Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is there any reason, any religion should still exist?

Rate this topic


dream_weaver

Recommended Posts

I think the answer can be found in the attributes Man assigns to the concept of a godlike self, but in the natural, not the supernatural, i.e., in what is attainable to a self-image of being stronger and more virtuous... more sublime.

There is a concept in psychology called the "prototype." Basically, the idea is that people form ideas about what an "ideal" instance of a category would be and then use that ideal to help classify instances of the category. For example, most people would say that the "ideal" dog has four legs, not three. There's not necessarily anything in reality that our prototype of a category directly corresponds to, it's just the "ideal" that we form due to our experiences.

Prototypes are different from concepts, as I understand it. Concepts are objective classifications of things, whereas prototypes are more subjective and can vary from person to person. They are more like heuristics.

Now, I would like to put forward a guess, which is that a person's concept of God probably maps pretty closely to their prototype of a human being. You can almost deduce that from the definition of God, actually. God is allegedly a morally perfect being, so if Bob thinks an ideal human would have a certain trait, like bravery, then we would expect Bob to think that God does in fact have that trait.

This is a testable hypothesis, and it is likely that an experiment has already been done on it somewhere (I can't be the first person this has occurred to). I would appreciate any input from people here who know more about psychology than I do.

Edit: I should add that obviously there are going to be certain differences between a person's concept of God and their prototype of a human being. For example, people obviously don't conclude that God has two legs because the ideal human does. The correspondence would only be in specific respects, and it would be interesting to see what those respects are exactly. I suspect that character traits like bravery are one such respect, as I mentioned above.

Edited by William O
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William said:

Prototypes are different from concepts, as I understand it. Concepts are objective classifications of things, whereas prototypes are more subjective and can vary from person to person. They are more like heuristics.

Now, I would like to put forward a guess, which is that a person's concept of God probably maps pretty closely to their prototype of a human being. You can almost deduce that from the definition of God, actually. God is allegedly a morally perfect being, so if Bob thinks an ideal human would have a certain trait, like bravery, then we would expect Bob to think that God does in fact have that trait.

How could a "prototype" (if that is a valid concept) possibly be a non conceptual device? I don't see this being capable of being stated meaningfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prototypes are different from concepts, as I understand it. Concepts are objective classifications of things, whereas prototypes are more subjective and can vary from person to person. They are more like heuristics.

I don't think this is quite right, this sounds more like a description of Platonism or maybe some strong form of essentialism where there is some pre-conceptual "imagery" used to form concepts. Prototype theory isn't about forming concepts, it's about categorization under a concept. The idea is that certain things fit better in a certain category, so a robin is more prototypical than a penguin. It's not that robins are "ideal" birds. It's not necessarily subjective, insofar as there is meant to be explanation as to -why- a robin is more prototypical, or if it matters. While I think it is ultimately a theory resting on rationalism and therefore leads to problems, a prototype theory doesn't aim to say there are ideal members of a category, only that when people categorize, it's a lot like using a stereotype.

If god is seen as an ideal human, then he'd be human, so yes, people would say god has two legs - if he's the prototypical instance, then he's just like all people. But now I'm curious as to -what- experiments have been done to see how people think of god in terms of categorization. I'll find some, I know I heard of a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

on't think this is quite right, this sounds more like a description of Platonism or maybe some strong form of essentialism where there is some pre-conceptual "imagery" used to form concepts

Objectivism holds that in the pre-conceptual stage one holds concepts via visual imagery, so I don't know what  point your making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that it sounded like pre-existing intrinsic imagery. The imagery part is fine, so I mean to say that what William described sounds like imagination is the source of concepts, or a sort of weird denial of concepts in favor of mental impressions. Anyway, it's not prototype theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you want to deal with what Hegel said of existence, "To be, is to be known". I think it would have been better to say "to be, is to be knowable". I do not see this as an axiomatic corollary though, and I don't see how we could say with certainty that all of existence is accessible to consciousness. Don't get me wrong, I like the sentiment, but can it be justified by analysis of axiomatic truths alone?  It's not obvious to me how. 

I think its obvious that anything that can be made accessible to consciousness can be identified, but that's another premise entirely.

Or, "To be unknowable, isn't to exist",  which is essentially what an atheist uses to dismiss the concept of God.  And I believe it can be justified by analysis of axiomatic truths by implication.

Suppose there were some part of existence (identity) that cannot be known.  That would contradict, "Consciousness is Identification", because there would be at least one case of consciousness not being able to identify that leads to, "Consciousness isn't Identification".  Remember that consciousness is part of existence, so accessibility by consciousness is presumed.

...

Now, I would like to put forward a guess, which is that a person's concept of God probably maps pretty closely to their prototype of a human being. You can almost deduce that from the definition of God, actually. God is allegedly a morally perfect being, so if Bob thinks an ideal human would have a certain trait, like bravery, then we would expect Bob to think that God does in fact have that trait.

...

I would substitute the word archetype because that carries the definition of, "a perfect example of something" we are looking for, but yes, I'd guess your observation is correct.  And we would expect Bob to attempt to persuade others to behave more like God (or Heroes) than Bob, which is problematic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, "To be unknowable, isn't to exist",  which is essentially what an atheist uses to dismiss the concept of God.  And I believe it can be justified by analysis of axiomatic truths by implication.

What do you think the atheist is dismissing? Your notion of God as little more than Man as he ought be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the atheist is dismissing? Your notion of God as little more than Man as he ought be?

The atheist dismisses the possibility of a supernatural God (correctly), but then jumps to the conclusion that a natural God also isn't possible (arguable).

Edited by Devil's Advocate
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're saying that there is a possibility of some entity who is very powerful, but still limited by natural laws. In other words, you're arguing like a modern agnostic, but limiting your claim. You're leaning toward the atheists' camp by ruling out the super-natural from your spectrum of doubt -- many agnostics do not. 

For example, there are some books that say that certain phenomena are only explained by saying that "people" from some advanced culture visited earth: the typical assumption is that these were aliens in spaceships. Your proposition.appears to be similar, except that you're not claiming anything that specific. Just that there could be a being out there who is way more powerful than us but limited by natural laws, just as we are. True?

I assume you're conceding there is actually zero-evidence for this. Because if you think there is even a tiny shred of evidence, then we should be examining that. If you, in your mind, think there is some shred of evidence, that that will obviously lead you to your position. In that case, it won't do any good to pretend that you would continue holding your position even if you saw absolutely no evidence. So: do you truly think there is zero evidence that any such being/entity exists: nothing that we observe that will almost certainly be explained some other way one day (i.e by not assuming a powerful being)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that the three typical definitions of God can be delimited to natural explanations.  If that is proven true, then questions about the origins of the universe within all of existence become arguable as to existence of a past, present or future physical designer.  I concede there isn't any direct evidence as yet, other than the manipulations of our environment on an atomic scale, i.e., we know how to blow s**t up.  Such evidence suggests the possibility of manipulations on a universal scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible that the three typical definitions of God can be delimited to natural explanations.  If that is proven true, then questions about the origins of the universe within all of existence become arguable as to existence of a past, present or future physical designer.  I concede there isn't any direct evidence as yet, other than the manipulations of our environment on an atomic scale, i.e., we know how to blow s**t up.  Such evidence suggests the possibility of manipulations on a universal scale.

And, you don't find the problem of infinite regress to make that possibility an impossibility?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point however, I'm only prepared to suggest that natural omniscience is not only implied by the axioms, but that dismissing it creates a contradiction with, "Consciousness is Identification."

I did not comment on this approach earlier but this form of reasoning is problematic:

  • XYZ is implied by the axiom
  • Therefore, XYZ must be true

This is classical "rationalism" (in the sense that Rand uses the term. It is faulty reasoning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, you don;t find the problem of infinite regress to make that possibility an impossibility?

If existence is finite, and I believe it is, then infinite regress is a contradiction in terms.

I did not comment on this approach earlier but this form of reasoning is problematic:

  • XYZ is implied by the axiom
  • Therefore, XYZ must be true

This is classical "rationalism" (in the sense that Rand uses the term. It is faulty reasoning.

 

Let X = Existence is Identity and Y = Consciousness is Identification

My use of Z depends on there being a logical (and literal) relationship between X and Y.  The only fault I can find is believing that something with identity cannot be identified.  Where is my error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All numbers have their own unique identity.

Do you think that all the numbers have been identified?

If yes, then this obviously does not address your question.

If no, do you think all the numbers can be identified?

If yes, then this still does not address your question.

If no, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose there were some part of existence (identity) that cannot be known.  That would contradict, "Consciousness is Identification", because there would be at least one case of consciousness not being able to identify that leads to, "Consciousness isn't Identification".  Remember that consciousness is part of existence, so accessibility by consciousness is presumed.

 

None of this follows. That consciousness is a capacity for identification does not mean all things are identifiable. Just as your capacity for vision is not exhausted by what you are seeing at any given moment,(to use an analogy from Greg Salimieri) the fact that there are unidentified existents does not negate that consciousness, the capacity/faculty of identifying existence, is a capacity for doing just that. 

By this logic you could assert that because round objects roll and rolling is a motion, therefore round objects are capable of any motion. To be capable of any motion does not imply the capacity for all motions. Its a non sequitur. 

Consciousness has identity. It has conditions that must be satisfied for identifications to refer.  You are assuming that all of existence satisfies the specific relational context that identity requires. 

DA said:

 

I think it's possible that the three typical definitions of God can be delimited to natural explanations.  If that is proven true, then questions about the origins of the universe within all of existence become arguable as to existence of a past, present or future physical designer.

You are still ignoring my criticism of your "creator". You are smuggling it in to your "natural god-designer". Your concept of "creation" is invalid and is an equivocation on what is meant by what any man has done, or will do. The reduction of this concept to its referents will eliminate this discussion.

 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not comment on this approach earlier but this form of reasoning is problematic:

  • XYZ is implied by the axiom
  • Therefore, XYZ must be true

This is classical "rationalism" (in the sense that Rand uses the term. It is faulty reasoning.

I don't think this is quite right.

What DA has done is actually said that X is implied by the axioms that is not.

I'd be interested in your account of the Oist analysis of axiomatic corollaries as relates to your notion of rationalism above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That consciousness is a capacity for identification does not mean all things are identifiable." ~ Plasmatic

Existence is Identity implies that all things are identifiable.  The Law of Identity states this explicitly, does it not?

"You are still ignoring my criticism of your 'creator'." ~ Plasmatic

I don't think so.  Neither of us can know what Man will achieve in the future, but we can eliminate what he can't achieve.  If omniscience isn't possible, then Man can't act godlike in that capacity.  I am arguing that omniscience is possible, and that nature can be commanded in a godlike manner by obeying it.

"All numbers have their own unique identity." ~ dream_weaver

All numbers belong to an infinitely long number line.  Does this seem like an appropriate analogy to actual existence?  But to respond to your questions: No, and No, because numbers are abstractions.

Existence is not an abstraction.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
cleanup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now...

DA said:

Existence is Identity implies that all things are identifiable.  The Law of Identity states this explicitly, does it not?

No, it doesn't. In fact the POE makes it clear that identity is not dependent on consciousness. Things are what they are whether a conscious being is around are not. That says nothing about the accessibility of all existents to consciousness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"All numbers have their own unique identity." ~ dream_weaver

All numbers belong to an infinitely long number line.  Does this seem like an appropriate analogy to actual existence?  But to respond to your questions: No, and No, because numbers are abstractions.

Existence is not an abstraction.

So the number line is not finite, rather it is infinite?

The Pythagoreans found number in many places, and in many things. Science relies heavily on math. It would seem that number, like existence, is ubiquitous.

But fair enough. Numbers are abstractions.

Isn't the concept of existence an abstraction? For that matter, aren't all concepts abstractions?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. In fact the POE makes it clear that identity is not dependent on consciousness. Things are what they are whether a conscious being is around are not. That says nothing about the accessibility of all existents to consciousness.

Identity is dependent on existents, and existents can be known. It is one thing to say there are existents yet to be discovered, or that existence is so vast that it's possible some existents won't be discovered, but asserting that some existents are undiscoverable effectively removes them from the realm of existence.

What is this unknowable existent of which you speak, I know not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is quite right, this sounds more like a description of Platonism or maybe some strong form of essentialism where there is some pre-conceptual "imagery" used to form concepts. Prototype theory isn't about forming concepts, it's about categorization under a concept. The idea is that certain things fit better in a certain category, so a robin is more prototypical than a penguin. It's not that robins are "ideal" birds. It's not necessarily subjective, insofar as there is meant to be explanation as to -why- a robin is more prototypical, or if it matters. While I think it is ultimately a theory resting on rationalism and therefore leads to problems, a prototype theory doesn't aim to say there are ideal members of a category, only that when people categorize, it's a lot like using a stereotype.

If god is seen as an ideal human, then he'd be human, so yes, people would say god has two legs - if he's the prototypical instance, then he's just like all people. But now I'm curious as to -what- experiments have been done to see how people think of god in terms of categorization. I'll find some, I know I heard of a few.

This is a useful criticism, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionable proof of omniscience?

1) Existence is Identity
2) Identity implies being identifiable
3) Consciousness is (the means of) Identification

Is there is some natural limitation on consciousness that prevents an ability to identify?  If so, then omniscience, defined as knowing everything that is knowable, isn't possible; but then consciousness as a means of identification also becomes dubious.  Otherwise omniscience not only possible but implied by the axioms.

Boom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Isn't the concept of existence an abstraction? For that matter, aren't all concepts abstractions?" ~ dream_weaver"

Some are more floaty than others. Existence is existents.

Aye. The devil is in the details. You can either anchor them down, or they drift about like so much  flotsam and jetsam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...