A Psychological Argument for the Existence of God
10/11/2022 2:09 AM MST
psychology
Preface: Why am I doing this? Because I question if anyone has attempted a proof coming from a science oriented background. Obviously this being a lofty topic, I intend to prove God from the perspective of individual psychology. If belief in God yields benefits to the mental thought process, then one could conclude that God exists at least as a concept. This conjures notions of Plato’s forms. Is God of the form of Godliness or Gods? Many questions unfold as one undergoes the experiment.
The most likely center of morality in the brain lies in the conscience. People experience guilt or shame when they’ve done something wrong, even when no one is around to catch them. Are they afraid of ghosts, God, or simply leaving evidence they might not be aware of? In the middle case, those that do fear God view someone like this with derision because it seems obvious that to avoid trouble they should simply follow God’s wishes. Of course, this argument doesn’t carry much weight with intellectuals as they have to experience or understand things for themselves to accept it, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily. Knowledge takes time to evolve and sometimes things must resist change as a means of buying time to search for counter-evidence thus allowing the individual to resume living without having to update their world view (a time consuming and spiritually painful process at times.)
This is obviously evidence of intellectual conservatism! The next time you’re losing an argument against an atheist, feel free to accuse them of this. If nothing else, they are too lazy to form an argument against it (energy conservation.) Egg them on!
A brief example of belief in God transforming the thought process:
1. A person may be in a local convenience store and short on money. They see an item they want and enter a thought process: “Should I steal this?” First, the thought conjures an emotion: desire for the item. If the person is wise, they are infused with fear of punishment of being caught. How does the thought then resolve from this point? I’ll examine it from two perspectives: from the perspective of an Atheist, and from the perspective of a Christian.
a) Atheist Thought Process
1. Are there cameras? Is anyone looking? Will they hear me steal the item? Will anyone I know report me for doing it?
b) Christian Thought Processes
1. I know that God wouldn’t want me to do this.
Analyzing both thought processes, one can conclude that both individuals came to the same action-conclusion. So then what does it matter why they chose this course of action?
This is where I’d argue the benefits are not external, but internal. While the Atheist is worrying, scheming, and devising the Christian simply ignores the desire to steal due to the moral wrongness of the act. This in turn leads to a feeling of victory over temptation. In the Atheist’s case, if anything they may feel pathetic or that they’ve been defeated by modern security.
This is just one example, but I think, if one analyzes it with scrutiny, one will agree that the Christian has an advantage. They likely are less stressed as a result of the situation, and are likely to make the right decisions to fulfill the desire.
The most likely center of morality in the brain lies in the conscience. People experience guilt or shame when they’ve done something wrong, even when no one is around to catch them. Are they afraid of ghosts, God, or simply leaving evidence they might not be aware of? In the middle case, those that do fear God view someone like this with derision because it seems obvious that to avoid trouble they should simply follow God’s wishes. Of course, this argument doesn’t carry much weight with intellectuals as they have to experience or understand things for themselves to accept it, which isn’t a bad thing necessarily. Knowledge takes time to evolve and sometimes things must resist change as a means of buying time to search for counter-evidence thus allowing the individual to resume living without having to update their world view (a time consuming and spiritually painful process at times.)
This is obviously evidence of intellectual conservatism! The next time you’re losing an argument against an atheist, feel free to accuse them of this. If nothing else, they are too lazy to form an argument against it (energy conservation.) Egg them on!
A brief example of belief in God transforming the thought process:
1. A person may be in a local convenience store and short on money. They see an item they want and enter a thought process: “Should I steal this?” First, the thought conjures an emotion: desire for the item. If the person is wise, they are infused with fear of punishment of being caught. How does the thought then resolve from this point? I’ll examine it from two perspectives: from the perspective of an Atheist, and from the perspective of a Christian.
a) Atheist Thought Process
1. Are there cameras? Is anyone looking? Will they hear me steal the item? Will anyone I know report me for doing it?
b) Christian Thought Processes
1. I know that God wouldn’t want me to do this.
Analyzing both thought processes, one can conclude that both individuals came to the same action-conclusion. So then what does it matter why they chose this course of action?
This is where I’d argue the benefits are not external, but internal. While the Atheist is worrying, scheming, and devising the Christian simply ignores the desire to steal due to the moral wrongness of the act. This in turn leads to a feeling of victory over temptation. In the Atheist’s case, if anything they may feel pathetic or that they’ve been defeated by modern security.
This is just one example, but I think, if one analyzes it with scrutiny, one will agree that the Christian has an advantage. They likely are less stressed as a result of the situation, and are likely to make the right decisions to fulfill the desire.