The Science of Belief

by LittleToe 90 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Time and again the refrain is heard that belief and science are mutually exclusive, that belief somehow corrupts good science, that belief is not empirical. I'd like to throw another slant on that, if I may.

    Belief is an inherent part of the human psyche. The desire to know more about our environment and how it all works is also an inherent part of our psyche. Consistent results stemming from our thoughts and actions is similarly one of our chief desires. Since man has walked this planet there is evidence that he has attempted to bring some order into the chaos that is life. The earliest cave paintings show a record of how he dealt with issues of survival and ritual.

    The "mystics" of a variety of cultures attempted to bring some order to the "gaps" in their environment. Records show that they had an acute awareness of the power of their subconscious minds and how it operated. To that end a plethora of rituals evolved in an attempt to provide a consistent result from their experiments. I would suggest that those experiments are no less valid or scientific for dealing with "intangibles".

    It should also be noted that the body works in cycles, and this was also experimented with and recorded. The edge of consciousness and sleep, both before and after deep sleep, is a particularly auspicious time for experimenting. Further, all manner of attempts have been made in inducing such a "trance" state, with greater or lesser success.

    One method is worth offering, as an example. If a particular thought or desire is impressed in the mind then "released", with practise this can produce a greater likelihood of success. The subconscious mind works on the "problem" presented and the desired result becomes likely. I'll not digress into the arena of the power of the mind to effect change at distance from the body, but for the moment concentrate on the physiological effects to the individual performing this experiment. Even accounting for the pattern-seeking nature of the human mind, the results may improve to the point of a causal link being established. This is synchronicity at its finest.

    But there's a catch. The mind isn't easily fooled by self. It's a little like attempting to tickle yourself, which if you've never tried should be attempted forthwith, to experience the difficulty of the task.

    Here is where the nature of belief steps up to the plate. Externalising the source of the change is one (and only one) method of improving success. It allows the conscious mind to "release" the problem, after articulation, allowing the subconscious mind to operate. There are often tangible physiological reactions, too, in that the experimenter relaxes.

    For a more extreme example of the benefits of this physical relaxation, think about the evidence of the effects of relaxation when falling. A young child can successfully fall down a flight of stairs resulting in little damage, due to relaxation. As it grows just a little bit older and on into adulthood, it stiffens in reaction to the sensation of fear and it sustains more damage. A drunk will likewise tend to suffer less damage from a fall, due to inebriation of the senses and a more relaxed musculature.

    One time-worn method of "releasing" the problem, in the Western mystical tradition, is prayer. Here the "catch" is magnified in that the process really does require belief, not just credulity or the begrudging experiments of an objectively focussed mind. By handing over the problem to "someone" whom we trust, we are enabled to engage with the process at the subconscious level necessary. Building that level of trust is another story, however, as it takes dedication to the task.

    Religion in all its forms has attempted to create rituals to aid the process. Some are more effective than others for the individual, just as some people react better or worse to a variety of forms of antibiotics. The purpose underlying it was originally to enable the practitioner to "connect with the Divine", though plenty of extraneous rituals and belief systems have arisen with negligable effect. There are also those that seem almost purely to be about abusing the masses, with precious little effective ritual, especially those of more recent origin.

    In the West, for some centuries, it used to be the case that Christianity was most effective. Zen Buddhism has made irregular inroads into that, and counterwise, Christianity has made inroads into the East. I choose just those two examples out of many, for the simplicity of discourse.

    As someone with an occupation and a keen interest in Mental Health and Wellbeing, I see examples every day of how the mind affects the health of the body. While I applaud medical science for bringing me the opportunity to have my hips replaced, should I need that service in the future, and producing drugs that may offset the effects of altzeimers, I just hope that my mind will remain intact and not sustained merely by a cocktail of chemicals that cause my neurons to dance to the whim of a doctor attempting to reconcile a normative pattern of mood.

    Great strides are being made in exploring the "outer" world, and there's no doubt about the tangible benefits this has produced. Unfortunately our understanding of the "inner" world is atrophying through materialist neglect. I guess it's understandable, as few are willing to take the abuse that it heaped upon them for daring to study such a "worthless" science.

    Further to that, maybe there really is a "God" tying it all together in the background, as well.

    Discuss...

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    My brain ain't firing on all it's neurons yet this morning, so my comments will be brief.

    Cool.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    OK, partially awake now.

    It seems if we were to apply the same stringent application of science to the mind, I'd rather each theory be tested stringently, consistently, and in order.

    For instance, there's been much ado about Chinese medicine. And I think we have much to learn from their practice. But without applying stringent science to their methods, all we have is testimonies and hearsay. We don't know WHAT the active ingredient is, and we don't know WHY it works. Why does it work some times and not others?

    It's the same with faith, or belief. Some of us have experienced divine intervention personally. Others have sought it, and failed. Why?

    I heard the other day that the next great frontier for man to explore is the mind, and I'm beginning to think so too. I've witnessed, close-hand, the flattening of my son's personality as Schizophrenia slowly eats away at his frontal lobes. I've puzzled at the different ways my son-in-law's Schizophrenia presents itself. In some ways, my son-in-law is brighter, more engaged with people around him. But then his psychotic episodes cycle frighteningly fast. It's as if I am looking at two diseases that present broadly similar symptoms. I think the cure, when found, will not be a single chemical trigger, but a complex interaction of several. Like the puzzle of Diabetes, where Insulin is both the killer and the cure. It took a whole lot of failed experiments to figure out the cure was a BALANCE between two chemicals.

    It's as if the mind itself is a huge chinese puzzle, it's secrets not easily unlocked. But the glory in trying.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    I agree. Unfortunately a lot of the work that was done by previous generations uses a vocabulary that is considered arcane to modern scientific views. We've become intellectual snobs, to our detriment, IMHO.

    a complex interaction of several

    And that seems to be part of the issue. There are no quick fixes, in this scenario, but we have a propensity for enjoying simple solutiuons. If only it were as simple as pressing a button or taking a blue pill...

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    I don't know if I want a scientist defining my faith-language.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Nor should we have to. We already have a vocabulary of "belief", worked up over millenia.

    Bringing the communication gap to the scientific (and modern-day psuedo-scientific internet junkies) is the challenge.

  • jgnat
    jgnat
    Bringing the communication gap to the scientific

    I'd rather they build their own language, thank you. When they've done quantifying and measuring, let us bridge the gap to belief.

    and modern-day psuedo-scientific internet junkies

    EEK! Leave them out of it. They probably are still looking for the shooter on the grassy knoll.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe
    I'd rather they build their own language, thank you.

    They already have. It includes such words as delusional, bi-polar, credulous, etc...

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    LOL

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Go on, ya know ya want to...

    LT, of the "telepathic" class.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit