Ten Reasons To Question Belief—In Anything

How rushing to belief and acceptance creates fallacious convictions.

A lot has been said here over the past year. 352 posts and over 13,000 comments (thank you) since this all started. I have learned a lot from all of you ‘common atheists’, and that was my goal; To find the truth, not be told what to believe. To share with you all what I’ve learned, not what I’ve been schooled by professionals with a stake in it. With deeper understanding comes change, and with that change I’ve learned that exposing the blatant inadequacy of religion and the faith/belief numbing that has enveloped the human family is built on ten psycho-neuro premises. There are more, but these will do to persuade any reasonable person of the gullibility and delicate nature of human neurology and perceptions of truth.

We have traveled but a short distance in a great journey. We have honed our skills and perfected reason beyond the walls of religion. We have hammered on the fallacy of faith, fallibility of scripture, where it comes from, how it starts—the tricks of the preachers trade—while the duped are now running the con, and against all reason by way of contradiction, it’s a societal expectation…to believe. Why? What is the pressure inside most everybody to rush to believe—anything!

But, it is with little understanding of their own condition that they perpetuate the hoax on the unsuspecting gullibles, newborns, children, adults taking sides, and those human-herd tendencies that condition us to follow. To fit-in to a group based on belief that will turn on us over mere unbelief. It’s borderline c.r.a.z.y (sometimes you just gotta spell it out)

We don’t believe because we want to. We just do—everything! Always just believing what we are told (look at the success of fake news) Humans aren’t trustworthy with their own minds! Here they are in no particular order—for everyone, not just the other guy!

1. Cognitive Dissonance

2. Illusory Truth Syndrome

3. Confirmation Bias

4. Pluralistic Ignorance

5. Logical Fallacies

6. Neurotheology

7. Contradictions

8. Fear Appeal

9. Dunning-Kruger

10. Reason.

Please be aware of your own human condition, including the foibles and quirks of perception and neurology—before believing anything! (including shadow people). We can break the faith trap through awareness of humanism.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

97 thoughts on “Ten Reasons To Question Belief—In Anything”

  1. I wonder what it is, that ”click” (light bulb) moment, which causes a religious believer to begin to question, and why some do and some don’t?
    Many of you – especially those who were seriously entrenched – would likely have had a go at someone like me full on Hammer and Tongs during your hay day, and a few of you were even in ministry.
    For someone (me) who was merely a cultural Christian it truly is baffling that people like you and Ben, Mike, Nan, Prof etc can now see clearly, yet people like Mel Wild and David Robertson come across as almost demented at times in the conviction and occasionally rabid defense of their faith.

    Just plain odd.

    Liked by 10 people

    Reply

    1. It’s definitely an important question to me that you ask and is part of the reason why I follow so many deconverts. Since, like many of us, we fail in arguing against the religious, what indeed is the the rock fall that begins the avalanche? I find it interesting how people make these big transitions. Because it’s clearly more than just about reason. It’s changing the narrative about our own lives. Something that seems not easy to do when we’ve been living one story for in many cases a long time.

      Liked by 8 people

      Reply

      1. When you see it it’s like Bill said the other day, like scales come off your eyes and you see the world through your own perceptions, no longer are you merely a parrot, with an echo…echo.
        The stone you refer is academics. The carefully guarded funnel of Christian and Muslim learning. The avoidance of anything contrary to mere belief.

        Liked by 7 people

        Reply

        2. But Jim this was the case for you. You can present some people with all the academic information you want and it does not penetrate the wall. I suspect there has to be more than academics. Things like:

          – a feeling of self-determination that it is you made the transition yourself as opposed to feeling it being forced upon you
          – an emotional trigger such having your own personal sense of unhappiness in life and thus looking for more answers to help change your emotional state
          – perhaps it takes a person you feel some emotional attachment for who does not believe as you do and thus when they make arguments you are more likely to listen over some stranger on the internet
          – perhaps it is seeing the hypocrisy in someone who does believe as you do thus making you turn away from what you believe

          Those are just some things that come to mind. As Ark puts it, why you and not someone like Mel? It is also likely how strongly tethered our beliefs are to other parts of our life. Changing beliefs can lose us friends and loved one and they can lose us status and power. I suspect that we fight against changing our beliefs because very often it’s not as simply as changing your mind about what your favorite band is, or what your favorite soda is, this is something that changes our entire world and can bring a lot of personal and social trauma initially. In the long haul it may improve our quality of life tremendously, but playing the long game is hard for humans.

          Liked by 6 people

          Reply

          1. I guess I would have to amend this a little. Curiosity may be the key. Someone has to be willing to look beyond what they’ve been accustomed to seeing. My academia came after college, after a long spell of religion, self learning from curiosity. That’s how I’ve became familiar with the topics of this post. I used to just read religious stuff. It wasn’t enough and I ventured off. I guess most people have a deplorable lack of curiosity?

            Liked by 3 people

            Reply

            1. For Victoria curiosity was important too. In my experience I wouldn’t say anybody is born with a lack of curiosity, I think this is a trait though that can be conditioned out of people. The child who is told that their questioning their faith is a sign of the devil and that they’ll burn in hell for asking, is less likely to continue to ask questions. My mom is actually a fairly curious person and does lots of research, but of course when it comes to religion she tends to lean towards sources that confirm her belief. And of course there are many religious scientists. Not a majority certainly, but enough to show that at least curiosity must exist to some degree in them, but it is turned off when it comes to their faith. So that in itself is another curious questions. 🙂

              Liked by 3 people

    2. I know you have to step back a moment and question EVERYTHING. It’s a friggin belief! Nothing more. Socially conditioned to select a faith, tribal, tribal, tribal. It does go to our roots in evolution somewhere I would guess. Like being an MU fan. You’re born to it, or get caught up in some frenzy with a friend and boom! Really, though, much of it is through fear. We are drilled about the overblown importance of it all at every turn—the importance of belief. Who’s side are you on? We’re constantly forced to pick from two wrongs, but just pick one. Where does that come from? And in religion, any faith will do. Not believing is stigmatized

      Liked by 6 people

      Reply

      1. I understand how you get in and how so many stay in, but it is that point when the believer says: ”Hold on a moment, that doesn’t make sense!”
        This is what I wonder about.
        Perhaps, after all, you simply weren’t Proper Christians ™?
        😉

        BTW, being a Manchester United fan is a quirk of nature, an aberrant anomaly.
        Unlike religion,I don’t believe there is a cure.
        It is such a terrible waste.
        *Shakes head*

        Liked by 9 people

        Reply

        1. Victoria would probably answer that better than me, but from looking at the neurology, the pathways are hardwired through repetition and submission. The ability to ignore contradiction becomes a physiological problem. It took some time away from the pressures and explanations for me. Maybe I should prescribe three weeks alone, unplugged in the jungle for every believer. The apologists have never applied the principles in real life. They only know the words. Ask Ben, once you apply the precepts you see it doesn’t add up. It’s only by faith one stays in the church. It is by fact that you leave it.

          Liked by 7 people

          Reply

            3. This is a different guy, but what a story. Excellent share! A must watch. I’m so glad he didn’t go in to convince them of original sin, guilt and fear. This is the type of integrity lacking in the apologists.

              Liked by 3 people

            5. Ah Mary, that’s the one. You always come through! I haven’t bought that yet, but I bet I could quote-mine the hell out of that one! Thanks.

              Liked by 1 person

    3. Many questions are in this comment. Two separate ones in the first sentence. Our stories answer them. It is not a ‘moment’ but a life, which is why I wrote (writing) a topical memoir about it, as have others. Many believers are in transition. We just cannot see it until the metamorphosis is completed and they come out. In my opinion it’s a long process that takes place in pretty deep water.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

        1. It is a lightbulb at the end. I think the answer lays here; some people search to confirm their belief, while other search for truth in any form. I don’t care to be right, I just want to know, while appearing to be right seems to be the going trend.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

        2. You just said it, “move through transition.” As with many other things in life, it is a journey, not and event. However, I have heard many testimonies of flash-conversions, often literal instances of the holy spirit taking over.

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

        4. I think, for me anyway, it wasn’t so much a light bulb moment like “aha! I see it so clearly now” but was more of a dim light far off in the distance. You see it is so far away and you ignore it for awhile. But it’s a persistent little light, so eventually you say, “it’s not going away, maybe I’ll go investigate what that light is. It may take me a while to make my way to the source of that light but if it’s hanging around, it must be important. It must mean something.” It wasn’t so much a spotlight in my eyes as it was a light with a dimmer knob and something was turning it a little more each day…and the light just kept getting brighter and brighter. The brighter a light gets, the harder it is to ignore. I think the light gets brighter for most people. Some are ready to get up and face it while others just put their mask back over their eyes, roll over and go back to sleep.

          Liked by 5 people

          Reply

          1. But it was still a light bulb moment of a type.
            You allowed yourself to at least question.
            And this is what I was wondering.
            Did you think …
            ”Nah, demons aren’t real. They can’t be ‘cos the Catholics believe them and they’re not real Christians.”

            Or …

            What happened to all JC’s Brothers and Sister and their spouses and their kids?

            Or .. How exactly did God get the Platypus on the ark from Australia?

            Or was it something completely innocuous that set you wondering.
            ”Did Jesus ever get laid?”

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            2. I think the question I first asked, was “why are none of my prayers getting answered?” Then I started asking what else wasn’t “as advertised”? Things started piling up to the point where I couldn’t ignore them anymore.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Prayer started it for me too. Then “signs follow them that believe”. I guess it’s like filling a swimming pool with a thimble. Bit by bit I got literally exhausted making excuses.

              Like

            7. I’m pretty sure anyone who critically analyze it have the moment of clarity. It’s a disruptive thing to counter everything you thought was true. Keeping peace in the family, people counting in your faith, congregations to satisfy, it all comed into play. I’ve said this before, but if this life were truly a test, would you be able to call bullshit in the face of overwhelm odds and pressure to believe something you know ain’t so.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. I agree, that is the difficult part. However, all I was wondering was what was the moment ”you” thought …. ”Something’s not Kosher about all this.”

              And you and Ben have recognized it was linked to the failure of prayer.

              Liked by 2 people

            9. Maybe my glasses were foggy. But, as you can see, for some reason we allow religion to do things to our heads that we don’t allow in any other arena. I don’t split hairs! —except by faith. Crazy

              Liked by 1 person

    4. Sorry, mate. That’s a different David Robertson.

      Also, I’d appreciate it if you stopped tracking me over blogs I visit. it’s a bit creepy for me.

      And sorry to say, not too keen on your blog. Too many graphics for one thing. Not my cup of tea.
      All the best.
      Ark.,

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        1. You liked one of my comments on a blog I have never seen you like before or leave a comment on. This suggests (to me, at least) you are following me around possibly touting for subscribers.
          Excuse any presumption on my part, I am not that internet savvy, but none of my other subscribers or regular visitors have ever visited this lady’s blog, so I find your behaviour uncomfortable.
          To this end, I’d prefer it if you rather focus on those people who subscribe to your blog.
          I’m not interested.
          Thanks.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Please kindly cease your presumption and jumping to conclusion based on your misunderstanding, paranoia, prejudice and/or preconception. I frequent that person’s blog from time to time, and when I do so, I am definitely at the liberty to read (and like) the comments there, regardless of whether your “other subscribers or regular visitors have ever visited this lady’s blog”, and regardless of whether you are “not interested”, and also irrespective of whether I am or have been a subscriber or follower of your blog, which I am actually not.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Excellent! Thank you for not following my blog. I hope I can extend the same compliment for not liking my comments which will go a long way to helping my paranoia
              As my Vulcan grand father used to say – ”Live long and prosper.”

              May your god go with you.

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Referring to your statement “May your god go with you”, what makes you think that I have a god or any deity?

              As for the saying ”Live long and prosper.”, I have long stated it stylishly in my “About” page

              Like

            6. You are at a liberty to see yourself as a fish.

              I am stating facts, whether or not you believe me or visit the stated posts, and whether or not you are interested. There are definitely two comments by a blogger named David Robertson in “The Quotation Fallacy” post, and there is definitely the Vulcan saying in my “About” page.

              Like

      2. My website happens to be a multimedia, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary blog, which contains not only texts and graphics but also advanced features, including enhanced styling, animations, applications and games.

        In any case, my very first reply to your comment concerns mainly with the said person (regardless of whether it is indeed the same person whom you mentioned), not my website or blog.

        Like

        Reply

          1. As I mentioned, there is and has been no tracking. I simply read (and sometimes reply to) a lot of comments, and hardly just exclusively yours. You seem to be bordering on paranoia or flattering yourself to construe that as creepy tracking and/or following.

            Like

            Reply

          2. I would have to agree with Ark. your website is not a blog in this case. Your blog is a website. I do most everything on the mobile devices. Blogs can direct traffic to a site, but just one post of yours is a years worth of content, maybe more in file size. I’ve allowed a lot of self promotion here that I don’t want to have to consider changing—but I’m considering it by mere mention of it.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    5. It’s like an addiction: they need their Jesus fix to make it through the day. Worse still, they also derive their income from being dealers. Some people eventually come to the realization that their habits are ruining their lives and shake them off; others don’t.

      Liked by 7 people

      Reply

      1. According to psychologists, these fixes last about 4-5 days on average. The aura and energy of the carefully calculated church services produces the high, then comes the low. Weekly attendance to cure any apathy maintains the addiction.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Spoken like a vested, long-experienced Addictionologist Jim! And I would know. 😉 This also explains why the charismatic-fundy-evangy Xian trend has been rising: lots of neurological stimuli overloading or elevating greatly the endorphins and dopamine in human receptacles, i.e. pew sitters/dancers. 😉

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Thanks Prof. It doesn’t take much really to verse yourself in the studies. How evangelicals do this with a strait face is amazing too, especially the first woman in the clip.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

    1. Like Voltaire said, those that can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Propaganda leading to war, patriotism, volunteering to fight—both sides. Who was it that said “fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity”? It makes no sense but we do those kinds of things. Believing for the mere sake of…what?

      Liked by 6 people

      Reply

  4. Before I moved to WA, I read an article by someone who had done so. The comment that stuck (and still does) was, “There is something to be said for being around people of like mind.” While the context was political, the application was universally human. In my blog bio I claim to be atheist because of #10 (reason). I plan to use parts of your list in my future blogs.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  5. Hey, Jim, et al,
    I like the Piraha (?) in Ark’s video, straightforward, and unconfusable. Never having had a reason to conjure gods, they could not be taken in by talk of gods. I find them amazing people.
    Unfortunately most of the people in this world have been taught about gods and are therefore susceptible to such teachings. As you say, we like to believe in things. We also like things that herd us together, that supposedly make it easier for us to get through life together. And we hate being responsible for ourselves. But these things do not come naturally to us, as most believe. We are inundated with them from our first breaths after birth. And so we come to accept that is who we are.
    I don’t want to make this too lengthy of a comment, so I will try to conclude it here: theism is group-think, while atheism is individual-think. We (usually) start as part of a family group, so we learn to group-think. The groups to join are many. But as we grow our desire to be individuals grows with us. Once we find the strength to become an individual, we start to realize the traps of group-think. Those that do not see the traps remain trapped. Those that do see them become atheists.
    Too simplistic? Not for the Piraha…

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. I concur. And your right, that could be an entire book. I know it was outside the group (unintentional) that I was able to think without clever excuses and likeminded people breathing down my neck. Ben noticed the contradictions while in the group and slowly distances himself, then alone on Sunday’s with his wife they were chipping away at the scales of belief. I’m sure there are varied approaches as there are people, but alone is the only place on earth where there is no groupthink, masks, or political correctness to conform or warn.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. Hey, Jim, have I ever told you about the three states of spirituality I defined for my social work course in university. Your OP and your following comments made me think of them today, so I thought I would list them for you. These are not the only possible states, but for me they are the main three states in geographical areas affected by Abrahamic monotheisms.
        I started by defining spirituality as feeliongs and understandings that go beyond the realm of sensory experiences.
        Group Exclusdionary — belonging to any religious or spiritual group that excludes others based on belief systems that differ from their own.
        Exclusionary Individual — excluding oneself from group belief systems ususally for the purpose of finding a personal understanding of how life works.
        Non-exclusionary individual — accepts that all beings, no matter their spiritual state, are ultimately connected, excluding no one, and excluding themself from no one.

        No one belief system can encompass all understanding because life must be experienced individually from the inside out.

        Take whatever you like from these words, if you like anything at all.
        These states obviously can work for more than just spirituality, but that was what I was working on when I came to define them.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. Interesting. I remember the Kogi of Columbia talking about these different states of being, as well as the Luna of Ecuador. They called it “non ordinary reality”, and the anthropologists were agreeing. Different ways of seeing the world and passing through it, and they all had validity. They were experiencing things based in their own abilities and traditional talents and perceptions.
          “Aluna”—a kind of cosmic consciousness that is the source of all life and intelligence and the mind inside nature too. “Aluna is something that is thinking and has self-knowledge. It’s self-aware and alive. All indigenous people believe this, historically. It’s absolutely universal”.
          This is what I picture when I connect your ideas.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. I dislike putting names on anything, “life” is good enough for me. But whatever others what to do is up to them. I think most peoples not brought up under a “white-civilized” are far more in touch with what I call reality. Is that because I am half-indigenous myself, or just because I am not blinded by Classical Greek smoke and mirrors?

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

  6. As intelligent, sentient, self aware beings, we are actually “made up” of belief because we can remember and we can think ahead. We have many words to hide the fact that our lives are completely circumscribed by belief. There is an endless array of beliefs and we flow through them everyday, we just don’t pay them that much attention. From “solid” experience (my car will start come morning) to trust in some unseen, it’s all belief. For me there are two ways to approach belief: believe ALL things; believe IN nothing. Believers who challenge non-believers, or vice-versa, are just looking for arguments with proofs and counter-proofs. I learned for myself long ago, living in a heavily Bible belt area, that engaging such is both wasteful and expressions of hubris. “I am smarter than you because I don’t believe in your invisible God” or “I’m saved and you’re going to hell because you don’t believe in my all-powerful God.” School yard arguments. (My dad is bigger than your dad, nyah!) The problem, as I discovered over time, is not knowing when legitimate belief – what we survive and learn from – crosses over to believing “IN” something (faith). The first is how we all live, the second is me letting myself be enslaved to a BELIEF SYSTEM and spending the rest of my life working for it, supporting it, promoting it and going from common sense approach to belief to living in hope. Any intelligent person should know that “hope” is a chimera, yet how many even of those who have ditched believing “IN” still practice hoping? That is pure faith.
    Be the way, religion is not the most powerful BELIEF SYSTEM on planet earth today, not by a long shot. What really drives civilization is “banksterism” and if you don’t believe that, check out the amount of global debt “we” ostensibly owe “them” while we struggle and ever-lose trying to pay the bills created by their global Ponzi scheme. On top of our monthly bills and debt we owe right now, as part of the global debt collective, each of us, including any new born, owes the banksters $86,000. Yes, and the lion’s share of our taxes are going to pay interest on this FAITH loan while our debt continues to grow. How many people remain who do not BELIEVE IN some sort of capitalist system in the world today? Behold your real God, whose name is Mammon, people of earth and rue the day you put your faith IN him. There are more serious things to worry about than some proven non-existent invisible ghost.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. True dat!! I was looking for a way to tie that together without thieving your exact words. Believe everything. Believe IN nothing. Sums it up quite nicely.
      Sure we have faith and hope every day in the trivial. Before joining with some group that will hurt you if you don’t believe them any more, the things we deem important in this life, 2-3 items from the list of ten will at least show us our tendencies to be deceived easily. Thanks so much! Great comment!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    2. that engaging such is both wasteful and expressions of hubris. “I am smarter than you because I don’t believe in your invisible God”

      I don’t disagree that engaging in such debates may be wasteful, but I would disagree that it’s all about hubris. There are at least some, and I would say on both sides of the debate who feel that having a persuasive argument is actually to the benefit of who they are debating with in wanting to convince them to their point of view. I certainly cannot speak for others, but I do know that ultimately I have educated myself on religion and the errant arguments within because of the harmful ideas they are tied to. The history of many western nations is to use religious ideas as a basis for law and culture, and as a result has led to much harm and oppression. The U.S. has been fraught with using religion as a justification for physically punishing children, retributive justice systems, oppression of blacks and gays. Now it may be that the best way to convince somebody of the wrongness of those actions is to be a reformest within the religion and reinterpret the bible (or whatever holy book) in a way that leads to a more egalitarian society, but it’s not always out of hubris that one attacks someone’s religious beliefs with facts and sound argumentation. Again, I don’t claim this to be the best way, but I certainly don’t do it to show somebody how smart I am, but because I feel like the religious enterprise as a whole has more problems than it has blessings. And that the good that religion brings can be had through other ways than through an authoritarian hiearchy that requires you to take everything on faith without question.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. When you live in a “bible belt” area and do not ascribe to the ruling mindset it’s best to let them go and “hang themselves” and not argue. As it is said, do not argue with a fool, he’ll draw you down to his own level then beat you with experience. But I can tell you this: get rid of all organized religion, either by force or by persuasion and you will still have religion. Civilization is propped up on a three-legged stool of Religion, Government and Money. All three require faith to function since they are nothing in themselves. Faith equates belief without seeing. My point is that while some people are beating up on each other over religion versus…science(?) the other two legs of power are busy decimating the planet and setting the stage for a massive die-back. Religion will never be allowed to die off because without it the other two can’t stand. It’s a triumvirate, or a trinity if you want, of powers. Science has no power. It is either the whore of big business or the slave of the state, particularly as regards the military. As long as one of these powers is legitimized, i.e., believed in and worshiped, trying to break one of them down is a waste of time. All or nothing.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. I guess I don’t agree with several of your assertions here as they are a bit wide sweeping and lend are open to many counter examples. Government certainly does not require faith. Hierarchical structures in humans and even other primates is part of who we are as a social species and we have always had leaders based on some criteria. There are also clearly better and worse forms of leadership, just as there are better and worse forms of government. Different forms of government are better at certain things than others, and it’s true to say that we haven’t found the perfect form of government yet, but at the very least we can see that there are countries out there with more equality, more compassion, and who value money less over other things. These are models that we can use to improve ourselves. In the U.S. the idea that America is exceptional and has nothing to learn from other countries is a huge problem.

          While it may be true that religion might always exist, we also know there are more or less benevolent religions and more or less benevolent versions of existing religions. The reformation by Martin Luther in Europe certainly led to a better version of Christianity compared to what the Holy Roman Catholic Church offered. It’s not to say there wasn’t a ways to go, but even as someone who is not a fan of religion as a whole, I see the value of reinterpretation of scripture in a way that leads to better outcomes. While I don’t believe the Bible ever really condemned homosexuality in terms of consensual loving relationships, for whatever reason it has been interpreted that way for some time in Christian history. Now we find many moderate Christians reinterpreting the bible in a way that is inclusive to homosexuals, and indeed many homosexuals who maintain their Christian faith. While I don’t find religion to be progressive in terms of leading the way towards more humanitarian outlooks it is clear that this has happened in many faiths. I simply wish such faiths did more to condemn the more extreme version of their own religion.

          While I agree that getting rid of religion by force would be foolish, I disagree in terms of persuasion. At least depending on what you mean by persuasion. I could certainly conjure up a set of lies and by being charming and manipulative can persuade somebody of something, but in the long term that would have limited value. But persuasion can also be achieved through education. Education, particular one that encourages critical thinking, is self-empowering and allows people to navigate their own way through claims they are expected to take at face value. It makes them ask questions, and be skeptical. Everywhere where people are well educated this is shown to be an antidote to oppression and religiosity. It doesn’t mean that religion necessarily goes away, but it certainly becomes tempered by reason.

          Science also has quite a bit of power, because science is not just what science finds, but also how it finds it. In fact the latter is the key. Through science we learn about our cognitive biases, we learn through what basis we come to know anything, and we learn the value of testing, reforming hypothesis, repeatability of findings and the value of independent testing and peer review.

          But I can tell you that even what science finds has enormous value. If not for a young explorer calculating the length of time it would take to make a 10 ft tall stalagmite in a cave based on the drip rate from the ceiling, we could not start to begin to question the authority of the church in its attempt to answer the question of the age of the Earth. Science has been invaluable in helping us question authority, reduce human suffering, and answer many long sought after questions about how the universe works and its nature. I think that makes science pretty powerful.

          I am completely with you on greed, and the dangers we face by those who seek power, and who have quite a lot of it already through this fiction of money. The fact that such people can use the things we hold dear as a tool to maintain power is nothing new, but I think we have better tools to fight back than we have in the past, and I think the data bears that out. As a percentage of world population there is less violence and hunger than there was 2000 years ago. Certainly we can’t rest on our laurels, but I certainly don’t feel as hopeless about the situation as you appear to.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  8. Yes INDEED SIR!!! Well done! And as you alluded to correctly, 10 is just a start, a bare minimum! I am particularly fond of #4 and #8… as they are often intertwined.

    I can no longer fathom why anyone could hold or cling to a belief-system of Monism or Binary-ism when EVERYTHING around us on Earth (i.e. what our human sensory-receptors pickup & subjectively interpret) and beyond, and on the subatomic and quark/particle levels are unimaginably and endlessly D.I.V.E.R.S.E.!!! 🥴🤪🤯 It doesn’t seem to end! And now just this past February and August, scientists, physicists, astrophysicists, etc, have pretty much proven that Quantum Entanglement is indeed true, does exist (as near-law now!) whether we or Einstein think it’s “spooky action at a distance” or not! LOL I’m LOVING the huge implications of this near-Quantum-Law!

    P.S. I’m drafting a blog-post as we speak/write about the Quantum Entanglement proofs/experiments so please don’t steal my thunder-parade, or much of it. 😉 😛

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. It took a while (92 years) but Heisenberg’s Uncertainty is certainty. At least being able to use it, even though not sure how it why. Pretty cool stuff!! Looking forward to it!

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  9. I think I’ve shared the “general” perspective of why I left, but it was actually more of a “lightbulb” moment. Briefly, a visiting preacher gave the Sunday AM message. Somewhere along the way he talked about the “once saved, always saved” doctrine. The church I attended (and where he was preaching) definitely did not believe this. IOW, if you fell off the wagon, you had to get up, dust yourself off, and ask the “wagonmaster” to let you back on. This preacher put it a different way … and for whatever reason, it rang true to me.

    Make a long story short … he had written a book so I did some reading and what he said made sense. From there it was a downhill slide. Of course, many other things contributed to my final “demise,” but this was the determining moment.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  10. Religion and philosophy have had 1000s of years to prove one point.

    YES! This simple truism should be front-and-centre. Neither have revealed a single truth. Ever. There is still hope for Buddhism, but if that’s proven then it will be because of the work of neurologists and physicists and evolutionary biologists.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. I deliberately left to the sciences (mostly). This is stuff a layman can learn about himself in a day if he chooses. Of course I mostly get the choir here, but on the off chance another passes this way… I love philosophy really, but gave a lot of it up years ago. Too often the most eloquent arguments win the day, while substance gets catalogued for another time. I wonder sometimes if we, collectively are ready to admit who we really are.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Me too. I have a degree in it! Didn’t even know until on the stage and saw the Chancellor holding two rolls of paper. WTF? I even tried to give it back, saying “you’ve made a mistake.” Apparently not. That’s philosophy for you.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. Never considered it to be actually *real.* I just did so many electives in it, and because I went into advanced courses I was there much longer than the usual 3/4 years undergrad and it all piled up to enough points. I was only doing it for fun.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            2. Oh, that one. I saw it in Scottie’s site—So many to choose from these days. Yes, purely Disgusting. There is still little sympathy for indigenous people. Especially the women, really. Basically the authorities don’t even look for them when they go missing.

              Liked by 1 person

  11. You stated — “and that was my goal; To find the truth”

    My response — The truth, whose center is everywhere and whose edge is nowhere.

    It’s an interesting path to be on when looking for the truth. I wake up every day finding more truth, it’s eye-opening to know what the world is doing and how people react to it.

    You keep looking for the truth Jim and I’ll keep reading your reports on it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thanks. And I’ll keep on keepin on. I have this feeling if everybody was aware of the 10 or more items listed exposing the human condition and perceptions, the truth would change drastically, and be less of it, not more. There really isn’t much to concern ourselves with.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. I appreciate it. Its nice when homo sapiens that are… eh… advanced in years share their wisdom with the young whipper-snappers. Ha ha.

        Like

        Reply

  13. You might want to read the writings of Daniel Kahneman, especially “Thinking Fast and Slow.” He delves deeply into how and why people believe that they do and how the brain works. He won a Nobel Prize for his work in behaviorial economics.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. BOOM! Belief is a honored tradition. Belief is protected by laws. Why? It can’t stand on its own merits. “To know” anything at all is the real gem.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment