Posted: 05/07/2013 at 11:41am
|
IP Logged
|
|
|
Is it really that easy to change our minds? Is it really that easy
once we have bought into a training of thought whether scientific
(educational), social-political, or spiritual?
Is there such a thing as a study, position, or dogma that you “must”
believe? The answer is “no” and that we can always question the methods,
findings, or find an alternative interpretation of the data or what is
being promoted. And if all else fails, we can call into question the
honesty (integrity) and ideologies of the promoters. As I stated in the
Word press article Mind Games to Mind Melt: “Since we have computers and
search engines hanging from our hips – we can simply Google a team of
supporting scientists, theorists and authorities 24 hours a day for
almost any conclusion to support whatever reasoning you choose to
believe.” Our white knuckle beliefs range from global warming to whether
a fetus is a baby to political views on marriage to evolution versus
creation. Again, just Google your belief and you will find supporting
evidence to justify your immovable stance. Could it be that this new
dynamic in our modern and highly informational world has created a
double edged sword of blind polarization which lacks intelligent and
rational debate on its back-swing? I believe the answer is “yes” and
humanity will pay the ultimate price in its rationalized,
self-delusional and prideful state. Shades of gray will continue to
spread over the earth and the aspects of genuine truth and blatant
falsehood will blend into a lukewarm tonic that will poison the
collective soul of cultures and societies. Even the body of Christ will
require an anti-venom to counter the poison of the graying of absolute
truth. The embracing of “everyone is a winner” and “everyone is right”
will manifest as mass losers and mass deceived on a corporate scale.
Will humanity continue to believe almost anything that will support “Our Team?”
Many political scientists and gurus have assumed and taught that
people vote selfishly or to serve their own interests. Thus, they vote
for the candidate that will benefit them the most. However, decades of
research in regard to public opinion have led to the conclusion that
self-interest is a very weak predictor of policy preferences. For
instance, parents of children in public schools are not any more
supportive of government aid to schools than other citizens. Young men
who are subject to the military draft are not more opposed to military
escalation than men too old to be drafted. People who lack health care
insurance are not more likely to support government issued health care
insurance than people covered by insurance. Rather, people care about
their groups or subcultures whether those be racial, regional, religious
or social-political.
In matters of public opinion and in my opinion, citizens ranging from
the elite to the poor seem to be asking themselves, “not what’s in it
for me” but rather, “what’s in it for my group?” Political opinions,
religious dogmas and various behaviors function as badges of social
membership. They are like the array of bumper stickers that people put
on their cars showing political causes, universities, sports teams and
even habits they support. Simply put, our politics, religion, and
behavior is groupish and not necessarily selfish. So, may I ask what do
“you” really believe is true and serves the betterment of humanity? Do
you even know what is true? Or maybe, we are simply believing what is
expected of us by the subculture we have embraced?
If people can see what they want to see and believe what they want to
believe – just imagine how much propensity there is for political
partisans and religious zealots to see different, tainted and obscured
facts in the reality of the social world. This “attitude polarization
effect” occurs when you give a single bit of information to people with
differing partisan leanings. For example, liberals and conservatives
actually move further apart when the research clearly defines whether
the death penalty deters crime or when they rate the quality of the
arguments made by candidates in a presidential debate or when they
evaluative arguments or results about welfare, affirmative action and
gun control. I may be loosing some readers (especially religious or
spiritual) at this time who have convinced themselves that they are “not
of this world” and have mistakenly taken these scriptural words as
literal which denies social or institutional accountability rather than
spiritually which defines a believer’s eternal position. The denial of
participation in social-political interests by Christians is both
dangerous and delusional. I hope you will stay with me because without
political institutions – you would not have a road worthy to drive on to
work let alone to be safe from crime and the quality of life you
experience today. As I have stated before, “How would a simple pot hole
get filled to save your tires from blowing and axles from breaking after
a winter thaw if not for basic and participatory political
institutions?” The crux of this message is coming to terms with our
composite social belief systems and why we believe them. The corporate
beliefs of a nation and society will ultimately define its blessing or
curse as the days unfold.
Is the worship of reasoning about being reasonable?
All human and animal brains are designed with a major reward center
and create flashes of pleasure when the subject does something important
for its survival and small pulses of the neural transmitter dopamine in
the brain is where these good feelings are manufactured. Heroin and
cocaine are addictive because they artificially trigger this dopamine
response in the brain. Rats who can press a button to deliver an
electrical stimulation to their reward centers will continue pressing
until they collapse from starvation. The catch is that when we find
avenues to escape the handcuffs of “truth” to justify the survival of
our beliefs – we get a little hit of dopamine. If what I am stating is
true, then it would explain why extreme belief systems and its zealous
partisans are so stubborn, close-minded and committed to beliefs that
are bizarre and even paranoid. Like rats that cannot stop pressing a
button, partisans may simply be unable to stop believing weird things.
Simply put, the partisan brain has been reenforced so many times for
performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs,
although these unwanted beliefs may be genuinely true. Extreme
partisanship and polarization may be literally addictive. I clearly see
this in much of the Christian prophetic and hell-fire camps in it’s
continued proclamations of doom and destruction rather than the love of
God. These expressions of beliefs are also active within many other
religious expressions of conquest (e.g. Islam) and military
justification under the guise of national security.
Have we been brainwashed and deluded by the delusional?
Websters Dictionary defines delusion as “a false conception and
persistent belief unconquerable by reason in something that has no
existence in fact.”
Maybe the worship of “reason” is itself an illustration of one of the
most long lived delusions in western culture? I will coin this the
“rationalists delusion.” Many know and understand the story and event of
Adam and Eve. Likewise, many believe that Eve was tempted, deceived and
fell when she partook of the forbidden fruit. This couldn’t be farther
from the “truth.” Eve was approached by the serpent and told that if she
partook of the fruit – she would essentially see and be like God. On
the other hand, God had previously told her, “not to partake of the
fruit from the tree in the midst of the garden lest she die.” Before we
hypocritically judge Eve too harshly; we must ask ourselves if Eve had
ever been lied to before? Did Eve even know what a lie was or have a
frame of reference? The answer is no and we can only conclude that Eve
had “two perceived truths” at this time in history. The ultimate sin did
not happen when the fruit showed the imprints of Adam’s and Eve’s
teeth. The fall and sin occurred well before when Eve rationalized
God’s absolute truth against a possible option that preyed upon the
glory of self. A good analogy would be if I stepped off the 2nd story
roof of my house. I immediately “fall” when I step off the roof
(rationalization). I experience the impact or pain of the fall when I
hit the ground (result of the rationalization).
Has the world been invaded by the Political Intelligentsia, Academic Elitists and Religious Zealots?
The problem with truth is that most western thought hinges upon the
idea that reasoning is our most noble human attribute and is thus
worshiped as such. As Plato stated in regard to reasoning: “It makes us
like the gods” in our truth diluted state. Sadly, this line of thought
and reasoning will ultimately take us beyond the belief in God as the
harbinger of truth as we deceivingly become gods unto ourselves. Such
was the tragedy of Eve. This probably wouldn’t have happened had Adam
exercised his dominion over all creation. Rather, he let the serpent and
a serpentine delusion infiltrate his domain, social and spiritual
order. The rationalists delusion is not just a reflection of human
nature, it’s also a claim that most people in positions of influence
will be granted more and more power and it usually comes along with a
utopian program or agenda for raising more “rational children.” I speak
more directly to this prophetic development in the article: The U.S.
Invasion of the Political Intelligentsia. Many rationalist have asserted
that the ability to reason well about ethical issues causes good
behavior which they see or interpret as universal truth. They believe
that reasoning is the highway to moral truth and they believe that
people who reason well are more likely to act morally. But if this were
the case, then moral philosophers who reason about ethical principles
all day long should be more virtuous than other people. Or are they?
I have found on-line (Google!) which provided several reputable
research studies to address or attempt to answer this question. Moral
philosophers and educators were measured on how often they give to
charity, vote, call their mothers, donate blood, donate organs, clean up
after themselves at philosophy based conferences and respond to emails
supposedly from students. The results were stark and in none of these
criteria are moral philosophers better than other philosophers or
professors in other fields. The researchers even dug up missing books
from dozens of college libraries that specialize in moral philosophy and
found that academic books on ethics which are presumably and mostly
borrowed by ethicists are more likely to be stolen or never returned
than books in other areas of academia. In other words, expertise in
moral reasoning does not seem to improve moral behavior and it’s belief
systems. Likewise, it does not prove the morally educated to be more
moral than anybody else in all social classes.
The love of truth or the worship of reason?
Anyone who loves truth should cease from worshiping “reason”. We all
need to take a cold hard look at the evidence and see “reasoning” and
“rationalization” for what it is and how they have defined history. When
combined, they are the elixir of mankind which casts us under the spell
of antichrist. Divine truth will always confound the wise of the world
for a variety of obvious “reasons”. Most of the bizarre and research
findings that justify ungodly behavior make sense once you realize that
human reasoning has evolved not to help us find truth but to help us
engage in argument, persuasion and manipulation in the context of
discussions with other people. In other words, skilled arguers are not
after the truth, but after arguments supporting their views.
Humanity will ultimately believe and defend the positions of its
groups and subcultures. Truth will always be looked upon by the world
body as individually personal rather than eternally divine. All of us
must come to this conclusion as mankind’s track record has proven. We
simply have very little success in changing another person’s belief
system and positions – especially when backed into a corner to prove
their error. This is compounded when aspects of spiritual truth which
are not seen by natural eyes are taken into account. A wild animal that
falls prey to a trap will mangle itself and even attempt to chew its own
leg off rather than submitting to the truth of its situation. We can
argue that this is simply in the animals nature. This is exactly my
point. It is indeed a part of our fallen nature and prayer is the only
power on earth that can change a person’s conscience, beliefs and
behavior through the working of the Holy Spirit.
|