by Markfromcali 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Have you ever noticed how you have belief and experience in different proportions when it comes to religion? On the one hand you might have the fundy that just crams every experience into the interpretation of a static belief system, and on the other you have the typical new age kind of mindset where every kind of belief is conjured up to support your experience.
For those who have seen the movie Office Space, remember the game "Jump to Conclusions"?
I have noticed that humans seem to all fit into the following groups
leaders [the shepherds] --they have absolute black and white beliefs and make anyone who seems to think otherwise into an enemy. They know with CONviction exactly what their experiences mean. They are good liars, insane or a bit of both...
I define a lie as any pretending of a belief or faith as a fact which seems to mark most leaders.
Followers [the sheep] --they nearly blindly adopt their chosen leaders beliefs, mannerisms, expressions, etc. The let others tell them what their experiences mean.
Cameleons [often viewed as two faced traitors] --followers who become the group they happen to be with rather than loyal to one particular group.
Independents [anti-social or uncharismatic leaders who cannot attract a following] considered a danger by all, but also considered inspirational at times. the mad geniuses, psycho-pathic loners, etc.
Is the "cause" because what God has done to humans, or what humans have done to God? Is it the belief in God the problem, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic? Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or dogmatism?
The neophyte scientist can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief.
The neophyte scientist can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief.
Yes that is true. However, I think this whole matter can be further simplified by looking at the nature of belief. Rather than arguing about God or any particular type of belief, the obvious and yet seldom considered fact is belief is just something in the mind, and that goes for non-religious ones too, not to mention belief is also just one type of mental activity.
The relationship between belief and experience no doubt comes from the desire to interpret the experience, so you either try to interpret everything in a simple way that is fairly rigid, or you go with any number of interpretations for simple experiences, or somewhere in between. I would not say to stop interpreting your experience, but atleast recognize when you are coming up with an interpretation, and why. This is where people get lost.
Just because a particular way of organizing the information has proved to be useful and relatively consistent, it doesn't mean it is set in stone. So I think the point about being dogmatic is more or less on the same page, I simply view it as limiting yourself to a certain way of thinking, a particular corner of your mind that you actually created yourself - whether you realize it or not.
People consider the matter of mind control under an external entity, they never consider it on the level of their own mind. This is why I don't really see the need to argue specifics, if someone is aware of their own thought process and is honest, the truth will naturally come through. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if you get very specific with the facts of a particular issue, if the way you think is limited in this way you're bound to be stuck in confusion. You may get very good at arguing a specific point of view, and there may be a lot of people who agree with you, (who are stuck in the same way) but how clear your thinking process is (and therefore how true it is) is another matter.
And even if it is very clear, your thinking and your experience is only that, your own. Of course this doesn't mean there's no truth in it, (wish I had a nickel everytime someone whined "That's YOUR truth!" as if that actually addressed the topic at hand in any way) but to put things in perspective its just what happens in this mind in response to reality at large. Most arguments are really not about what people think they are - they're really about ways of thinking (or who is right, so who should follow who) rather than what those thoughts pertain to. People are in effect talking about themselves, and nothing more. In other words, the topic becomes an excuse for one ego to combat another. Regardless of whose information is better or more complete, its really all about "me."
The relationship between belief and experience no doubt comes from the desire to interpret the experience, so you either try to interpret everything in a simple way that is fairly rigid, or you go with any number of interpretations for simple experiences, or somewhere in between. I would not say to stop interpreting your experience, but atleast recognize when you are coming up with an interpretation, and why. This is where people get lost.
This brings up the debate of whether the mind is a tabala rasa(blank slate/tablet) or if ideas/beliefs are some innate knowledge derived from birth. I'd think that people that believe in god would side with the latter and people that are confused or do not believe in god would believe that we aren't born with innate beliefs but that they are shaped through experience(our five senses).
Hi Aalena,
Well, even if we are not born a blank slate, would what we are born with be considered belief, technically speaking? I mean in a broader, more general sense we're just talking about thoughts. While one might argue there is an innate sense of spirit or what have you, the concept of spirit, God or whatever is an idea that is learned. Therefore there is the question of what happens when you drop those ideas, to go to that direct experience? As they say in zen, what is your original face before your parents were born?
By the way, even if we are born with an innate knowledge, that doesn't necessarily mean that is the ultimate truth - it just means thats what we are born with. This is why this question is interesting, because it asks what it was like before the birth ever took place.
Mahayana Buddhists have a saying to the effect that as one gets closer to enlightenment (or Pure Land, Nibbana,etc.) all dharmas go away. Essentially it means the various practises and beliefs gradually become unneeded and unuseful as one develops knowing. This does not mean what is true now is not true later, but more that what once worked will not work. Imagine you are just starting to life weights. You wouldn't begin by bench-pressing 300lbs. You would use repetitions of some weight much lighter and gradually increase. There would be a point that very light weights wouldn't be of as much use as heavier ones, as you built muscle mass.
People sometimes outgrow their "faith.", and sometimes they find they can't have "faith" in anything without some reason. A baby, as it learns speech, accepts the words of its mother, but even then it has to find out things for itself. This is not mistrust so much as it is the Brain OS loading and doing it's thing. Later on, though, I think most people do tend to be wary of taking anything on word alone, with spirituality perhaps being the biggest exception, as it is easy to take someone's word and put it on the backburner, or else perform some token thought or service towards it during the day (rosary, meditation, prayer, putting money in the McDonald House box on lunch). These activities anchor and maintain one's "faith", to a degree. Somewhere along the way, however, the urge to question, seems to get lost.
This brings up the debate of whether the mind is a tabala rasa(blank slate/tablet) or if ideas/beliefs are some innate knowledge derived from birth. I'd think that people that believe in god would side with the latter and people that are confused or do not believe in god would believe that we aren't born with innate beliefs but that they are shaped through experience(our five senses).
our brain seems to be a neural net like computer and following man made neural nets, they begin with somewhat randomized connections which are modified and changed by experiences... this means that some may be born with just about all the connections that others may need a lifetime to acheive, but most are born somewhat in the middle... beliefs being made of these connections would thus be somewhat innate and somewhat modified by experiences.
now what causes the initial connections is up for grabs... it could be a simple randomizing program in the DNA [the DNA itself has been shown to be insufficient to account for the actual connections, not enough data stored]
it could be an interaction between our true nature and our apparent physicality from some other plane of existance beyond comprehension... or it could be the natural interaction between growing cells, nutrients from the mother, and effects of environment in the womb....
the fact is that some are born with near intact complex programs which allow them to demonstrate early "talents" but it is rare to find those with full mastery.
