Is Christianity - and religion in general - just a building that's inhabited by the delusional?
The fact that many intelligent people are among the ranks of the religious, would indicate it to be so (delusions cannot be fixed through logic and reason).
Or that is that just the easy (and lazy) conclusion to jump to?
What is it that can make an intelligent person believe in something , seemingly, is unverifiable?
Social scientists recognize a human phenomenon in which people make so called 'leaps of faith' - i.e Hope.
It is a phenomenon that's transcended all cultures and all civilizations down through the ages.
'Leaps of faith' , depending on your perspective , can be identified as a 'different level' of rationality - OR as an escape from the rational altogether.
Reasons for having faith....
Time is our most valuable resource and, as such, it may be determined that by expending large amounts of time on a particular subject or problem - one that that does not yield an effective return ( an issue too complex to understand) rather than engaging with the subject - people will resort to a 'simple answer ' - to save time and energy on a topic which they feel incapable of finding a solution to.
When an individual reaches this point of deciding whether or to to pursue something, faith is perhaps the most useful of tools there is.
If your being positive about something - even when ill-defined and non specifics - faith can be used ,as a tool, to stop wondering about, well,...anything..
To 'believe' in something satisfies the need to not explore a subject any further.
Belief.
A belief is an idea (or principle) that we judge to be true.
Beliefs are powerful - and can have a very far reaching impact.
Beliefs can lead to genocides, murder, and even the destruction of entire societies.
Humans seem to have a predisposition to believe false propositions, and is derived from our highly irrational thinking processes.
Neuro psychology recognizes that Homo sapiens brain activity, and 'thought processes' can be very irrational.
There is a phenomenon called motivated reasoning - in which an individual’s pre-existing beliefs can skew thoughts to a greater degree than any new facts that present themselves.
Human beings have a biased system of cognitive processes.
Neuroscience has discovered that 'reasoning' is actually suffused with emotion, hence the 'irrationality' aspect of 'thought process'.
Not only are the two interactions inseparable, but our positive (or negative) feelings about people and ideas, arise far more rapidly than our conscious thought processes.
By studying different parts of the brain, and their functions, it can be shown that feelings can be detected with an EEG device, long before (milliseconds) we see the 'thought process' engaging.
This incredibly fast emotional reaction to stimuli is seen as a key human survival skill.
We apply the 'fight or flight' response not only to predators, but to actual data of any kind, that's being presented to us.
Human reasoning works at a slower rate than the emotional response, and thus, enters into the equation of 'decision making', at a later stage.
When humans do start to utilize the reason part of cognitive process - it does not take place separately from the emotional side that's already engaged.
This means that while we may think that we are reasoning, we may be - in actual fact - rationalizing.
Rationalizing - To explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness.
Not everyone can recognize this type of rationalizing behavior when it happens within themselves.
Protecting one’s self beliefs - religious or political - can make a person highly resistant to change in spite of the any facts.
We are not purely emotional beings however and are motivated to try and perceive the world as accurately as possible.
Our intellectual value judgement - the degree to which we believe or disbelieve an idea - are strongly influenced by our brain’s proclivity for attachment.
Attachments are expectations that people develop about relationships with others, mostly based on the relationships that they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants.
People are 'pattern finding machines'.We are also 'attachment machines'- which includes following influential people (and ideas).
We don’t do this in a cold rational way, however - as just pointed out - our brains are emotionally entangled with conscious thought processes - in are embedded in the ideas that we come to believe are true.
Even if we use poor methods to arrive at our beliefs we can have a strong emotional investment in them - one that goes far beyond the loyalty that they deserve.
This emotional aspect of our rational judgement explains why we can exhibit a number of biases.
A confirmation bias , for example - is a tendency to search for- or interpret- information that confirms one’s own preconceptions.
(Dis-confirmation bias is the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs).
One of the goals of our brain functions is to look for validation of our pre-existing beliefs.
Logically speaking , the brain has a vested interest in confirming them.
Why?
It then allows us to get on with our day to day survival, without the allocation of extra resources (time, and energy) to the problem.
(All of this is done by the subconscious processes of the mind).
This does not mean that we are doomed to always have false beliefs !
What we need to do is to put ourselves in positions where we are prepared to change - and question - our own beliefs.
While not always an easy task, someone who's determined to follow the facts and discover the truth, (even if they thought that they already had) is capable of making changes to their belief systems.
All people have beliefs.
Not all beliefs are equal of course - but all of them are subjective.
Given all available knowledge a 'good quality' belief would, for example , be a belief in gravity (quantifiable and provable - but not apparent to our five senses).
A belief in no gravity - or a 'bad quality' belief is implausible as it's easily discounted through means of observation - and would require delusion to believe it to be true.
If the no gravity belief is accepted - even with a great deal of evidence to the contrary - it would then require massive amounts of 'faith' in order to believe it.
GOD...
"We both have beliefs, you believe in evolution and I believe that God created the universe.”
They are both beliefs.
You might classify a belief in Darwinian evolution as a 'good quality' belief.
There's a lot of evidence for it - but there are also many questions that arise from the theory itself.
Questions which cannot be easily answered, if following the evolution theory. (mutation times, species conformity, lack of living evidence, etc).
What about the claim that there is no God?
There is no certain understanding of the actual origin of the universe - but there is a belief in creationism.
There is no definitive evidence for 'creator'- except for the universe itself - i.e by simply existing - by 'being there', is proof enough.
Atheists draws a line here, stating that because there's no solid evidence for the existence of a 'supernatural' being the default position is non-belief in such a being.
(which is very paradoxical - if you consider that the vast majority of those on the left, politically, are atheist.
_They will argue for the reality of a collective being real, and there is zero evidence for this also - there can be no evidence for it, it is entirely conceptual in nature.
What 'grade of belief' is this? ...A 'poor quality' one?
Both of these positions -God and 'the collective'- require faith, yet 'faith' is discounted by one of these groups.
The problem for this position is that God cannot be explicitly disproved.
'The collective' and it not being a real entity - can be.
Ouch!....
People who believe in fairies, or any variety of deities do so because they want to believe.
Leftist atheists who believe in 'the collective' do so, because the y want to believe.
So while there may be very little evidence for 'supernatural powers' (the concepts are impossible to either prove or disprove) , it is absolutely NOT the case with leftist dogma and the fundamental principals on which that the entirety of socialist political ideology is built upon.
...The collective.
Where does faith in God come from?
The non-conformist?
A belief in God (not to be confused with organized religions) serves to question 'man made authority', 'man made rules', while, at the same time, accepting that hierarchies exist (thus making humility a virtue).
This functions to form the relationship that the non conformist has with the authority figures, those who desire to rule.
The atheist (left) accepts man made authority, as being the soul arbiter (pun intended) over other humans beings.
The atheist (left) accepts man made rules, yet - paradoxically once more - denies the reality of hierarchy.
This also functions to form the relationship that the atheist (leftist) has with the authority figures, and those who desire to rule over them.
***Carl Jung regarded God as a psychological construct reflecting an image of 'the self'.
The sense of awe that a person can experience in relation to God is actually what one feels when encountering the depths of one’s own mind, according to Jung - which is incredibly powerful and felt to be beyond our control.
According to the bulk of psychology, faith is nothing but expressions of psychological constructs.
That it is delusion.
It's a distortion of reality and truth, for self-serving purposes (just like so much leftist ideology).
The 'field of psychology' has a preponderance of individuals within 'the profession', who self identify as leftist.
I am not 'religious' in any real sense of the word.
I would say I'm a spiritual being.
Principals, ethics, justice and truth (for example), are a spiritual expression
Just as politics, expediency, material greed and power, are not.
One interesting dilemma that I struggle with (among many), is gambling.
No , I 'm not referring or hodling, poker, or roulette...I'm referring to the afterlife.
An exercise in logic...
God - or any other perception you have - may ,or may not, be real.
IF he is not real, then believing - or not believing - makes no difference.
IF 'he' is real, and every religious teaching was somewhat correct, it means that as a non believer - you're fucked - for eternity.
Eternity is a very, very, long time.
IF you DO believe in some 'omniscient being' or other , it also means you have to have somewhat of a non-conformist mindset, an understanding of hierarchy, and a humility.
....Plus, you also get to go to heaven - for eternity.
Eternity is a very, very, long time.
As a gambling man - one bet seems to be an awfully sensible choice, and the other one seems to be an awfully masochistic one...
Discovering ' god' - or whatever the hell that means - is , for me - nature.
Period. God is nature.
It's funny how so many leftists seem to live in urban surroundings...literally cut off - and detached - from mother earth...
THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES...
There is an old Mexican saying that goes "quien no conoce a Dios a cualquier santo le reza", that translated is who does not know God prays to any saint. Whether it's true or not, truth is that many atheists have built idols.
I don't know, but there is a very famous phrase from Jung that he gave in an interview when he was asked if he believed in God, he said "I don't need to believe, I know". Although I don't know what kind of God he was referring to.
Really interesting subject, especially with your unique take on it.
First, I wasn't aware that emotion precedes rationality. I have a theory that we store thoughts or information according to the emotions that are evoked by them, that emotions are basically our memory's filing system. And if we access the thoughts by the feelings surrounding them, it makes sense we would experience the feelings first.
Also, I am a major fan of Jung, but at this point I believe the concept of the 'Self' not to be identified with just the mind, but the mind, the emotions, the body and spirit. Similar to many indigenous belief systems in which the four elements combined are the entirety of our beings. Since internal division is what makes us capable of amazing feats of cognitive dissidence. It is through balancing all four that we are truly able to take everything into account.
And one other of my (unsubstantiatable) beliefs: Forever is a long, long time, Eternity is beyond it;)
Very interesting post. I tend to give this sort of thing a lot of thought.
I've also been working on a post about my experience getting out from under the influence of mainstream propaganda. As a former liberal, I'm hoping it might get someone to think. Unfortunately, I'm coming to the conclusion that liberals have surrendered their capacity to think for themselves to "THE AUTHORITIES". Anything outside the narrative doesn't even penetrate.
As a former liberal
Commiserations - I know the feeling...
Leftism (liberalism in disguise) fundamentally relies on delusions to substantiate their ideologies.
Delusion is a mental illness that cannot be fixed with reason and logic.
(I don't know how to fix it, tbh - but mockery - until a psychotic break occurs - seems like it might be a good way to go!lol....tough love, and all that..)
You seen valued-customer around? I've been a bit worried about him lately, I haven't seen him post for quite awhile.
I haven't - I was only thinking of him yesterday....I hope he's ok.
It's not unusual he gets busy working, especially during the summer and doesn't post much but he usually does tend to find some time to recommend other people's post. I've always had a fondness for going round and round with him on here early on because he was unlike many others who'd just flag you for your opinion. Perceptualflaws and moving man has been mia also. Last I remember moving man was in I think Denmark high up in some mountains someplace, hope he didn't get high and fall off some cliff and is laying in some ravine someplace.
Modern people seem to be amazingly superstitious, don't you think?
Probably it is due to the permanent overestimation and underestimation of human abilities. For example, people constantly underestimate how many hardships humans can physically endure, how often they heal on their own if they can live under the right conditions. One constantly overestimates the technical possibilities, which from my point of view has precisely to do with the fact that the scientific theories, which seem to deal predominantly with pathologies and weaknesses, are presented to one as "solutions" for weaknesses that were already not really present in the first place. And which have to do with the underestimation of human healing ability, strength, cleverness and peaceful co-existence. The one conditions the other.
Those who do not believe in themselves, who do not find confidence in themselves, are always dependent on "the higher", who believe in a saving God - or, not to sound unfashionable - in higher authorities that replace God or parents. The atheist, whom you call leftist here, is in this respect just like the theist, both minds believe in salvation from above.
So anyone who attaches himself to an authority can be the healer, the bringer or the saviour: a doctor who gives an "unquestionable" diagnosis and prescribes a treatment plan, the politician who promises prosperity "for all", the egalitarian who pretends that everyone is equal before the law, and so on.
In the meantime, I still doubt every scientific theory that currently offers itself as a consensus or is considered to be set in stone. The more it is defended, the more sceptical I become.
In my observation, such faith in authority has produced - for example - ghostly places, such as housing estates, where you no longer see people on the streets, where the gardens are ugly and deserted, where everyone squats at home and is afraid of life, of what the neighbour thinks of you and more such nonsense.
It all has to do with one's own view of the world or of humanity. The other day I asked a very old friend of mine if she believed that people had to be forced to obey. She said "yes" because "people are too inconsiderate and thoughtless and won't obey rules unless they are imposed." From then on, any conversation I had with her was idle. What else is there to say?
Those who do not believe in themselves, who do not find confidence in themselves, are always dependent on "the higher", who believe in a saving God - or, not to sound unfashionable - in higher authorities that replace God or parents. The atheist, whom you call leftist here, is in this respect just like the theist, both minds believe in salvation from above.
Agreed. Not being religious myself, I can see the advantage of having a God (as an authority - rather than one being of human origin)
Leaving aside 'establishment' religions and thinking in terms of genuine spirituality - there is - in my mind - a definite correlation with them and moral standards / ethical behaviors - which are prerequisites for stable society.
Atheism does not promote that same 'reverence' to 'morale/ethical code' - as any authority is merely another human.
It's not perfect by any means - but if 'a higher' being is necessary for a functioning, not authoritarian community - so be it.
Depressing - but relevant - I think your friend has a point! lol....history would bear this natural 'sheep like' tendency repeatedly occurring , among large groups..
I agree with you here that spirituality is different from institutionalised religiosity. If I see a spirit in every thing, subject or object, I want to treat such a thing with respect.
Yes, depressingly, my friend seems to be right, though this seems to be her conclusion from herself to others. If I thought I had to be forced to be a respectable person, I would think the same of others. So I also conclude from myself to others and call it a positive world and human view. I am convinced that people would behave rationally if they were convinced of their own rationality. Which they are not. Those who feel stupid, incapable and unlovable draw the wrong conclusion that others would be too. But the most screwed-up thing about it is that someone to whom I said this, namely that he lacked self-love, would never ever admit such a thing, and so he of all people thinks he is reasonable who does not want to admit to self-contempt.
There is a difference, for example, between being non-conformist because I love to do something and do it in a strangely different way and being non-conformist because I want to give the world the finger.
So it's possible that my friend also thinks I despise myself and that my self-confidence could be a form of self-deception and that I'm just imagining that my nature is actually optimistic. I am not beyond doubt, but I would never stress what a nice person I am. If this combination is recognisable, as in the case of my friend, that she believes of herself to be a nice person and on the other hand speaks of the necessary compulsion on her fellow human beings, I am anything but convinced.
For me, the path to self-knowledge definitely leads over one's own shadow. If I deny that I have dark sides, that I definitely have moments of cruelty and carelessness, I run away from this realisation and take refuge in an illusory world that only pretends to respect or consider anything worthwhile. But there is nothing. Only the fear of really living. And as a consequence, of wanting to be protected from all such evil - by others, "wiser", "higher".
I do not prefer a name for the divine, because only through that which I cannot explain nor name does the spiritual spark jump over. In my experience, analysis and spirituality do not go together. I do experience the spiritual, but I cannot communicate it to anyone or even explain it in any way. Every attempt makes the matter somehow pathetic. Art seems to me to be the only thing that best conveys the inexpressible.
The thing that has always been amusing to me is what I consider — more or less — to be "selective definitions."
If someone says their dead grandmother spoke to them and told them not to drink soda, they are called "schizophrenic" and medicated into oblivion... but if they say that GOD spoke to them with the same warning, they are called "spiritual" and given a pat on the back as being an upstanding citizen.
What IS God? Hard to say... perhaps it's simply a convenient label we put on that which we don't (yet) understand so that our heads don't explode. Then again, maybe God is the external scapegoat we use to pass off accountability for truly owning our own inner wisdom... "God spoke to me and told me to burn down my evil neighbor's house" plays better in the public arena than "I hate my effing neighbor and want him to DIE because he doesn't think like me!"
Maybe it's a combination of the two.
But hey, I live in a world of contradictions. I'm a Godless Nordic heathen and I'm even married to a priest who used to work in the sex industry. Go figure....
Must say you are good at it! 😂🤣😂😂🤣😂
You joke about the psychotic break, but seriously, to realize that these same AUTHORITIES that you've trusted blindly all your life are actually psychopathic control freaks intent on world domination feels not far from...I went from leftwing to awake in the course of less than 6 months. 😵
I went from leftwing to awake in the course of less than 6 months.
Fuuuuuuuuuck! - that must have been a psychologically intense ride !!!!...lol
(respect)
Not sure how much respect I deserve. I had no idea that was what I was going to find, and quite honestly, at the time I was terrified.
...anyone that doesn't shy away from truths, has my respect.
Thank you for that. Thus far it hasn't produced a whole lot of positive reinforcement:/
I've been working on the post I mentioned but it has stubbornly refused to gel. I haven't totally given up on it, but I had an idea that I'll be posting later that I really think is worth sharing. Unfortunately I don't have much reach. Maybe you could take a look at it? It's an idea that could really have an impact if it caught on, and I'm pretty sure you'd like the post.
...post it - I've added you, so it'll show up in my feed.
Thanks that's very cool of you to do that. I really appreciate it, but I posted before you followed me.
Here's the link If you don't mind taking a look. https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@heretolisten/what-s-in-a-mask