Let's say God is like love...?

Question

Or jealousy or anger...

and there is no physical or scientific evidence...

Brain scans can observe which regions activate when one feels it, but your only "proof" is that you experience it...


Does this mean that this subjective experience necessarily correlates to an objective entity or substance?

Could the experience of God be as real as the experience of love, but neither actually exists outside of the mind?

Answer 1

Yes. Wait ... no. Well, um, in a way. Damn, your questions always make me dig deep into minimally charted areas of my brain.

Suffice it to say that I agree with everything in your question except that last subordinate clause of the last question.

God is as real as love, which is the cause of the "experience of love," but both do exist outside of the mind. God and love are both energies, forces, and in God's case an actual entity (THE actual entity).

They can't be measured with geiger counters, but I don't equate them with the mere firing of synapses in my brain either. I see people equate spirituality with psychology all the time, and it leads to some very weird and funky theology.

Answer 2

11-T - I'd say that isolating the ideas of love, jealousy or anger from all evidence of their existance except for brain scans, will give you room to show your points as completely valid. To pigeon hole them doesn't give them a fair hearing, in my view.

In considering just love, I'm sure more time needs to be spent here on Y/A R&S discussing what 'love' actually is. Assuming that love, in total, encompasses measurable brain activity, you might argue that the experience of God is entirely the same thing - subjective, measurable brain activity.

In my view, there are so many problems with treating love this way. The emotional side of love might or might not be initiated by a subjective experience. It might just as easily be triggered by an objective force. For example, a mother defending her offspring from danger (say the mother pulled her child from a burning building) will likely trigger this emotional, subjective response from her young one. But was the cause of this emotional, measurable response from the child due to an objective action? It was. Does the triggered emotional response from the young one discount the existance of the objective actor, the mother? No, it doesn't. The mothers actions were real, not subjective.

My response to God might be subjective, but it is likely, in my view, in response to an objective act.

The other thought I had was the real changes I've seen in peoples lives after being 'saved'. Quite a few family members have seen habits, addictions, etc., drop off like dirty rags immediately after being saved. There are real, objective consequences when God decides to move in the physical world.

The other point I'd make is that from ancient times to present day, believers claim that God is love. Not an easily understood idea. Love is a strange thing.
----------------------------------

High 5, and happy weekend to you!

Answer 3

11-T - I'd say that isolating the ideas of love, jealousy or anger from all evidence of their existance except for brain scans, will give you room to show your points as completely valid. To pigeon hole them doesn't give them a fair hearing, in my view. In considering just love, I'm sure more time needs to be spent here on Y/A R&S discussing what 'love' actually is. Assuming that love, in total, encompasses measurable brain activity, you might argue that the experience of God is entirely the same thing - subjective, measurable brain activity. In my view, there are so many problems with treating love this way. The emotional side of love might or might not be initiated by a subjective experience. It might just as easily be triggered by an objective force. For example, a mother defending her offspring from danger (say the mother pulled her child from a burning building) will likely trigger this emotional, subjective response from her young one. But was the cause of this emotional, measurable response from the child due to an objective action? It was. Does the triggered emotional response from the young one discount the existance of the objective actor, the mother? No, it doesn't. The mothers actions were real, not subjective. My response to God might be subjective, but it is likely, in my view, in response to an objective act. The other thought I had was the real changes I've seen in peoples lives after being 'saved'. Quite a few family members have seen habits, addictions, etc., drop off like dirty rags immediately after being saved. There are real, objective consequences when God decides to move in the physical world. The other point I'd make is that from ancient times to present day, believers claim that God is love. Not an easily understood idea. Love is a strange thing. ---------------------------------- High 5, and happy weekend to you!

Answer 4

I think that a subjective experience (like God) does not necessarily correspond to an objective entity. For example, I can dream about a unicorn. That is a subjective experience that clearly does not correspond to an objective entity.

I think the experience of God can be as real as the experience of love. However, I think that using the subjective experience to assert the existence of something objective is invalid.

Answer 5

There was a study recently that suggested a specific zone of the brain connected to spiritual experiences - more recent research has cast doubt on this however.
At this time it appears that a spiritual experience is mediated by a large range of areas in the brain.
Many scientists, and myself believe that humans evolved religious belief, as surely as we did love and hate, explaining why it is universally present in our cultures.
However in this sense, yes, the 'experience' of God is as real as love - whether it is an illusion or not.

Tom xx

Answer 6

FEELING an experience - love, anger, God - does not make it Real. In fact our feelings and external perceptions are rarely accurate. Rather they are based on early conditioning that embeds these electro-chemical responses in the brain/body system before our thinking brain is fully developed enough to reflect on what is happening. But, human beings tend to "identify" with the physical feelings they are having and become trapped in the 3D hologram/reality that perpetuates the early pattern.

But, humans are not just their conditioned reactions. At our core we are WHAT we love which is our passion and purpose. Just as love is NOT a sentimental feeling, God is NOT an 'ecstatic' feeling which many serious people actually pursue.

God/Reality is the non-material field in which we are embedded and from which we have come, that is responsive to our evolved consciousness - our choices.

But, our conditioning causes psychological conflictedness. It is our ego's attachment to FEELING certain agreeable physical sensations (and avoidiing unpleasant ones) that keeps us trapped in littleness and suffering.

There is a higher, "authentic" self and a conditioned lower (ego) self that are in conflict. Ultimately who wins the internal battle determines our fate.

Answer 7

Ok, now it's on you and you will be guilty of deceiving yourself if you don't take the evidence you say you are seeking :
The spiritual brain : a neuroscientist's case, is a solid book just published in which the experiences of God (by Carmelite nuns) is put on as a solid a basis as the experience of everyday realities. You can of course now deny the reality of both, or you can thank God that you have some light shone to you... Your choice.

Answer 8

I can only answer for me. When I was epileptic I could see spirit as clear as you would see a person and I had love in my heart for everyone and everything. When they put me on meds I saw nothing and felt nothing.
Now Im not epileptic and rarely see things.
I am still able to feel and give love though.
I beleive that God is love and without Him (like me on meds)its impossible to feel or give unconditional love. Thats why in this age sexual love is more important for some because they dont have the true love that comes from within, only the love that needs to touch to be beleived.

Answer 9

Wait a minute, they compare their supernatural deity to an emotion, then offer the proof that the emotion occurs, which refutes the premise of their argument. There are chemical and physiological changes that occur with any emotion, that's evidence that those emotions are real. There is no evidence that their fiction deity is real, so the comparison is false by their own admission.

Answer 10

Good question.

I will say yes, the idea of god is as real as emotion, in how the concept exists, and how some are unable to keep it in check. However, I don't think god is a reaction, like emotions. I think god is a creation, a focal point for comfort.