coincidentally my family went to church yesterday as a favor to my Mother-in-law. I wasn't expecting it but I had many of the feelings that I had before. It's not just "feeling good". Saying so fails to convey the true essence of a spiritual experience (at least as what I have experienced). It would be like saying that falling in love or having sex feels good. The sun on my face on a spring day feels good, it does not compare however with strong emotional feelings of love or passion or the spiritual experience. Some have compared it to the feelings one gets at a pep rally. I think there are similarities but for me it is different. If I had to describe a spiritual experience I would say it is like being in love, a sense of belonging and experiencing a thrill ride like a roller coaster or white water rafting.

I should point out that not everyone who experiences spiritual feelings has the same experience that I do. My wife describes a feeling that is very different from mine. My brother who believes very much in god but has never been active in church says that he has never felt anything like I describe only that he feels certain that god lives and loves him. I have asked a number of people and have gotten very different responses as to spiritual experience and I have found that they (the experiences) vary.

[Gestahl]

Atlas,

Right on brother... great article. I have more extended explanation to your authority hierarchy. I am not sure that authority is the reason people flock to religion. Humans are social animals, and we crave social attention and approval. In order to belong to a "group," whether family, church, school, or JREF forums, it is necessary to modify your behavior to the acceptable norms of that group.

How are these norms decided? In every other social construct other than church and a true democracy, policy is dictated by one person or a very small number. No one likes authority for no reason... senseless limitings of our actions is stupid. We give up freedom to belong in a group.

But now we get to the heart of the matter. Christianity is the ultimate club to belong to in the US. People think you are a nice, decent person if you are Christian, you have a network of at least your church for job references, work, play, the list goes on. The more time you spend in the church, the more dependent one gets. Christianity promises to solve all your problems, and with the group support I see many churches have, they are not far off. Just like any other group, it makes you feel important, worthy, and increases those lovely brain chemicals that make you happy.

The only problem with this great social group is that it requires relinquishing free thought and action in order to belong, and to believe the same way the other people do. This is extremely dangerous, and in the hands of the wrong leader, we get David Koresh.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Gestahl
No one likes authority for no reason... senseless limitings of our actions is stupid. We give up freedom to belong in a group.


Gesthal - great post, Thanks

I'll think on your words too.

I've kinda wondered for some time if we talk up freedom not entirely for ourselves, but more so we can feel good about our conformity in a group of our choosing.

Kinda like 'up' masquerading as 'down'.

My philosophy needs work.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by RandFan,Jr.
RandFan here,
...incidentally my family went to church yesterday as a favor to my Mother-in-law. I wasn't expecting it but I had many of the feelings that I had before.

I know what you mean, I only get to church now for weddings and funerals, but when the ceremony is done right, something inside is stirred.

Yes, they can take many forms but the feelings are delicious and often indescribable. If you've read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' -- It's a Quality experience... nuff said.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Atlas


I know what you mean, I only get to church now for weddings and funerals, but when the ceremony is done right, something inside is stirred.

Yes, they can take many forms but the feelings are delicious and often indescribable. If you've read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' -- It's a Quality experience... nuff said.

You know what though... I get the same feeling listening to Pink Floyd, hearing secular pipe-organ music, having sex, and even discussing things here. That may be what drives humanity to greatness... not just petty hapiness, but those... hmm... "peak moments?"

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Gestahl
You know what though... I get the same feeling listening to Pink Floyd, hearing secular pipe-organ music, having sex, and even discussing things here. That may be what drives humanity to greatness... not just petty happiness, but those... hmm... "peak moments?"

Gesthal,

Yah. There is something deadening about our petty, mundane existence. But a new experience, or one relived as new with an open awareness can occasion a moment of deep appreciation.

In another thread I was pondering the definition of soul...

The natural world is just that - natural. We appreciate it as beautiful or harsh depending on the moment. But that appreciation is the soul of the soul, if you will. The beauty is in us and not in the surrounding objective reality.

I think it is a driving force, as you say. So is hunger and feeling cold. Nobody believes that those transcend death. But the feelings of soul sing "I am alive!" And when you hear it all with the music of Pink Floyd in the background - Well, you have to tell yourself that there's not a God or there must be.

Anyway the nature of soul has been on my mind lately. I still feel it is a useful concept. I sorta wish I knew another word that still carried the elevating loftiness of soul. In our self referential contemplation and appreciation of physical reality we do transcend it.

But 'Soul' carries all that religious baggage. I stand with a foot in two worlds of soul. One is deeply real and the other unreal, an offense to my sensibilities. I love playing with words. Somewhere along the way I'll figure it out or someone will clue me.

I hate when the argument heats up over a word that I define one way and my opponent defines another and neither of us can articulate a definition... It all gets to be kinda pointless.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Atlas
It is good for me to hear from you Ruby. Thank you very much.

Oh, you are quite welcome!

It's funny because one of the reasons I printed it out was because I could not grasp some it, and had to really sit and study it. I ended up reading/sharing it with my hubby, and at certain points I would stop and say "what does he mean?" and my dear intellectual hubby would explain what you meant. Anyhow, it was just an awesome piece......once I fully grasped it all. :)

Plus, it really "blessed" my hubby me hear it. So, thanks you so much for posting it!!!!:clap:

[RandFan,Jr.]

RandFan here,

Originally posted by Atlas
I hate when the argument heats up over a word that I define one way and my opponent defines another and neither of us can articulate a definition... It all gets to be kinda pointless. I once argued for days on this forum over the definition of "agnostic" as though there were some intrinsic value to it.

Words are just a way to comunicate. I agree with you that they can get in the way and we have to spend too much time explaining what we mean when the words we use are taken in the wrong context.

I like the word "soul", I like the word heart as in "he had heart".

Isaac Hays, Barry White, Luther Vandross, etc., have soul. And thank god they do (when I say god, I don't mean that in a litteral sense)

[Loki]

Atlas,

Absorbing post!

(Edited to add : But just want to point out that Titans don't really exist - only the Aesir and Vanir are real)

(And post more often RandFan, even as a jr!)