How Convictions Are More Dangerous Foes Of Truth Than Lies
In reply to that quote,
one very religious person said:
"This is plain stupidity.
God is truth and if a person is convicted in Him the only danger is from the ungodly."
------
My thoughts about that are these:
It's not talking about any "God".
Just as importantly, it's not actually possible for a human to be "convicted" only in "Him".
Even if "He" is real, ...
All beliefs ABOUT him are beliefs that believers must entirely depend on other humans and their own mind to provide.
So when we trust something a specific book/chapter/verse says, ...
we aren't merely "trusting God".
No.
It means we are putting that much trust in other fallible humans
and in our selves.
Because it was mere fallible humans whom we got that "information" from.
It's also our own fallible minds we are trusting to
a.) understand;
whatever we've read or heard.
and
b.) ascribe meaning and value;
to whatever we've read or heard (or felt).
I hate to be the bearer of bad news.
But everyone who accept a set of religious texts as "the words of God" ... are committing idolatry.
They're putting:
cherry-picking canon-pickers (and canon-excluders),
story tellers,
story changers,
later writers,
editors,
translators,
and interpreters ...
into the position of "God";
so that:
When those men speak, we say "that is our God speaking".
To be "convicted in God" means
you are devoting yourself into a fallible conceptualization of "God".
Every "personal God"-theist
was given their conceptualization of "God"
through unsubstantiated rumors;
rumors
which originated in the minds of fallible men.
While a "believing" mind takes form,
that mind is going through a process where it interprets and adapts what it's being fed.
Gradually, "God" takes on a persona (or "becomes a character") which is ultimately unique to the believer's own mind.
Realize.
I am NOT saying "there aren't any God(s)".
No.
It's just that every "personal God"-believer's perceptions of "God" have been mostly determined by a myriad of fallible humans.
Now, if a person's beliefs about "God" affect how they think and feel,
then those beliefs will affect how they behave in this world.
As a result,
those beliefs will be impacting
both
the quality and quantity
of:
a.) the believer's life
and
b.) other people's lives.
This where Nietzsche's quote becomes a very important observation.
Whenever a human adopts 100% certainty about anything they think is "real",
...
That person becomes greatly handicapped (if not outright prevented) when it comes to honestly re-evaluating the accuracy of those perceptions.
In fact, that problem is often greatly worsened when it comes to religious beliefs
because:
In many cases, the religious person will be under:
a.) extreme threat (eternal consequences),
b.) extreme bribery (eternal blissful life),
and
c.) identity dependence (ie "identity politics" and "identity tribalism").
[Although, when it comes to religious fundamentalism, I would describe this as:
desperately fearful, needy, and proud identity refuge.]
That, in turn, will help ensure the "convicted mind" won't ever seriously question those beliefs.
As a result,
everything new
which ever gets put in a mental box of "certainties" about "God", or love, or life, etc..
will instantly become something else the "believer" can't be accountable to 'due diligence' about.
So let's assume that there is a Super-Being who created our world and all life within it.
Now let's assume that any specific "believer" has a pretty-well accurate view of that entity.
Who and what "God" is ...
is not the point.
The point is:
Even if you're pretty-well correct about all the things you think about "God"
[not that I really think that's even possible. But I'm granting it for the sake of this point],
...
An unwillingness to seriously entertain challenges to those points of view
would still be a serious problem.
Why?
Because:
It would mean:
whatever you later add to your pool of "facts"
... might not be factual.
But you'll never realize it.
That same problem will persist for new points of:
* logic that isn't actually logical,
* ethics that aren't actually ethical,
* ideas about mental health that aren't actually healthy,
* injustices mistaken as 'just',
* un-loving-ness mistaken as loving,
etc..
You'll have grossly handicapped yourself,
in advance,
in your capacity to recognize:
dubious claims,
fallacious reasoning,
and poor ethics.
And you'll have made equally sure that nobody will be allowed to help you realize it.
So then,
even if there is a "God" who is reliably honest,
...
You'll be moving further way FROM that "God"
and won't even realize it.
"Certainty" is a frame of mind.
And it's a very dangerous thing to make a habit of.
I myself only put things in my "certainties box" that are logically impossible;
like "married bachelors", "square circles", and (libertarian) Free Will.
Even then, that box is never locked.
To keep myself honest, literally everything I accept as "true" or as "good" remains:
safe to challenge and safe to change my mind about.
So then I can move forward, day to day,
relaxed and comfortable with my own list of things that I accept as "facts" and which I value as "good".
Thus, I'm getting the same sense of 'stable reality' that any believer is trying to assure for themselves too.
But I MAKE it safe to re-evaluate any of that,
any time,
in real time.
I make it safe to replace and/or update any piece of that structure.
How I make that safe is:
1. I don't bet my ego on any of it.
2. The foundation of that structure isn't built with specific fact-claims. Instead, it's built with time-tested tools and ideals.
I value honesty, personal accountability, and compassion.
I value every form of health for all sentient beings.
I value good function for everything that provides positive utility to sentient beings.
I value sensory input.
I value mutual cooperation.
I value skepticism.
I value logic.
I also value the principal of "seek balance, in all things".
So in order for someone to challenge the actual foundation of my worldview, they'd have to challenge those principals.
Whereas, if someone challenges my perception and/or my confidence-level
for various economic theories,
or that libertarian Free Will is nonsense,
or that Moses is at least mostly mythical,
...
my ego doesn't care. Because it would not hurt to discover that my perceptions or confidence levels about any given *facts* need to change.
Keeping a bloated, locked, and guarded "certainties box" is unwise.
This is the same objection I have about the fantasy concept of someone being "guided" or having truths "revealed" by an infallible sentient *entity* (ie "the Holy Spirit").
Now, the reason I say it's a "fantasy" isn't because I reject all possible "God(s)" as untrue.
In fact, if I assume some "God" = true,
I would still be taking this same position.
I would still be saying "revelation from the Holy Spirit" is a fantasy.
And that reason is:
No ENTITY worthy of the title "God"
would sabotage humanity.
IF a super-powered Entity DOES sabotage humanity, then they're unworthy of the title "God".
If a super-powered Entity does "reveal truths" and "guide believers" in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, ... then:
they'd be setting a dangerous and self-hypocrite-ize-ing precedent for their followers.
Because then they'd be creating a situation where a certain way of reasoning is "good and true" whenever exclusively-correct "receivers" participate in it. But then bad-and-false whenever anyone else participates in seeking, experiencing, and justifying their mental experiences the same way.
The only way to make this way of thinking safe and objectively discernable as "from a source more powerful than humans"
would be:
to always and exclusively provide a miraculous sign that no incorrect-people could reproduce;
like a brilliant fire over the head of the "true receivers",
or anything else everyone can see and which modern science and trickery could not effectively imitate.
Although, that wouldn't prove anything about the character or intentions of the source; because power is not proof of character.
But it would at least provide an object means for identifying that "something is happening there which goes beyond a person's own thoughts and feelings".
Without such proof,
self-proclaimed "receivers" would be dignifying, sanctioning, and "leading by example" ... an example they don't actually want anyone else to follow.
Because they sure don't want people in other religions to reason the same way; to say "I know my religious beliefs are correct because they were revealed to me directly by a GOD whom it would be wrong for me (and for you) to question".
That, in turn, will help ensure the "convicted mind" won't ever seriously question those beliefs.
As a result,
everything new
which ever gets put in a mental box of "certainties" about "God", or love, or life, etc..
will instantly become something else the "believer" can't be accountable to 'due diligence' about.
So let's assume that there is a Super-Being who created our world and all life within it.
Now let's assume that any specific "believer" has a pretty-well accurate view of that entity.
Who and what "God" is ...
is not the point.
The point is:
Even if you're pretty-well correct about all the things you think about "God"
[not that I really think that's even possible. But I'm granting it for the sake of this point],
...
An unwillingness to seriously entertain challenges to those points of view
would still be a serious problem.
Why?
Because:
It would mean:
whatever you later add to your pool of "facts"
... might not be factual.
But you'll never realize it.
That same problem will persist for new points of:
* logic that isn't actually logical,
* ethics that aren't actually ethical,
* ideas about mental health that aren't actually healthy,
* injustices mistaken as 'just',
* un-loving-ness mistaken as loving,
etc..
You'll have grossly handicapped yourself,
in advance,
in your capacity to recognize:
dubious claims,
fallacious reasoning,
and poor ethics.
And you'll have made equally sure that nobody will be allowed to help you realize it.
So then,
even if there is a "God" who is reliably honest,
...
You'll be moving further way FROM that "God"
and won't even realize it.
"Certainty" is a frame of mind.
And it's a very dangerous thing to make a habit of.
I myself only put things in my "certainties box" that are logically impossible;
like "married bachelors", "square circles", and (libertarian) Free Will.
Even then, that box is never locked.
To keep myself honest, literally everything I accept as "true" or as "good" remains:
safe to challenge and safe to change my mind about.
So then I can move forward, day to day,
relaxed and comfortable with my own list of things that I accept as "facts" and which I value as "good".
Thus, I'm getting the same sense of 'stable reality' that any believer is trying to assure for themselves too.
But I MAKE it safe to re-evaluate any of that,
any time,
in real time.
I make it safe to replace and/or update any piece of that structure.
How I make that safe is:
1. I don't bet my ego on any of it.
2. The foundation of that structure isn't built with specific fact-claims. Instead, it's built with time-tested tools and ideals.
I value honesty, personal accountability, and compassion.
I value every form of health for all sentient beings.
I value good function for everything that provides positive utility to sentient beings.
I value sensory input.
I value mutual cooperation.
I value skepticism.
I value logic.
I also value the principal of "seek balance, in all things".
So in order for someone to challenge the actual foundation of my worldview, they'd have to challenge those principals.
Whereas, if someone challenges my perception and/or my confidence-level
for various economic theories,
or that libertarian Free Will is nonsense,
or that Moses is at least mostly mythical,
...
my ego doesn't care. Because it would not hurt to discover that my perceptions or confidence levels about any given *facts* need to change.
Keeping a bloated, locked, and guarded "certainties box" is unwise.
This is the same objection I have about the fantasy concept of someone being "guided" or having truths "revealed" by an infallible sentient *entity* (ie "the Holy Spirit").
Now, the reason I say it's a "fantasy" isn't because I reject all possible "God(s)" as untrue.
In fact, if I assume some "God" = true,
I would still be taking this same position.
I would still be saying "revelation from the Holy Spirit" is a fantasy.
And that reason is:
No ENTITY worthy of the title "God"
would sabotage humanity.
IF a super-powered Entity DOES sabotage humanity, then they're unworthy of the title "God".
If a super-powered Entity does "reveal truths" and "guide believers" in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, ... then:
they'd be setting a dangerous and self-hypocrite-ize-ing precedent for their followers.
Because then they'd be creating a situation where a certain way of reasoning is "good and true" whenever exclusively-correct "receivers" participate in it. But then bad-and-false whenever anyone else participates in seeking, experiencing, and justifying their mental experiences the same way.
The only way to make this way of thinking safe and objectively discernable as "from a source more powerful than humans"
would be:
to always and exclusively provide a miraculous sign that no incorrect-people could reproduce;
like a brilliant fire over the head of the "true receivers",
or anything else everyone can see and which modern science and trickery could not effectively imitate.
Although, that wouldn't prove anything about the character or intentions of the source; because power is not proof of character.
But it would at least provide an object means for identifying that "something is happening there which goes beyond a person's own thoughts and feelings".
Without such proof,
self-proclaimed "receivers" would be dignifying, sanctioning, and "leading by example" ... an example they don't actually want anyone else to follow.
Because they sure don't want people in other religions to reason the same way; to say "I know my religious beliefs are correct because they were revealed to me directly by a GOD whom it would be wrong for me (and for you) to question".
Such thinking creates a partition in the believer's own mind.
When anything that FEELS a certain kind of way is "accepted as"
a revealed "truth"
gifted to the "receiver"
from a perfect Entity
whom it would be "wrong" to doubt or question, ...
each of those thoughts and feelings will be exempted from a full measure of due scrutiny.
From there, those thoughts and feelings will be placed in a mental God-box where it will be self-forbidden to ever question those in the future.
As a result,
the person will be prevented from OWNING their own thoughts and feeling (as their own thoughts and feelings).
That, in turn, prevents the person from owning accountability for those thoughts and feelings.
Thus, it prevents the person from then owning responsibility for how those those thoughts and feelings might be affecting their own attitudes and actions.
As such, it prevents the person from honestly tracking how those attitudes and behaviors might be hurting others.
Because then the assumption will be either:
a.) "it can't be hurting anyone, because God would never direct me into anything that hurts anyone"
or else
b.) "even if it is hurting someone, it must be for a greater good".
It directly and severely handicaps a person's ability to keep honest and accountable 'personal inventory';
about everything they've been shoving into the mental box labeled "don't question the stuff that gets put into here".
When anything that FEELS a certain kind of way is "accepted as"
a revealed "truth"
gifted to the "receiver"
from a perfect Entity
whom it would be "wrong" to doubt or question, ...
each of those thoughts and feelings will be exempted from a full measure of due scrutiny.
From there, those thoughts and feelings will be placed in a mental God-box where it will be self-forbidden to ever question those in the future.
As a result,
the person will be prevented from OWNING their own thoughts and feeling (as their own thoughts and feelings).
That, in turn, prevents the person from owning accountability for those thoughts and feelings.
Thus, it prevents the person from then owning responsibility for how those those thoughts and feelings might be affecting their own attitudes and actions.
As such, it prevents the person from honestly tracking how those attitudes and behaviors might be hurting others.
Because then the assumption will be either:
a.) "it can't be hurting anyone, because God would never direct me into anything that hurts anyone"
or else
b.) "even if it is hurting someone, it must be for a greater good".
It directly and severely handicaps a person's ability to keep honest and accountable 'personal inventory';
about everything they've been shoving into the mental box labeled "don't question the stuff that gets put into here".
Comments
Post a Comment