Philosophy Is god a form of entertainment for the brain ?

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
9,970
Reaction score
3,273
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
It seems that some Christian or other theist people admit that believing is god is nor rational and not in accordance with many logical arguments. Yet, they still believe. It is like the left hemisphere of their brain telling them "there is nothing to support the existence of an almighty creator god; why do you believe ", and their right hemisphere replies "because I want to, I need it".

Let me make a connection with the entertainment industry. Even very rational people like me like watching irrational movies like Star Wars, Harry Potter or some anime (e.g. Naruto). I know the story it's impossible, but it's fun to watch and try to feel "what it'd be like if it were true". I think that god believers' brains react a bit the same way. They decide to believe because it makes them happy or give them some inner strength, like by watching a movie. They are just more right-hemisphere dominated people than the atheists or agnosticists.
 
That's a really interesting possiblity.

I think people choose to believe in god/gods because it gives them structure that would otherwise be absent from their lives. Furthermore, as a symbol, god can be a very powerful tool for the subconscious. For people who can't believe in themselves, they can substitute with belief in god. For example, "I did well on this test because I placed my faith in god," could easily be resconstrued as "I did well on this test because I have faith in my abilities."
 
It might be interesting to see if religious people are more right-brain dominant. I took one of the tests on similarminds.com and got something like 70% left-brain dominant - not a surprise. I'm guessing your preference is even higher Maciamo.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
It might be interesting to see if religious people are more right-brain dominant. I took one of the tests on similarminds.com and got something like 70% left-brain dominant - not a surprise. I'm guessing your preference is even higher Maciamo.

Interestingly not. I took the test (see this thread) and got a "balanced-brain". It's probably normal; I have an overflowing imagination, very good orientation (3D skills) and enough creativity to be post over 5500 posts on this forum in less than 3 years and design most of this website. That is probably why my personality osciliates easily from ENTJ to ISTP, and why I can pass from posed consideration and scrupulous analysis to untamed partisan criticism.
 
"I did well on this test because I studied hard and was well prepared"
not a question of faith - just the knowledge of oneself :D :D :D
 
You all might be interested in this web site (click on 'The Premise'). I have heard him interviewed many times and although I do not agree with him, his theory on the "god part of the brain" in interesting to say the least.
 
It's a lot more difficult to construct your own world view than to follow something that's already constructed. On the toher hand, values form religions are deeply incorporated in cultures and the values they have... The enxt question you might want to think about is whether a religion constructs a society or vice versa ^^;
 
Some may call it "god mind"

Everybody brought up good points. I think the notion of god is another way of saying that I believe in myself like someone else had said previously.

For me, I drink sake so I associate sake as "god water" because it helps me enjoy the idea of drinking something that is made from rice and water; a pure and very simple drink that works well with foods such as sushi, and sashimi.


On another note, when I drink sake while sitting in a hot onsen with a beautiful Japanese woman in the middle of winter I feel "godlike" like I have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human evolution. I am god...
 
The head question :?

Hi, McTojo ! :wave:
Excuse me for asking, but how did you get such a big head ? Squeezing a 220 x 300 pixeled, 5.112 killer-bite pic into your avatar couldn't have been easy at all. Looks like something's big in it. :shock:

avatar16547_1.gif
..
avatar16547_3.gif

big.......................................... still too big

On another note, when I drink sake while sitting in a hot onsen with a beautiful Japanese woman in the middle of winter I feel "godlike" like I have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human evolution. I am god...
Aaah, I know what you are talking about, yeah, but sake is best taken warm out in the cold, and although that might not qualify to be called god-line, it sure feels warm n cozy. Now to have it in the onsen, you must have had it cold, right ?
But you are right on the mark; THAT IS the pinnacle of evolution provided it leads to the procreation of an offspring to be fostered into maturity ! :cool:
 
Last edited:
miu said:
It's a lot more difficult to construct your own world view than to follow something that's already constructed.

Well, it depends on how independent-minded a person is. Ever since I was taught about religion (5 or 6 years old ?) my mind couldn't accept the illogicism of some ideas. This only grew stronger as I learned how the world really was.

In fact, I sincerely cannot understand how people can live (let alone 'happily') with a conception of the world that clashes so much with reality and logics. People need to dream, but I feel sorry for those who just 'live in dreams' and are completely detached of reality. Maybe the average human (the religious type) is naturally schizophrenic. Or is it religion that has created a schizophrenic society to control them better ?

As we are with mental disorders, it's interesting to see the high percentage of Americans that suffer from paranoia (compared to, say the Japanese). This is best illustrated by the success of Hollywood movies where aliens come to destroy America (or the world, but it always start with the US :D ), or the number of government or terrorist plot stories. This is almost unique to the American cinema. I believe that paranoia is linked to a strong believe in Judaism or Christianity (more specifically in an almighty judging god, sinning humans and the apocalypse).
 
McTojo said:
Everybody brought up good points. I think the notion of god is another way of saying that I believe in myself like someone else had said previously.

I'd say the contrary. I believe in myself (my ideas and judgement), so I cannot believe in god or religions.

For me, I drink sake so I associate sake as "god water" because it helps me enjoy the idea of drinking something that is made from rice and water; a pure and very simple drink that works well with foods such as sushi, and sashimi.

On another note, when I drink sake while sitting in a hot onsen with a beautiful Japanese woman in the middle of winter I feel "godlike" like I have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human evolution. I am god...

Err... it seems that your image of god is closer to the Greco-Roman definition; something closer to "superhuman" rather than an entity able to create, alter and destroy anything in the universe, and know everything anywhere. If drinking sake watching at a half-naked woman makes you feel like god, then we are all 'at least' gods.
 
Hmmmm............I don't think I would believe that God was some sort of entertainment for the brain. Some of the most intelligent people believed in God. (i.e. Albert Einstien) Besides, isn't natrual for man to believe there is some higher power then himself? That God may be concept of Man, (or vise versa) this is just my silly opinion, but that's how I feel at times. An average religious type being schizophernic, huh? :? Don't know about that. Yes true most religious people believe that believing in God is irrational, but I guess that's where their concept of faith comes into play. :?
 
I see...

Maciamo said:
I'd say the contrary. I believe in myself (my ideas and judgement), so I cannot believe in god or religions.



Err... it seems that your image of god is closer to the Greco-Roman definition; something closer to "superhuman" rather than an entity able to create, alter and destroy anything in the universe, and know everything anywhere. If drinking sake watching at a half-naked woman makes you feel like god, then we are all 'at least' gods.

Okay, so let's see, let me give you something more along the lines of a monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god who overflows with compassion; wouldn't that be another way of describing god ?

Is god a form of entertainment ? the answer is a resounding NO ! Just ask some of our world leaders. I'm sure George Herbert Walker Bush could actually prove his existence by wielding his own authority while wearing god on his sleeve...

I think the notion of god is a very dangerous thing in every sense of the imagination. Entertainment NO !
 
McTojo said:
Is god a form of entertainment ? the answer is a resounding NO ! Just ask some of our world leaders. I'm sure George Herbert Walker Bush could actually prove his existence by wielding his own authority while wearing god on his sleeve...

I think the notion of god is a very dangerous thing
I agree with you that the notion of (a) God can be a dangerous thing politically, as a higher priority for what is not human could easily develop into a growing devalutaion of humans to extreme cases of dehumanisations as certain Christians in history and at the present have shown. Nevertheless, I politely choose to disagree if you should say so in general,
McTojo said:
the notion of god is a very dangerous thing in every sense of the imagination.
My reasoning is several-fold.

1) Religious thinking also worked culturally as a binding force amongst a group's members, offering moral/ethical guidelines when perhapas there were none, or not as much, before its emergence. Without a stable base of universally applying principles, more abstract thinking might not have been as readily accessible to the early men of civilisation without much abstract learning. Philosophy and metaphysics sprouted and developed in active cycles of stimuli and responses from/to the notion of God. For us modern beneficiaries of the industrialised, scientifically orchestrated production/consumption mode of subsistence, the origins of civilisation might not come within sight, but in fact the very idea of exploiting nature and people of one's out-groups to use as fitting is itself a very religious idea stemming from the Genesis. Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism 1904-1905, argued that the industrialist/capitalist mode of behaviour also grew out of the protestant idea of providence and seeking proof of God's love through accumulating capital as a duty required of a good Christian.

2) Anthromorphising God, (when, where it was part of the belief system), stimulated the human brain to ask questions that had not been thetherto raised, and to seek answers that had not been answered in the wee hours of human civilisation.

3) Great scientists and artists, who are known for their crativity, were often inspired by the idea of God's creating power, and sought to discover God's hand-works or imitate the inventiveness of God. As a result, they have made important discoveries in the prinicples of nature, and also created great forms that not only glorified God, but also elevated human culture & civilisation to greater heights. Isaac Newton wrote that he was only collecting shells on a shore, able to see farther only from atop a giant's shoulder.
 
Last edited:
I think religions also have to do with feeling safe. Dont they say that children feel safer when they have an adult around to be in charge of things? This probably doesn't apply to all people, but some atleast.

I once had a discussion with my brother, who's an ahteist, and came to the conclusion that science is his god in some ways - and he agreed. When you really think about scientists gathering at big conferences, giving speeches and presentations presentations about their views and research, doesn't it remind you of something? When he started referring to some atoms and such like that I pointed out that if they're so small you can't prove if they're really there, isn't it just the same as believing that god really exists :hihi:

We all need something to believe, it's just extremely disappointing when something you believed in turned out to be false for you... :worried:
 
miu said:
When he started referring to some atoms and such like that I pointed out that if they're so small you can't prove if they're really there, isn't it just the same as believing that god really exists

Actually, we already have pictures of atoms and its existence is just beyond reasonable doubt. What do you think pretty much all off Chemistry is based on? Magic?

Besides, there's many other ways to prove without any doubt something exists other than seeing it. If you don't 'believe' this you should stop using your computer and all technology right now, after all, the fact that they work is just a mere coincidence. :eek:kashii:
 
miu said:
I once had a discussion with my brother, who's an ahteist, and came to the conclusion that science is his god in some ways - and he agreed.

Well, sciences cannot explain many things, such as metaphysics (li. "beyond physics") which needs philosophical reasoning. Sciences also doesn't answer the moral questions, so lived only with sciences is for the least incomplete. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that analyses what is good or bad in religious morals, what can be added, and what we should keep for us in real life.

One of the problems with scientists is that they also lack knowledge of epistemology, so some might be fooled into believing into religion or god, just because of that. Those who think that sciences and god operate at different levels and are thus not exclusive, basically lack knowledge of epistemology and metaphysics. As scientists by profession are usually very specialised in one field, they also lack a broad understanding of science (e.g. physicists may not know well about medicine and neuropsychology). This give them a very narrow view of the world. So, don't trust too much the opnion of scientists that aren't philosophers too. If I may do this analogy, a scientist is like an accountant or a salesperson. They may know their stuff very well, but they lack the broader knowledge of other fields (marketing, research, production, HR) to become managing director. The head of a company should be a generalist with a broad knowledge of every field, so as to make decisions based on the overall view. That is the philosopher.
 
miu said:
I think religions also have to do with feeling safe. Dont they say that children feel safer when they have an adult around to be in charge of things? This probably doesn't apply to all people, but some atleast.
Yep - and the world isn't 'safe', so it has to be an illusion, IMHO. I'd rather be miserable in reality than happy in some false place - most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Tsuyoiko said:
It might be interesting to see if religious people are more right-brain dominant. I took one of the tests on similarminds.com and got something like 70% left-brain dominant - not a surprise. I'm guessing your preference is even higher Maciamo.

I took the challenge! :) I am 66% left brain; 32% right: "Left brain dominant individuals are more orderly, literal, articulate, and to the point. They are good at understanding directions and anything that is explicit and logical. They can have trouble comprehending emotions and abstract concepts, they can feel lost when things are not clear, doubting anything that is not stated and proven.

Right brain dominant individuals are more visual and intuitive. They are better at summarizing multiple points, picking up on what's not said, visualizing things, and making things up. They can lack attention to detail, directness, organization, and the ability to explain their ideas verbally, leaving them unable to communicate effectively.

Overall you appear to be Left Brain Dominant"

Then I took the Tickle Test and it said I was "balanced brained"...like Maciamo: That means you are able to draw on the strengths of both the right and left hemispheres of your brain, depending upon a given situation.

When you need to explain a complicated process to someone, or plan a detailed vacation, the left hemisphere of your brain, which is responsible for your ability to solve problems logically, might kick in. But if you were critiquing an art opening or coming up with an original way to file papers, the right side of your brain, which is responsible for noticing subtle details in things, might take over.

While many people have clearly dominant left- or right-brained tendencies, you are able to draw on skills from both hemispheres of your brain. This rare combination makes you a very creative and flexible thinker.

The down side to being balanced-brained is that you may sometimes feel paralyzed by indecision when the two hemispheres of your brain are competing to solve a problem in their own unique ways."

Guess this blows your wispy Christian theory, eh?
 
Pararousia said:
Guess this blows your wispy Christian theory, eh?
Not necessarily. Maciamo's 'theory' (actually a hypothesis) is about 'tendencies', and one counter-example doesn't disprove it, IMO.
 

This thread has been viewed 15143 times.

Back
Top