Sam you say that: “me” is a mental process that can some times do not happen, Don’t you think that God may be also a mental process, I mean if we observe believers, is like if they organize all the information they receive in a specific order that can fit in their believe of God existence, the same as we have with ” me”, so for example we atheist we don’t have that process some how ( God) but we have the scientific process, so we organize the information in another way than believers, It can be seen as if the believe of God is a reflect or a consequence of a type of mental process, and that why is almost impossible to talk to believers if you do not enter their process , they some how do not have access to the scientific mental process. That’s why they always go back to God even if the study science. So we have different ways to organize and interpret information. Why? that I don’t know do you? I suspect it must have to do with evolution of the brain, because even two brother that were educated in the same way one can be believer and one not, in my family I have those cases, and I come from a atheist family since my grand mother, but I have an uncle he is biologist, and Christian, so creationist, a very interesting case for me, my mother is mathematician and atheist, so they had the same education atheist education, I have to say that to talk with my uncle is very very difficult even if is not about God, so for me is like he has another kind of brain. I know many cases like him.
How can we explain this cases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5oh1F2UggY, “scientist” atheist converting to Islam:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IspK651RpY&feature=related
Mental processes or mental functions are terms often used interchangeably to mean such functions or processes as perception, introspection, memory, creativity, imagination, idea, belief, reasoning, volition, and emotion—in other words, all the things that we can do with our mind. Sometimes the term cognitive processes is used instead of mental processes; however, the term cognitive tends to have specific implications.
God can’t be a mental process because the notion is only in the mind if you’ve learned about it.
not so sure and here is my reasoning. The concept of the a mystical all knowing source has a few characteristics that are reminiscent of child development.
1) A force beyond understanding or of the 5 senses. (abstarction)
2) Object permanence. (that we “know” exists even though it is out of the detetcion of our senses
“Abstractions such as happiness, sadness, joy generally have emotional or limbic system connections.
To the undeveloped senses of the child the parent is both a concrete noun or thing and an abstraction. Infant perception is very poor . Studies suggest that a form of synesthesia is present in newborns. The concept of a protector from a mystical realm is quite possible given these undeveloped tools. Once this neurological groundwork or wiring is established the concept of a God is easily adapted. The wiring for belief is present.
Object permanence embeds due to emotional attachment. Object permanence is the human ability to understand that something exists even though it is out of reach of the sense. Children develop this skill relatively early. A parent leaving triggers the emotional response of crying.
As the child matures a new world requires protection beyond the mother. Wonder, nature, awe require anthropomorphic sources or first cause.
Proof of this lies in the history of burial. During evolution the first religious practice was burial. Object Permanence led prehistoric man to believe the abstraction of self, soul or consciousness were objects. Transcendent objects. Very much an infantile response to the realization of mortality.
These concepts were embedded through the same mechanism that create Object Permanence in infants.
The other thing that fascinates me are the “nones”. and why more?
The “nones” are those with belief in anthropomorphic “God” archetypes while having no religious affiliation. This is the remnant of the evolutionary concept of Object Permanence.”