Is God a tulpa?

[ParaSait]

I've recently read a lot about these things called tulpas. A tulpa is basically a second consciousness that you create inside your own head. This consciousness has an own personality and other sorts of traits, and optionally also an imagined form but that's secondary. The way you do this is by beginning to talk to yourself as if some second person is actually listening. It's fuelled by attention. Eventually, as your tulpa develops itself more, you will begin to hear its voice inside your head and it works like a separate consciousness that has access to your thoughts, feelings and memories, but nevertheless is uncontrolled by the consciousness that is you. You can talk to it, it can help you with thinking, memorization, self-knowledge, accessing your subconscious, etc... eventually in an advanced stage you can even let it "switch" and control your body, that sort of thing.

 

It sounds pretty mad and mystical, but I think it's plausible, because first off, the brain is elastic. If you do a lot of math, you'll develop circuits in your brain that make you really good at math. There's no reason (as far I know at least; I'm not a neurologist) why the same can't apply to consciousness. There are also detailed guides on how to create and treat a tulpa so you can empirically prove it to yourself. There is also a whole community discussing their tulpas, etc...

 

Anyway, now, as for my point: doesn't the first paragraph sound a bit familiar?

 

Is God a tulpa that religious authority figures make children create in their heads for the purpose of giving them an authority figure in their own head, effectively making them control themselves? They form his personality, make children pray as if he is listening, and then follow the claims of God being omnipresent and omniscient (and indeed; a tulpa is everywhere in your head and knows everything about you).

This could also explain why theists are so unreasonable when presented with arguments against God. To them, God IS real, it's a tulpa (and they're unaware of that). Why would you agree with all these abstract philosophical arguments, if the empirical evidence, to you, is right here with you? Surely the philosopher must be making some mistake...! He just doesn't believe in God because he doesn't let him into his heart...

 

Just a little thought I had. Perhaps some more research into tulpas could bring us closer to an understanding of theism?

Anyway, I don't know to what degree you guys are aware of the whole tulpa thing, but I'm interested to know what you all think of this.

[Pepin]

I've never heard of this idea of tulpa, but I am pretty interested in this idea. If you could provide any good reading material, I'd appreciate it.

 

As far as I understand, I would say yes, though I may disagree that the part of the personality is created. I would claim that we are an ecosystem of parts. Stefan calls it the mecosystem, and a more advanced theory of parts within a psyche and how they interact is covered by a theory called internal family systems, IFS for short. The theory suggests that these parts already exist, and that due to various circumstances they take on a wide variety of traits and personalities. In an unstable mind, as one part becomes more extreme, another will take on the opposite extreme role. It is also argued that personas often found in performers are parts with a distinct personality taking the seat of consciousness.

 

Stefan's book Against the Gods has a section which you are likely to find relevant as he makes a similar argument, though equates the God part more with the unconscious in general than with a specific part. I've had some thoughts that there might be a sort of wise guru part in most all of us, which isn't to say that the part is wise, but that the experience of advice from this part would be similar to receiving advice from God or a guru.

 

I'm quite a believer in parts as I've found it to be my experience. It is rather helpful in identifying what is you, and what is a part. A silly example is that I've been dating a girl after a long dating break, and there are many thoughts and things I say which are just my penis talking. 

[Erik_T]

Is God a chalupa? Does this question even need elaborating?

In all seriousness, I wonder if this strange partitioning of one's consciousness is only possible early in life, or if it's fun for all ages. Secondly, how does it differ from such psychological ailments as Schizophrenia? Have schizos merely formed tulpas that manifest themselves as audible or visual hallucinations? Can the tulpa become deranged, while the consciousness of origin remain healthy? Can one eliminate one's tulpa (can you imagine making the grave error as a child of creating a tulpa of Jar-Jar- Binks? Eddy Murphy?)? Can there be more than one tulpa? Why am I suddenly craving Taco Bell?

[MarkIX]

Is god a Chupacabra? They definitely have some characteristics in common. They both figuratively latch onto your throat and such you dry.

[tiepolo]

I've never heard the word before but the concept seems to make sense. Kids are very good at giving their toys characters and imaginary lives, to the extent that they might feel guilty for shoving them up in the attic even when they grow out of them. Authors of stories also need to imagine personalities for the characters they create. No reason why the god character shouldn't become real in people's minds either, with a predictable judgment on various actions...

 

The idea of tulpas, if verified, might also go some way to explaining historical cases of 'demonic possession', and such like. That's by your definition of an artificial second consciousness created in the individual's mind, with the presumed capacity to take over completely. The eastern mystical notion of a tulpa seems to imply a physical manifestation created by the mind, which sounds rather more supernatural in nature. Obviously this is more questionable, as thought cannot create actual matter, although whether actual manifestation or mere hallucination is involved appears to be a matter of ambiguity.