Object permanence & the existence of God/gods
-
As a freethinker I usually donÂ’t mix religions with Psychology. But sometimes in order to demonstrate a point, I have to break my silence. I have a friend who is into child development; she is actually the boss of a childcare center.
One thing I don’t see eye-to-eye with her is that she likes to use the concept of ‘object permanence’ to support the existence of God/gods and the ‘backward’ mentality of non-believers. (I do not wish to turn this into another religions thread so I shall not disclose her religion)
According to the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) very young babies perceives the world around them as impermanent. Basically it means that if they are unable to perceive an object in a certain ways, it ceases to exist. For example if you takes a toy away from a baby while he/she is playing with and keep it away from his/her, he/she will simply lost interests in it. She/He may tries to grab it away from you, but once he/she canÂ’t see it, to him/her, it ceases to exist, out of sight, out of mind.
As we grow older we know very well that the world continue to exist although we may not see it. We understand the concept of object permanence.
So my dear friend loves to use this concept to belittle non-believers. She will bring in this concept and proceed to ask them why are they behaving like babies? If you are unable to see God/gods, does that mean that God/gods don’t exist? Of course those who have not read about Jean Piaget’s theory will be completely speechless and she will continues to ‘bombard’ them with all her other theories.
What I want to point out is that there is a flaw in her argument.
In object permanence, the baby has actually seen the toy. It was only when it was taken away from him/her when he/she perceives it as non-existence. Religion is all about Faith. To a religious person, he/she does not to see God/gods to know God/gods exists. As for non-believers, since they do not share the same faith, it is understandable that they would first want to be able to perceive God/gods in a certain ways before making a decision.
Thus it will be unfair to use the concept of object permanence to explain why non-believers do not believe the existence of Gods/gods.
So Cindy, did I answer your question?
-
Can see what religion it is liao.
Same concept can be applied the other round. If you cant see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or it wont exists. Vice versa, If you cant see it, doesnt meant it would absolutely exist. I guess this "object permanence' can be flawed if viewed from one side. -
x2. What you cannot see doesnÂ’t mean it does not exist. And what you can see doesnÂ’t mean it really exists. That is life.Originally posted by laurence82:Can see what religion it is liao.
Same concept can be applied the other round. If you cant see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist, or it wont exists. Vice versa, If you cant see it, doesnt meant it would absolutely exist. I guess this "object permanence' can be flawed if viewed from one side.
What I canÂ’t stand about her is that she loves to point out that by not believing in something because we cannot see it is having the mentality of a baby.
This I cannot agree.
-
The use of psychology to further a hidden agenda is offensive and certainly merits censure for professional misconduct.
In fact, the Psychologists' Registration Act in Australia was written because of such misconduct. Scientologists were offering free psychological tests to draw the unwary into their church, and as a result of this abuse and the ill-effects it had on the said unwary, the Act was introduced to ensure that quacks could not legitimately create damage by claiming to be psychologists.
Unfortunately, of course, that does not entirely stop quacks from wreaking havoc, as in your friend's case, DP. She's a classic case of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
You've hit the nail on the head there by showing how she has failed to justify a case of object permanence here. Because nobody has actually physically seen God, the principle does not apply. Excellent work!
In any case, she shows faulty logic here. While not seeing something does not confirm the lack of something's existence, it is a stretch to extend that conclusion as proof that something exists. Perhaps you could clobber her over the head with some Cartesian logic.
-
Baby dont understand perspectives, or seek to empathise with people. Tell her that.
Just as you would ask a child, what is justice, he might say "Its when he punch me, I have the right to punch him back" Its a very simplistic, and even childish to many, way of handling matters at hand.
To an adult, he or she might start talking about, perhaps its some wrong he has done before, must consider the fact the other party is in foul mood, and lotsa stuff...
Only when someone starts to consider factors leading or surrounding an event, will I consider that someone mature thinking. -
What is the Cartesian logic?
-
Cartesian logic refers to the work of Rene Descarte, who, apart from developing a lot of the miserable geometric and algebraic stuff that we had to suffer through in secondary school, was also a philosopher. The classic Cartesian line is, "I think - therefore I am".
Descartes' legacy was a school of logic that was based on mathematics, resulting in a very clear form of thinking in which conclusions are strictly based only upon what can be proven and clear relations between the bits of supporting evidence. -
Oh I see...Originally posted by Gedanken:Cartesian logic refers to the work of Rene Descarte, who, apart from developing a lot of the miserable geometric and algebraic stuff that we had to suffer through in secondary school, was also a philosopher. The classic Cartesian line is, "I think - therefore I am".
Descartes' legacy was a school of logic that was based on mathematics, resulting in a very clear form of thinking in which conclusions are strictly based only upon what can be proven and clear relations between the bits of supporting evidence. -
Thanks Gedanken. Learn something new today.Originally posted by Gedanken:Cartesian logic refers to the work of Rene Descarte, who, apart from developing a lot of the miserable geometric and algebraic stuff that we had to suffer through in secondary school, was also a philosopher. The classic Cartesian line is, "I think - therefore I am".
Descartes' legacy was a school of logic that was based on mathematics, resulting in a very clear form of thinking in which conclusions are strictly based only upon what can be proven and clear relations between the bits of supporting evidence. -
But in religions, there is a call for "faith", and run against Cartesian.
Some claim evidence comes from each religion holy scriptures...so how to explain all this? -
Exactly. Anything ending with "ology" implies logic, of which Cartesian logic is amongst the purest forms. Therefore, do not mix psychology and religion.Originally posted by laurence82:But in religions, there is a call for "faith", and run against Cartesian.
Some claim evidence comes from each religion holy scriptures...so how to explain all this? -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Hmm... I agree it is not right to mix psychology with religions.
Exactly. Anything ending with "ology" implies logic, of which Cartesian logic is amongst the purest forms. Therefore, do [b]not mix psychology and religion.[/b]
But to a certain extent I think it is okay to use psychology to explain why human turn to religion for example to acquire peace of mind, etc. Still, most books on Psychology do not discuss religious issue. -
Will there be any grey areas anyway?
I mean, some reconcile this difference, by stating evidences, logic, reasonings comes from their scriptures. Well, then they go into lengthy argument for it.
Of course I dont want to name any religion here, else will again get embroiled in another silly religious debate. -
wow.. some really thought provoking discussion going on here. interesting
carry on, i am listening. -
interesting!
-
its best to add to the pool of thoughts here, nobody after another's neck anyway....than to listen only...
-
well certainly it's an abuse of power esp as a shrink. Hey im hanging with lots of shrink-to-bes now. Its damn cool.
-
err, say again...?Originally posted by HENG@:well certainly it's an abuse of power esp as a shrink. Hey im hanging with lots of shrink-to-bes now. Its damn cool. 
-
hanging with lots of psychology students ah. My roommate is one, and im getting to know his classmates. Really cool peeps. They've dragged me out clubbing on tues and yest, and we're going again tomorrow. okies. shan't say more b4 i get accused of going off-TOriginally posted by laurence82:err, say again...? -
i didnt noe they call pschowassit a shrink..
hmm, never met one yet...but u forgot u are in UK...habe u talk to psychowassit students in sg b4? -
er no.Originally posted by laurence82:i didnt noe they call pschowassit a shrink..
hmm, never met one yet...but u forgot u are in UK...habe u talk to psychowassit students in sg b4? -
u dont have to a pure psychology student
just meet one who takes it for a module, suddenly whatever u say, whatever u do...will be heavily scrutinised..... -
It's the same all over, Laz. It takes a while for baby shrinks to get past the "when you've got a hammer everything looks like a nail"stage and realise how silly they look.Originally posted by laurence82:u dont have to a pure psychology student
just meet one who takes it for a module, suddenly whatever u say, whatever u do...will be heavily scrutinised..... -
The same thing when I read a law module..every little thing me and my friend do, we consider the legal consequences....
Oh yah, we off topic, ged, u haben answer my previous question... -
dun have leh? the psy students here just go clubbing a lot and drink a lot or else just like my psy flatmate hammer away at his X-Box non-stop.Originally posted by laurence82:u dont have to a pure psychology student
just meet one who takes it for a module, suddenly whatever u say, whatever u do...will be heavily scrutinised.....