Atheist Redefines God as a Naturalistic Psychological Construct, Sparking Debate on Reality and Atheism

Greg's naturalistic explanation of God posits a psychologically evolved concept, not a supernatural being.

### Redefining "Real": A Discussion on God's Existence and the Nature of Reality
* 🗣️  The discussion begins with Greg, an Australian theist who was previously an atheist, presenting a naturalistic explanation for belief in God.
* 🤔 Greg argues that belief in God stems from our evolved psychological capacity to conceive of deities, making it "real" within a subjective, not objective, context.
* 🔬  Professor Dave and Jimmy Snow challenge this perspective, emphasizing the importance of differentiating between objective and subjective reality.  They highlight that  "real" has a specific meaning, relating to objective reality and verifiable evidence.
* 🗣️ The conversation delves into the implications of Greg's definition, questioning whether it renders the term "real" meaningless by including subjective beliefs, including delusional ones, as real.
* 🧠  The discussion touches upon the limitations of human knowledge and the challenges of proving or disproving the existence of a God external to human consciousness.  "Objective reality is the only thing that's truly real," argues one of the hosts.
* ⚖️  The hosts press Greg to clarify his stance on atheism, emphasizing that by common definition, his view aligns with atheism despite his rejection of the label.
* 🤔 Greg suggests the value of understanding the evolutionary psychology behind religious belief, not as proof of God's existence, but as an explanation for the prevalence of faith.
* 🎬 The discussion concludes with a reflection on the limitations of defining "real,"  the implications of Greg's perspective on the scientific and philosophical landscape, and a recommendation to watch the movie "*The* 13th Floor," which relates to the simulation theory.

I think the name is pronounced Greg, if it's spelled right. In here, I've got Greg in Australia. Is it Greg? Did Greg have an

i in it? Greg, Greg. It certainly does. Yeah, wonderful. Yeah, you know, composer. It's not... no, it's not Greg.

It would be IE, not EI. Oh yeah, that's true. All right, yeah, fair enough. All right, Greg, you are an

Australian who sounds a bit Kiwi, but I'll take your word for it. Uh, who used to

be used to be an atheist, but now you are a theist, and think you can present to us

a naturalistic explanation of God. Yeah, I didn't quite say I thought of myself as a... um, I definitely used to

uh, uh, subscribe to the idea of being an atheist, and and I'm certainly... I certainly do not believe in the

supernatural or a transcendent, um, divine being.  'Beed wizard in the sky.' Definitely don't believe any

of that stuff. Um, but to be clear, you're not an atheist anymore? Correct. But I'm not an atheist anymore

because I started to question... So what would the alternative to not being an atheist be? Just agnostic? Well, but not really. It's not

it's a different proposition. No, I wouldn't say... doesn't believe in the supernatural. I definitely don't believe

in the supernatural. No, no, not at all. And and and I certainly think that the Bible is a

story. Story. You have an idea for for deity? Yeah, yeah. That... well, it it's sort of the reason why I question it is

because I I question what we consider to be real; whether something is real in objective reality or subjective reality,

because people who believe in God as a supernatural being, um, you know, a transcendent being, um, they believe it in

Their subjective reality is just as real to them as objective reality is to a scientist.

What I'm suggesting is that you can believe in a naturalistic God that emerges from our evolution—not a supernatural being, but one that exists in our psychology.

Evolutionarily, we developed the mental capacity to conceive of deities; that doesn't make them manifest.

Not just the ability to conceive of them, but it was an important part of our evolutionary development.

So, for example, in hunter-gatherer tribes, we had animism—we believed in the spirits of animals and trees, and that can evolve into belief in a higher deity.

I think the evolution of religion is somewhat like what you described.

So, if it evolved as a human psychological trait, doesn't that make it real to us? Does that not make God a real thing?

No. Objective reality is the only thing that's truly real, at the very least.  'Real' has a meaning; truth has a meaning.  I have zero concept of what you mean by 'real to me'.

Greg, as you've been talking, I've been thinking, 'Holy moly!' I made it as a joke,

and someone called to defend their belief in magic in a young girl's heart, because it seems very comparable to this: you believe because she believes it; the magic is there.

You're not an atheist, but you don't believe in...

anything supernatural, but you believe that because we have conceptualized them into, uh, into our subjective consciousness, that they are real to some

people, which would mean that lots of things which are not real, we would suddenly categorize as real, making the

term pointless. It's sort of like how the word "literally" now has the term has the definition, alternative definition of

figuratively in the dictionary, like it destroyed itself. And you are destroying the term "real" by saying that

which is real, objective, verifiable, repeatable; these things that are real, uh, contains the... it destroys the definition.

Even in math, even in MA... even in math, we we we divide numbers into real and imaginary, right? They're

they're categorically different. So you're saying that that which is imaginary is real? Yeah, like like Jimmy said, you're

you're you're changing the definition of the word "real," right, to contain things that are not...

definition of the word "real." You guys have just described objective reality, and I agree with your definition of objective reality. You're being reductive.

You're basically going... I'm just saying... I'm saying "real" in this sense where I'm just going to say, "God is real," with a

much more limited thing as opposed to like, just say the full sentence and don't be confusing and stop trying to

make theists feel more included in reality because it's not that big a deal because, in a way, it's real to you. You

can say stories of God are real because the stories are... those are tangible in some way; they exist in some way in

physical reality, but the god itself is not real. Again, anybody... this could mean that anybody with a, whether it's a

religious belief or just a mere delusion; a person who has a a a delusional schizophrenia, they're seeing things that

aren't there, but to them it's real. And if you want to have the conversation about how do you convince that person

it's not real, you don't... we have no solipsistic solutions. And unfortunately, if you can't break through to them, you try

to, but the best we have is you as an individual, Greg. You woke up in this world and you seem to interact with

other individuals, and you try to interact with them and verify that some experience is the same and consistent

with you as it is for them. And if that is the case, you have the best ability to say that you believe that thing is real.

And that's where belief becomes knowledge; that's where the Venn diagram overlaps. But technically, knowledge is a

subset of belief. So even with all of that, you can still go into this weird, I don't know why you're tiptoeing toward it, this

weird solipsistic thing where... but then at the end of the day, I feel like that's

where we're headed. How do we know any of this is... whatever it is? It feels like it; that's the natural progression, and we

don't... there's no solution for that. So the best you can do is: you either woke up in this reality, or you're a part of

mine, because I'm experiencing you, and I have no other choice but to act as though you are real and see that which

is in common between the two of us and call that real. That's the best any of us...

can... which we can both interact with. If we can both interact with something, that's firm evidence that that's evidence that it is a real thing, right? And the more

people that can interact with it – a table, whatever, water, anything – but the god that you imagine, that doesn't fall into that

a product of our evolution. It is um, and I wasn't going, by the way, I wasn't going

towards solipsism or anything. All I was really here to suggest is a discussion. No, I know, I know it

sounds like it, but that's not where I was going. Um, I was really... how's your God materialized? Does it exist yet, external

No, no, no, no, no, no, not at all. That's not

exactly what that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is, do you believe

in any other type...? You're defining reality, Greg. Greg, go to define reality. I'm just gonna...

million of these shows. The questions I ask you will be more productive to the conversation to answer than whatever

monologue you want to go on. I promise I don't just jump in with questions for the fun of it. I...

You have said that you're not an atheist. We're going to now have to identify whether or not you're not an

atheist because, like, really, you have redefined that phrase or you actually believe in an external God. To just

concepts, one that is real by the common definition of real, and that's what I want to know at the moment. Do you

believe in a god which exists external to Homo sapiens, that if all Homo sapiens died would still be

Good. So do you acknowledge that by the definition of God... do you... do you agree that by the

common definition of atheist, a person who lacks a belief in a God or gods, meaning as in a belief in its real

existence, that by the common definition you would meet that definition? However, I won't force you to take on any label you

don't want to take that; that's your prerogative, but by the common definition, you would at least

qualify. The way you just defined atheism, I would define myself as an atheist because I definitely do not believe

in that, um, you know, extant, um, uh, transcendent, supernatural God. I definitely do not.  In that great...

The question I have then, that I think is probably the final question for this God thing, unless Dave has more

for you... that you are defending. Let's say you convinced atheists at large, and channels like this one and Dave and

everyone to start interacting with the term 'God' in the way that you did, which, by the way, would turn a lot of

philosophy and science upside down, but let's say that happened: one, would it be worth turning science and

philosophy upside down? And two, what utility would we get out of doing such a similar equivocation as you are

here? Okay. I'm not sure I agree with you that it would turn things upside down. Uh, I don't think I agree with

that. Go to question two: the value that would come from it. I think the value that would come from it—your

your second part of the question—the value that would come from it is more of understanding where people's irrational

what I would call an irrational belief in a non-existent being, where that comes from, from an evolutionary

psychology perspective, and show a little bit of, uh, how can I put it... um, give those believers a little bit of a

break, because they are human, and we have all evolved as human. Right? You're not making an argument for the existence of

a God; you're just explaining why humans believe in God. That's very different. No, I'm not making an argument for

Objective: God. I'm making an argument; I'm making an argument for why we had that psychological construct of God.

It's Greg. Greg, excellent. Here's what I think: I think now that we live in a world where secularism is widely accepted in a

lot of places, we should keep engaging the psychological sciences in discovering the answers to those questions and not indulge, quote-unquote, 'give the believers

a break,' because I will also remind you that the believers still have the most institutional power in the

world, and it's not them who need the break; they are the ones that we are fighting against in America, for example.

Go ahead. No, nobody is campaigning to, uh, disallow people from believing whatever they want; there's no danger

there. You know, yeah, right. And they're still the, the, the majority. So Greg, what terms on the athe-

ist side are you going to change to make the God-believers accept us more? Marjorie Taylor Greene calls non-

Christians delusional constantly. How are you going to bridge that gap from her? Yeah, I, I would, I would do exactly as you are

God Is Real Because We THINK It Is?? | Jimmy Snow & Professor Dave

The Line Edge

Introduction of Greg, an Australian theist who was previously an atheist.

Greg explains his previous atheism and current belief in a naturalistic explanation for God.

Greg clarifies that he doesn't believe in supernatural or transcendent beings.

Greg states he is no longer an atheist due to questioning the nature of reality.

Greg questions the difference between objective and subjective reality in relation to belief in God.

Greg proposes that God is a naturalistic concept emerging from human evolution, not a supernatural being.

The hosts discuss the evolutionary development of the mental capacity to conceive of deities.

The evolution of religion from animism to belief in a higher deity is discussed.

The question of whether this evolutionary aspect makes God a real thing is raised.

One host emphasizes that objective reality is the only truly real thing, challenging the concept of something being 'real to me'.

A comparison is made between Greg's belief and belief in magic, highlighting the potential for misusing the term 'real'.

The hosts discuss how Greg's definition of 'real' could render the term meaningless by including subjective experiences.

The distinction between 'real' and 'imaginary' numbers in mathematics is used to illustrate the point.

Greg clarifies that he agrees with the definition of objective reality but uses 'real' in a more limited sense.

The discussion touches upon the tangibility of stories of God versus the existence of God itself.

Exploring the Limits of Belief and Knowledge

The conversation shifts to how to deal with differing beliefs, including delusions.

The hosts discuss how shared experiences can lead to a shared belief in the reality of something.

The relationship between belief and knowledge is explored, with knowledge considered a subset of belief.

The discussion touches upon solipsism and the question of how we know anything is real.

The hosts emphasize that shared interaction with something is strong evidence of its reality.

Clarification and Redefinition of Atheism

The hosts press Greg to clarify his position on the existence of God outside of human minds.

The discussion focuses on whether Greg has redefined atheism or actually believes in an external God.

The question of whether Greg believes in a God that exists independently of Homo sapiens is posed.

Greg's definition of atheism is examined in relation to the common definition.

Greg clarifies that he does not believe in a transcendent, supernatural God.

Consequences and Utility of Greg's Perspective

The hosts question the potential consequences of widespread adoption of Greg's definition of God.

The potential utility of understanding the evolutionary psychology behind belief in God is discussed.

Greg argues that his perspective offers a better understanding of irrational beliefs.

The hosts clarify that Greg is not arguing for the existence of God, but for the explanation of why humans believe in God.

The discussion concludes with differing opinions on the implications of Greg's perspective and the role of religious belief in society.