Once again I throw out a subject that can affect the actions of anyone trapped in a mind control environment. How do you think that this can affect the recovery of that person?
Religion not reason.
It would appear that many times human beings replace reason with religion. They attach themselves to a concept or religion and then turn over their entire lives to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of that organization.
Is it that there is comfort or protection within the group? Or is it that having given over their thoughts to an “other” they are absolved of the necessity of thinking and taking action in their own behalf?
I have observed many times during my life that the “born again” society be it christian or other generally convince themselves that it is them against the world and act accordingly.
The otherwise rational become irrational and it is a fact that you cannot, not may not, deal rationally with an irrational person.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2019 10:01PM by thedesertrat1.

There may be many reasons to cling to religion, but shouldn't that list include the word "lazy?" Wanting someone else to do the heavy lifting for you as you get the reward? Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, make sure I get to the CK even if I don't even open my eyes or look at the map.

Perhaps " mentally gutless" as well. Just a way to avoid delving deep and facing the scary stuff?

Not just what you get out of religion, but all the bits of real life religion allows you to side-step.

"Well, I may have not accomplished much in life, but, I didn't drink coffee like you, so Haha. I'll come visit you in the TK when I get a chance."

Seems you are a thinker who is driven to make sense of the world & existence, desertrat - and so generously credit the same objective in others.

Perhaps western religion is not about making sense of things.
Perhaps it is about being Very Special.

So:

In western religion (Mormons especially) you get to get merit badges. (Note: got to pay to play.)
A who's-who develops based on how many merit badges someone has. The more merit badges, the higher the status. (Which is why there is such secret titilating delight on finding one who had so many merit badges, was actually just a Peeping Tom, after all.)
Get enough merit badges, you go to heaven.
Get enough enough, you get to be in the guaranteed-to-heaven club.
Get enough enough enough, you too can be the Grand Wizard!

I suspect these two are working on entirely different things.

One is about status and $$.
The other is about finding what life is all about and meaning.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps western religion is not about making sense
> of things.
> Perhaps it is about being Very Special.

So true. And there is nothing like a god on your shoulder to prescience your universal uniqueness. Praise Jesus for making you shine out in the darkness of your surrounding nihilism.

Nothing like dead gods to make your gods seem more alive.

Nice metaphor. Reminds me of the bandalos we had in primary in my day. Always putting new patches and badges and pins on them. So important to be the one with the loaded felt sash. Although I remember it being more important to the adults than to us little kids.

Keep your eye on the prize, the proof you are the best---rather than your eye on wisdom and understanding seems to be the "Modus Operandi Mormoni."

those, too. My kids won't know what to think of it when they go through my stuff. I should throw it out, but it reminds me of my mother for some reason.

For me and I believe for my daughter, clinging to religion was the idea that if I did everything right, then I would not have problems. No matter what they say about us having trials, the promise was there that you wouldn't have to suffer. I wouldn't lose my family, my husband blah blah blah. Well, that didn't work.

But I think that that is one of the reasons they hang on is because it is working for them.

There are a couple of ways to go about "finding what life is all about and meaning." One way is to try to figure out everything from first principles, all on one's own. Of course, one might benefit from being in conversation with others who have also tried to figure out everything from first principles. Maybe there's even an informal "canon" on the subject, starting, say, with Plato and Aristotle. Eventually one might discern there is a history with multiple divergent branches to this Western discipline called "philosophy," and notice that sometimes it even bumps against and learns from philosophical traditions which might have started in the Indus valley or some such.
But, golly, look at how this whole enterprise has reasonably turned into something which uses terms and values anathema to the "first principles" principle-- canon, tradition, divergences, etc. So, if one were to find a community of people who have been thinking deeply and carefully on the subject of "what's it all about," maybe there could be benefit even if its origins are from a few thousand years ago and might include some things which the present-day community might reject?
It is very understandable that folks can be very down on "religion" and dump on it as a cesspool of irrationality; there are plenty of examples to support this. But I am happy to report that is not the whole story. If one wanted to investigate the Quakers, the Bahai, Sikhs, Zen, Reform Judaism, or Unitarian Universalism, one might actually find some examples that don't fit the impression one gets from conservative Evangelicalism, LDS, etc. Yes, one will find elements of myth in just about any of these as well, but one can find those in a thoughtful book like "Good Omens," too.

touchstone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is very understandable that folks can be very
> down on "religion" and dump on it . . . Yes, one will find
> elements of myth in just about any of these as
> well, but one can find those in a thoughtful book
> like "Good Omens," too.
===================================

Of Course!

When speaking of "religion," I refer to a structure with rigid rules, hierarchy, and belief as how it differentiates itself from competing religions to its adherents. It seems attempting to adhere to any rigid social/belief structure inevitably results in anxiety and hypocrisy. But it is not without merit.

One limitation of thought/reason is it requires imposing artificially straight lines on a wiggly universe to "make sense"of things - but the line itself is artifice. It isn't actually real. However the line is not fixed (both a benefit and a limitation).

If shift the line ever so slightly, an alternative perspective is that the conviction that ultimate meaning may be derived through solely reason might be itself suspect, for to suggest that there is absolutely no route through the metaphysical (as distinct from religion) may be to betray an unappreciation of the limitations of the senses, and of reason.

Perhaps we are all but blind men with the elephant.

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> When speaking of "religion," I refer to a
> structure with rigid rules, hierarchy, and belief
> as how it differentiates itself from competing
> religions to its adherents.

And I'm suggesting this way of defining "religion" has a bias, wherein the central examples of "religion" may not be the most representative. Now, I could read you as being aware of this, recognizing that you are


> imposing artificially straight lines on a wiggly

phenomenon.

>
> the conviction that ultimate
> meaning may be derived through solely reason might
> be itself suspect,

I do find it suspect. "I think therefore I am. Um. Now what?"


>
> Perhaps we are all but blind men with the
> elephant.
Sounds to me like the blind men should keep listening to each other.

Again thank you all for you replys. If there are any more keep them coming. I believe that we need to process through these issues

The thirst for religion appears to be rooted in the fundamental frustration that results from humans having enough brainpower to have numerous and significant questions about reality and human existence, but never having enough brainpower to ever really find the answers.

It really is impossible for humans to find the answers to the fundamental questions about human existence and the human condition. Human lives are too short, human intelligence is too limited and human ability to obtain knowledge through direct sensory experience is minuscule in comparison with what would be needed to get anything close to satisfactory answers. (In the modern era, science (cumulatively) has gone some distance. But the answers it provides are often neither satisfying nor absolutely definitive.)

A person could spend a lifetime focused on just one tiny aspect of reality (e.g. ant behavior) and still leave behind more unanswered questions than answers.

The futility of the human condition is what makes "authoritative revelation" so tempting. Someone comes along and confidently and authoritatively claims to have received knowledge in a way that has bypassed all of the human limitations that otherwise make it impossible for any human to actually know what is claimed.

According to the "messenger" (aka 'prophet'), the information that the messenger is revealing to you came from a being that is not subject to human limitations--a being that knows everything because the being designed and created everything. That being is god. That's the basic formula used by Joseph Smith and countless other "religious leaders" throughout history.

Of course there will be many humans who want (desperately want) to believe that such revelation can be real. So as long as the person pretending to have access to information from god can tell a reasonably convincing story with a straight face and tell a story that relieves much of the human anxiety that comes from not knowing the truth about human existence and consciousness (such as where or if you ever existed anywhere prior to being in your mother's womb, whether there is any transcendent meaning to human existence or whether your life is just as random and meaningless as that of a cockroach, and whether memories and consciousness continue after bodily death), that messenger/prophet/religious leader has a very good chance of finding an audience willing to buy the stories he or she is selling.

The human condition creates the thirst for knowledge that seems hopelessly unattainable and, in economic terms, this creates the demand for answers from supernatural sources. People who are willing to make up answers in the form of stories that they claim were revealed to them by an invisible god inevitably appear on the scene to supply a religious product that will satisfy that demand.

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thirst for religion appears to be rooted in
> the fundamental frustration that results from
> humans having enough brainpower to have numerous
> and significant questions about reality and human
> existence, but never having enough brainpower to
> ever really find the answers.
> . . . .
> It really is impossible for humans to find the
> answers to the fundamental questions about human
> existence and the human condition. Human lives
> are too short, human intelligence is too limited
> and human ability to obtain knowledge through
> direct sensory experience is minuscule in
> comparison with what would be needed to get
> anything close to satisfactory answers
> . . . .
> The human condition creates the thirst for
> knowledge that seems hopelessly unattainable and,
> in economic terms, this creates the demand for
> answers from supernatural sources. People who are
> willing to make up answers in the form of stories
> that they claim were revealed to them by an
> invisible god inevitably appear on the scene to
> supply a religious product that will satisfy that
> demand.
=======================

Bingo.
(Delightful read!)

An idle curiosity is -

DID JS actually believe his stories (delusional psychotic) or DID he know he was a carnival barker (merest psychopath).
How about The Bretheren 12 today?
Pope?
Other religious chiefs & chieftains?

Not critical to the discussion, nor to our lives, but it would be kinda fun to know what REALLY happens in the various and sundry inner sanctums. I mean - wouldn't it be a hoot?

I don’t think you can lump religion in with Mormonism. Mormonism is deliberately dumb. Mind numbingly dumb. To make Mormonism work, you have to stay dumb. That’s not representative of all religion.

Reason isn’t a strong human trait. There is too much bias because people are emotionally attached to their ideas.

Render unto Caesar is about using both reason and religion responsibility. The latter has nothing to do with being Jesus’ b*tch.

So you're saying that those intellectual studs at FAIR are not mormonism’s version of the Jesuits?

Bummer that you could be so dismissive! Denial Be Peterson would be a Cardinal now but for a tragic accident of birth.

It would appear that many times human beings replace reason with religion. They attach themselves to a concept or religion and then turn over their entire lives to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of that organization.

COMMENT: You seem to be suggesting in this post either: (1) That religion is per se irrational; i.e. that you can be religious or rational, but not both; or (2) that most or many people who adhere to religious faith do so at the expense of rational thinking. Both suppositions are false in my view. Here's why:

Religious faith usually has nothing to do with any lack or sacrifice of rationality. The vast majority of religious people adhere to their faith based upon rationally assessed facts and values. It is this mixture of facts and values that cause problems for "evidence" and/or "truth" but they do not undermine rationality. Rationality involves the making of valid inferences from one's assessment of external facts, one's particular circumstances, and one's personal inner values; i.e what one deems to be important in life for whatever reason.

Facts, particularly metaphysical facts, are illusive; it is not easy or always possible to determine which are true, which are likely to be true, or which are unlikely to be true, or likely to be false, and just where the probabilities lie. Moreover, which facts are rationally accepted depends not just upon which are most probably true, but also upon which facts may be true but also have the virtue of being useful, or morally preferable. Suppose you are lost in a vast forest. The facts tell you that it is highly improbable that a town will be discovered just beyond the next ridge. However, such a belief might very well be motivationally useful, as you go from one ridge to the next trying to save yourself. As such, it is quite rational to accept the "irrational" belief that maybe the town will be there, and with that belief push yourself to check.

In short, we pick and choose what "facts" we want to accept, coupled with our values and circumstances and then make rational decisions about our worldview; including whether or not we believe in some religious dogma. This process is just as rational as the atheist who makes rational decisions based upon placing a premium on the value of truth and evidence over other things, like existential comfort, or moral grounding.

In short, it is certainly possible for the religious to engage in irrational beliefs; e.g. beliefs that are inconsistent with their other beliefs, or inconsistent with known and established scientific facts, like the age of the earth. But the atheist can also be irrational. An atheist who refuses to believe that there is a town beyond the next ridge because of an evidentiary and/or probability assessment, might then just sit down and die, allowing himself to be controlled by probabilities. Arguably, that too is irrational in that context.

I have an acquaintance who is TBM and very smart. She knows full well that the Church makes no sense from an evidentiary point of view, or from an objective assessment of its probability of being true. Yet, she believes. When I asked why, she responded: "Because it offers family stability and grounding as well as a hope that life has ultimate meaning. Plus, I just feel that it is right." Is she being irrational? Not at all!

Thus, rationality is a mental exercise that is deeply personal. Denying it haphazardly to "the religious" should therefore be avoided.

After my marriage had ended, my (now adult) son asks me, "Do you think Mom is dumb?"

I had to ponder my answer some because I couldn't decide if my very TBM wife was not intellectual or not curious. She never explored questions with either reason or religion.

She never really "investigated" because she didn't have to since the Church has all the answers and she is willing to accept its positions faithfully. She never developed research skills either to use reason or religious scholarship to discern what she evaluated to be true.

There is no need to explore for answers when you already have them.

To quote Bob Johnson, a noted(?) deist: "God gave us reason, not religion."

One of the definitions of reason is ;the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

The dictionary I referred to also says,"there is a close connection between reason and emotion."

The dictionary says that these are the synonyms of reason: rationality, logic, logical thought, scientific thinking, reasoning, thought, cognition;

What D&D says: Reason and it's synonyms are dependent on curiosity. The curious are only such a thing because they know there is more to know. This is the opposite of a religious leader telling you exactly what God's plan is and exactly how you fit in.

Curiosity is how we got to the Moon and Mars. Curiosity made man wonder if he could fly. Curiosity is what made man believe he could talk through a wire and then not even need the wire in the end.

Some would claim that God gave man curiosity which is the opposite of knowing all. So why then does this supposed god create or at least maintain religions wherein spiritual curiosity is the enemy? What kind of reasoning is that?

The opposite of religion is not atheism, but exploration.