Rationalizing faith.

[DBT]

Before the first century AD there was no philosophical discussion about "faith" per se, such as we've had over the last 2000 years. So it's appropriate to consider how this word -- πιστις -- is used in the New Testament, to indicate what it means. Maybe its meaning has expanded since then. But the interest in this word began with those first-century writings.




There's a mistake here, if the claim is that there must be risk. The "faith" or πιστις of the New Testament does not require risk, even if risk might be involved in many cases of faith. There are verses which mention risk or danger to believers, and yet taking risk is not fundamentally part of the meaning of πιστις.




It's true that "faith" can involve trust in something so that you're risking danger if your trust is misplaced, or you believe falsely in the reliability of that one you trust. Marriage and other contracts often do require taking risk.

But other examples of "faith" do not require that kind of trust, or risk of harm, so that the risk per se is not an essential part of what "faith" means.

The most frequent example of πιστις in the New Testament is the case of one who approaches Jesus for healing, and who believes or has faith. There was no risk to them in hoping he could perform the healing. Rather, it was a belief they had in his power to heal, their hope, probably based on earlier reports they heard about him. And they did not risk anything by having this belief, or asking him to do the healing act.

It isn't necessary to make this "faith" anything more complicated than that. It didn't have to be anything profound, or anything heroic on the part of the believer. It's rather philosophers and theologians since then who have magnified it into something complicated.

''Everyone has faith, in this sense, insofar as they entrust themselves to someone or something. Again, when we get married, we entrust our feelings, wellbeing, livelihood, possessions, etc., to our spouses. When we fly on an air plane, we entrust ourselves to the aircraft, the pilots, the mechanics who serviced the plane, etc. When we do science, we entrust ourselves to certain methodologies, prior theories and data, and our empirical and mental faculties. There is nothing unique about Christian faith other than the object of that faith.''

Perhaps, but it's incorrect to suggest that RISK is necessarily a part of what "faith" means. Jesus is quoted saying "Your faith has saved you" several times. In no case of this was there any risk being taken by the believer.

The idea that RISK is essential seems to be part of the salvation-by-works error, or salvation-by-merit, by being brave and heroic and daring. But nothing about πιστις in the New Testament requires that the believer must be brave or heroic and must embark on a dangerous adventure, or perform a great admirable sacrifice.

There are NT passages which emphasize sacrifice and witness which might lead to danger, but these admonitions/warnings are not connected to the πιστις word. Verses emphasizing martyrdom and sacrifice are not statements of terms or conditions for gaining salvation, as the πιστις word is.

The bolded part isn't quite clear; trust is not the same as faith. If reliability is established through direct experience with people or things, which is evidence, that is not an instance of faith. Faith being belief or trust held without the support of evidence,

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

One of the most basic dynamics that keeps toxic religion alive and well.


Well, that's convenient. Can't tell codified abuse from general experience so whaddyagonna do? Specific, intentional, purposeful hijacking of human weakness for the benefit of a few controlling class is too hard to figure out in this sea of human behavior! Oh, well, nothing to see here. No point in looking further. I guess we just all go home now.

Right now for me the most toxic thing in our culture is mass marketing. It is creting insane images that it markets .

It is no wonder our collective mental health is suffering. Pop culture is replacing religion as the source for people.

Remember that Christianity replaced traditionally philosophy as the source for wisdom and guidance.

Tribalism has emerged in a big way. Followers of a particular band who rationalize all sorts of behavior from their idols.

Most people never realized the Rolling Stones stage act was just that, an act. Rather than being the anti system and anti establishment image they portrayed, Jagger became a major financial player in Europe and made the band wealthy.

Again, religion is just one facet of the whole. Expatiation of the faithful.

If you think peoting drugs in music starting in the 60s was a good thing, lok at the growing substabce avuse problems.

We have lost any collective moral center in favor of anything goes without self restraint. Incessant 24/7 'peos;etizing' by narket sells 24/7 continuous gratification.

I take as one of the traditional core Christian values as self moderation. Buddhism as well, the Middle Way.

Religion is dminishing, no doubt about it. The question remains what relaces it as a social glue.

Right now some of it is pro sports, drugs, alcohol, movies, TV, and music.

Washington is moving towards complete decriminalization of all drugs.

Civil unrest is growing.

If you are narrowly focused on religion you may be missing the real issues. Some atheists get off on attacking religion just like some heist get off on attacking those veil atheists. Both sides derive meaning and a tribal identity in the process. Easy to see it in others, harder to see it in ourselves.

Another Christian idea, it is not those you attack who get hurt, it s you hurting yourself. It is nit unique to Chritainity.

In Buddhism right action, right speech, no intoxicants and so on.

Religion is the last thing I am worried about right now.

As to faith, on what rational basis do you believe tomorrow, next week, or next year will stable? Maybe you just vae a blind faith it will be there? How about when you retire?

The question of faith is not just religious.

So why are you rationalizing it? Why are you defending it? Why are you making excuses for it? Why are you saying it isn't really so bad because it's just like a lot of other stupid, dangerous things humans do?

The history of religious faith is evidence othat humans really, really, really do stupid, stupid, stupid, dangerous, dangerous, dangerous things. The fact, however, is that if I have religious faith, this is not apparent to me. You don't see that as a danger? Is that sufficient explanation for why you are rationalizing and defending it? Might I as well be talking to an insane mental patient?

It seems the larger problem is that many humans can't get past believing in stupid, dangerous, destructive things, of which religious faith is certainly one. It may not be the only one, but that hardly constitutes a reasonable defense.

 

[steve_bank]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

 

[abaddon]

... I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

The whole of human existence isn't the topic.

If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

Yeah, why not? You could start a thread where that'd be the topic.

I'd be very interested in the answers. I too have wondered what secularists believe in, how demonstrably true their "worldviews" are, what sort of society they'd prefer. There are implications in some things they say, but in GR and EoG the focus is (of course) on supernaturalist theism.

Some theists say "you have unquestioned assumptions in your worldview!" but never succeed in clearly spelling out what those "blind faith" assumptions are.

You're doing the same. But I don't think your method really gets across the request for this information. If actually interested in that discussion, maybe start a thread on it? I guess it'd go in another forum though since it's about secular thought and not religion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

So you are equating religious faith with the scientific method? You're saying that concluding the scientific method is valid is on par with believing an invisible person living in the sky will give me presents after I die? You are saying these are both positions of faith?

If I think there will be food at Walmart tomorrow how is that like religious faith? Growers are growing food, distributors and marketers are moving it as we speak. How is that faith? It's like your mentioning flying, you say you don't fear it because you know how it all works. How is food at Walmart any different? Don't we know how that works too?

 

[DBT]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

Why do you say that you have "a faith in the trust of repeated experiments?"

Isn't "trust" sufficient, or confidence....that you have trust or confidence in the results of the experiments?

It looks like equivocation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

So you are equating religious faith with the scientific method? You're saying that concluding the scientific method is valid is on par with believing an invisible person living in the sky will give me presents after I die? You are saying these are both positions of faith?

If I think there will be food at Walmart tomorrow how is that like religious faith? Growers are growing food, distributors and marketers are moving it as we speak. How is that faith? It's like your mentioning flying, you say you don't fear it because you know how it all works. How is food at Walmart any different? Don't we know how that works too?

And a big difference is that if it could be proven to a devout believer that there was no such thing as a god then it would result in a life shattering collapse of their world view for them. If a grocery store is closed then an atheist would likely be really disappointed knowing that they will have to find another source for their food but far from earth shattering. If an atheistic physicist finds that the Theory of Relativity (or whatever field his specialty is) is wrong then he would be excited and looking forward to the chance to find a better model for reality.

 

[steve_bank]

I listened to a BBC show on the placebo effect.
p
Peole are given a placebo for pain and get relief. When they are told it is a placebo some still need the fake pill.

A coomon knee surgery for pain relief was found to be mostly placebo effect. In a controlled experiment some peole were given a fake surgery and reported pain relief.

In a manner of speaking faith works. It provides results for the believers.

I argue here and will debate out in the world at times. However I woud never persobaly attck someone's faith.

A balck friend grew up in the worse of Louisiana Jim Crow. I know he carries pain and he gets angry over current events especially Trump, but he carries no hate and hostility for anybody. He is the most positive person I have known. His faith gives him hope for the future of blacks.'

A woman I know in end stage cancer for whom faith is a comfort.

If you try to look at it rationally and logically you can call it superstition, but as is readily observed humans are not rational and logical.

 

[steve_bank]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

Why do you say that you have "a faith in the trust of repeated experiments?"

Isn't "trust" sufficient, or confidence....that you have trust or confidence in the results of the experiments?

It looks like equivocation.

Back to debating semantics My meaning shoud be clear.

As someone posted the word has different contextual uses.

 

[DBT]

Debating atheists can be very much like debating theists.

As to avoiding, all things considered and what we know from history I do not have faith in the future. Perhaps Stoic is the word.

As I said before we all rationalize or avoid reality to some degree. I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

I have a faith in the trust of repeated experiments. I do not fear flying because I know how it all works and I know the odds.


Why have faith food will always be on the shelves? If not divine providence then what? If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

It can be as unsettling for the both theist an atheist.

Why do you say that you have "a faith in the trust of repeated experiments?"

Isn't "trust" sufficient, or confidence....that you have trust or confidence in the results of the experiments?

It looks like equivocation.

Back to debating semantics My meaning shoud be clear.

As someone posted the word has different contextual uses.

But it's not 'just semantics.' There are real distinctions to be made between faith, trust and confidence. A belief held without the support of evidence is not the same as building confidence in the reliability of something or someone through direct experience. Trust built through experience is not equivalent to faith for that reason.

 

[Politesse]

Before the first century AD there was no philosophical discussion about "faith" per se, such as we've had over the last 2000 years. So it's appropriate to consider how this word -- πιστις -- is used in the New Testament, to indicate what it means. Maybe its meaning has expanded since then. But the interest in this word began with those first-century writings.

This is a very good point! We actually have many situations where Christianity caused a formerly loosely defined term to explode onto the philosophical stage later on. ουσια, προσοπον, and υποστασις. αρσενοκοιτες. It's worth noting that Jesus, almost certainly not a Greek speaker, probably didn't use this particular term himself. So it is possible that we are not even asking a question of authorial intent, but rather interpretive intent. It seems that even when Paul's letters were being written, this was the commonplace translation of an Aramaic term, possibly Haimanutha, as Paul seems to assume that this concept is already central to his listeners' perspectives on Christianity despite said Gospels not having been composed or translated yet.

 

[Politesse]

But other examples of "faith" do not require that kind of trust, or risk of harm, so that the risk per se is not an essential part of what "faith" means.

The most frequent example of πιστις in the New Testament is the case of one who approaches Jesus for healing, and who believes or has faith. There was no risk to them in hoping he could perform the healing. Rather, it was a belief they had in his power to heal, their hope, probably based on earlier reports they heard about him. And they did not risk anything by having this belief, or asking him to do the healing act.

It isn't necessary to make this "faith" anything more complicated than that. It didn't have to be anything profound, or anything heroic on the part of the believer. It's rather philosophers and theologians since then who have magnified it into something complicated.

This makes me think of a story Jesus once told about a woman who took her case before an unjust judge, who was not inclined to give her the time of day. But she kept coming back day after day, and eventually, he acceeded to her request and heard her case, not because he cared about her or had been persuaded by her argumentation, but simply because he was tired of seeing her cluttering up his court each day. What did she have faith in? Not an intellectual proposition, really, nor faith in the personality of the judge. It's more like her faith was rooted in an idealistic understanding of how things ought to be. The teacher concludes, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

A bit of a bitter conclusion, and hard to match up exactly to the story. But does it sound like he's asking whether a sufficient number of people will have accepted a set of philosophical arguments without evidence or not? The story definitely didn't have religious beliefs as its topic. It's all about actions, with the concept of justice only important as a motivator for those actions.

 

[DBT]

The bible gives a fair definition of faith.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

You can't argue with that.

 

[steve_bank]

... I am pointing out the single mined focus on Christian faith is narrow minded and ignores the whole of human existence.

The whole of human existence isn't the topic.

If you quetion the basis of the lives of theists why not question atheist lives?

Yeah, why not? You could start a thread where that'd be the topic.

I'd be very interested in the answers. I too have wondered what secularists believe in, how demonstrably true their "worldviews" are, what sort of society they'd prefer. There are implications in some things they say, but in GR and EoG the focus is (of course) on supernaturalist theism.

Some theists say "you have unquestioned assumptions in your worldview!" but never succeed in clearly spelling out what those "blind faith" assumptions are.

You're doing the same. But I don't think your method really gets across the request for this information. If actually interested in that discussion, maybe start a thread on it? I guess it'd go in another forum though since it's about secular thought and not religion.

It applies to me as well as everyone I believe. WE are all hooked into a great illusion , The Matrix as metaphor. To me relogion is just one infestation. We can devate relative poitives and negatives of relgion compared to oter manifestions like tribal muic in pop culture.

We all have an unspoken unqualified rationalized faith of some sort, otherwise few if any of us could maintain sanity in the light of reality.

 

[steve_bank]

Ahhh!! Now we see the real Angry Foof come through!!! Notice how he rationalizes away from the question of non religious faith.

It is all the fault of those pesky Christians? According to Christians it is all the fault of atheists.

Forms of free market capitalism, trade, and investment all go back to the very beginnings of human civilizations. Religion or more properly mythology has always been part of the stat.

I grew up with George Washington and the cherry tree along with 'Honest' Abe Lincoln. Both bogus myths, but serving a social purpose. Just like religion.

Recently yet another music media star died from an overdose. Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain , Garcia and a long list who are rationalized by the followers-believers.

Hate is hate regardless if it is theist against atheist or atheist against rtheist. Equally destructive and serves no purpose.

Keep in mind were it not for a few key battles Europe might have gone Muslim.

"The real Angry Floof"? I've said this or some variation of it for years. Where have you been? Yes, Western culture is deeply ingrained with all those elements of Christian insanity that we've been talking about all this time. It's the reason weak, mediocre men do as they please with little or no accountability. Or did you think there was some other reason?

Oh then ok. SO your are one of thise anti wetrn naysayers, a 'nattering nabob of negativity'.

The ancient Empires of China, what is now India, Greece, Egypt, Persia and even the Mayan, Incam, and Aztec cultures of this hmisher were all about power, brutal enforcement of order, religion s a tool of state.

The role of reliion in governace would be another thread.

The great western experiment in popular self rule is about whether or not self rule can work and be stable without cetralized authorterian control. As with Putin in Russia who is essentially a dictator for life, China, NK.

In practice the western systems are inefficient and difficult to find a consensus. Ben Franklin thought a despot would emerge within 40 or 50 years.

Things will be just fine like food in the stores....keep the faith baby.

 

[DBT]

The whole of human existence isn't the topic.


Yeah, why not? You could start a thread where that'd be the topic.

I'd be very interested in the answers. I too have wondered what secularists believe in, how demonstrably true their "worldviews" are, what sort of society they'd prefer. There are implications in some things they say, but in GR and EoG the focus is (of course) on supernaturalist theism.

Some theists say "you have unquestioned assumptions in your worldview!" but never succeed in clearly spelling out what those "blind faith" assumptions are.

You're doing the same. But I don't think your method really gets across the request for this information. If actually interested in that discussion, maybe start a thread on it? I guess it'd go in another forum though since it's about secular thought and not religion.

It applies to me as well as everyone I believe. WE are all hooked into a great illusion , The Matrix as metaphor. To me relogion is just one infestation. We can devate relative poitives and negatives of relgion compared to oter manifestions like tribal muic in pop culture.

We all have an unspoken unqualified rationalized faith of some sort, otherwise few if any of us could maintain sanity in the light of reality.

Faith in what? What is this grand illusion that we are all hooked into?

 

[steve_bank]

The illusion of a stable coordinated whole. A functioning large scale system like the USA depends on a common st of belifs or myths. Like justice for all and equal opportunity. When the faith in the beliefs fails the sysem breaks down, witness reality today.

The traditional foundations which are just a set of beliefs are being dismantled. The founders no longer did so,ething remarkable in there day, they are now evil racists. America is an idea that people bought into. Christianity was part of the beif.

The belief is America can never fail and will always prevail over anything. The post WWII can do optimism was part of it. Now it is all going negative.

as always been an illusion in that it is just an idea with large scale buy in. Most people live in te illusion, for lack of a better word, without realizing it. A Matrix metaphor.

In Buddhism I think the term is maya or samsara, popular reality as a facade.

I did not read the book. Before WWII someobe wrote a book on propaganda arguing a modern system can not function with propaganda, or cultural myths. Something for peope to have faith in.Before the Nazis the word propaganda did not have a negative connotation.

Religions can be abusive and negative, but religious faith also provides a social glue and stability. It is much more than just unfounded beliefs.

 

[Angry Floof]

Ahhh!! Now we see the real Angry Foof come through!!! Notice how he rationalizes away from the question of non religious faith.

It is all the fault of those pesky Christians? According to Christians it is all the fault of atheists.

Forms of free market capitalism, trade, and investment all go back to the very beginnings of human civilizations. Religion or more properly mythology has always been part of the stat.

I grew up with George Washington and the cherry tree along with 'Honest' Abe Lincoln. Both bogus myths, but serving a social purpose. Just like religion.

Recently yet another music media star died from an overdose. Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain , Garcia and a long list who are rationalized by the followers-believers.

Hate is hate regardless if it is theist against atheist or atheist against rtheist. Equally destructive and serves no purpose.

Keep in mind were it not for a few key battles Europe might have gone Muslim.

"The real Angry Floof"? I've said this or some variation of it for years. Where have you been? Yes, Western culture is deeply ingrained with all those elements of Christian insanity that we've been talking about all this time. It's the reason weak, mediocre men do as they please with little or no accountability. Or did you think there was some other reason?

Oh then ok. SO your are one of thise anti wetrn naysayers, a 'nattering nabob of negativity'.

The ancient Empires of China, what is now India, Greece, Egypt, Persia and even the Mayan, Incam, and Aztec cultures of this hmisher were all about power, brutal enforcement of order, religion s a tool of state.

The role of reliion in governace would be another thread.

The great western experiment in popular self rule is about whether or not self rule can work and be stable without cetralized authorterian control. As with Putin in Russia who is essentially a dictator for life, China, NK.

In practice the western systems are inefficient and difficult to find a consensus. Ben Franklin thought a despot would emerge within 40 or 50 years.

Things will be just fine like food in the stores....keep the faith baby.

No. I'm not whatever cartoon you've created in your head to stand in for me in your mind. Call me whatever you want, but you haven't answered any relevant questions I've asked and you've consistently misrepresented my view. You keep whatever nonsense you think is a grand design, and I'll have faith in things that matter to real human beings experiencing life on this planet. I believe we are all connected in ways we do not understand, but it appears to me from where I'm sitting and having limited information, that those connections are natural, and that includes human constructs and layers and layers of relationships and stories carved out by sensory experiences. Mysterious but not supernatural by any means.

I also believe that the only thing really needed for humankind to provide for the peace and well being of every human on the planet is for enough of us to simply want that. I genuinely do want that, and so my choices and views are going to reflect that in some way. It doesn't matter who I like or don't like, or what ideological groups piss me off, or the fact that I can't possibly know every individual on the planet. We are fully capable of caring about every human being even though they exist in our minds in concept. We know they're there. We know they're human beings. We know quite a bit about the problems that face them around the world. We know we as individuals are limited in what we can do about it. We have the capacity to understand that the helplessness we might feel at such thoughts need not dictate our world view. It need not serve to narrow our sense of tribe down to a few.

But even people who can't or won't try to expand their sense of the world to include the whole world, and even if they actively hate a bunch of people in it, they would still personally, selfishly benefit from holding an active desire for the well being, peace, and prosperity of every human on the planet. That means more than the basic food, shelter, security, safety. It also means education, opportunity, and technology. Our potential for achieving all of this is tremendous. We're tribal, but we're also capable of expanding our sense of tribe. There doesn't have to be an Other. Other is a lie.

What stands in the way of a peaceful, prosperous tribe of seven billion is what's in our heads. And religion and other tribalistic ideology is the greatest force for shaping what's in our heads as we peer out of our individual eyeballs. No group identity or culture is more important or relevant or meaningful than "human." Religion goes a long way toward making sure that "human" never supersedes the smaller, us vs. them religious identity. We've covered most if not all of the reasons for this in this thread, and much more on the board as a whole.

There is no good, humane, acceptable reason to protect the authority figures and mouthpieces from accountability. Just because they like their poisonous delusion doesn't mean it's ok. We're all connected, and if a religion's framework doesn't recognize every single human being as their community, and if their beliefs and practices do not help them overcome cognitive pitfalls instead of reinforcing them, then that religion contributes suffering and delusion to humanity, and not enlightenment or means of creating peace and well being of everyone on the planet. This fucking matters.

The worst you can say about my world view is that it is idealistic about human potential. I have no idea if anything will ever change. It may not, or we may just ruin everything and kill ourselves off or start over with remnants. Given the power of ideologies that hijack our stupidity and ward off our potential, I may be idealistic but I'm not necessarily optimistic. I just know what we can do if we stop allowing backward, authoritarian cultures and ideology to influence the world.

Pretty damn sure you won't read all this. But you just squeeze your mind down and make your view of the world even more narrow and avoidant. You're not alone in that. But, no offense, your generation is getting old and dying off. Every new generation is born into a more technologically connected world. That's their environment. Much more of the world is in their face from a young age. Their formative years are not spent in a smaller world where the family hovers around a radio or TV to learn something new about the world beyond their neighborhood. It's a constant flow for them.

You know what... fuck it. If you read that part at all, you'll just complain about cell phones or some shit. Some folks will never, ever think any bigger than they do.

 

[Angry Floof]

The illusion of a stable coordinated whole. A functioning large scale system like the USA depends on a common st of belifs or myths.

Beliefs and myths change constantly. How about contributing beliefs that don't keep people stupid and unaware?

Like justice for all and equal opportunity. When the faith in the beliefs fails the sysem breaks down, witness reality today.

Every generation thinks it's the end times. Every. Single. Generation. Negativity bias is a powerful, instinctive force, but we're capable of recognizing and mitigating that. You should try it.

The traditional foundations which are just a set of beliefs are being dismantled.

No, they're not. They're just changing as all "traditional foundations" do. Change does not mean dismantling.

The founders no longer did so,ething remarkable in there day, they are now evil racists. America is an idea that people bought into. Christianity was part of the beif.

Get over yourself. Jesus.

The belief is America can never fail and will always prevail over anything. The post WWII can do optimism was part of it. Now it is all going negative.

"It's all going negative! Oh, noes! OMG!"

That's your generational ethos talking. It's harder for us old folks to challenge the paradigms we grew up with, but come on. It's just a matter of openness to new experiences and differences, willingness to change, willingness to recognize and admit that your old world view was formed by a different world from the one we actually live in now...

as always been an illusion in that it is just an idea with large scale buy in. Most people live in te illusion, for lack of a better word, without realizing it. A Matrix metaphor. In Buddhism I think the term is maya or samsara, popular reality as a facade.

True, but who the hell do you think creates that matrix? We fucking do. Stop serving as dead weight on humanity, man.

I did not read the book. Before WWII someobe wrote a book on propaganda arguing a modern system can not function with propaganda, or cultural myths. Something for peope to have faith in.Before the Nazis the word propaganda did not have a negative connotation.

Time to say goodbye to the 40s and 50s, Steve. We can remember them without trying to prop up their corpses.

Religions can be abusive and negative, but religious faith also provides a social glue and stability.

Bullshit. Religion does not provide social glue and stability. Humans do that. Stop asserting this outright lie.

It is much more than just unfounded beliefs.

And the parts that are not unfounded beliefs do just fine without the unfounded beliefs.

 

[DBT]

The illusion of a stable coordinated whole. A functioning large scale system like the USA depends on a common st of belifs or myths. Like justice for all and equal opportunity. When the faith in the beliefs fails the sysem breaks down, witness reality today.

The traditional foundations which are just a set of beliefs are being dismantled. The founders no longer did so,ething remarkable in there day, they are now evil racists. America is an idea that people bought into. Christianity was part of the beif.

The belief is America can never fail and will always prevail over anything. The post WWII can do optimism was part of it. Now it is all going negative.

as always been an illusion in that it is just an idea with large scale buy in. Most people live in te illusion, for lack of a better word, without realizing it. A Matrix metaphor.

In Buddhism I think the term is maya or samsara, popular reality as a facade.

I did not read the book. Before WWII someobe wrote a book on propaganda arguing a modern system can not function with propaganda, or cultural myths. Something for peope to have faith in.Before the Nazis the word propaganda did not have a negative connotation.

Religions can be abusive and negative, but religious faith also provides a social glue and stability. It is much more than just unfounded beliefs.

One could say that the glue of society is not faith, but security and self interest, the opportunity to prosper and raise families....which allows some to build great power and wealth and the motive to maintain the status quo even to the point of suppressing beneficial changes to society.