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...