Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good 51 Replies latest jw friends

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    To define correctly to where Fisherman is coming from, the ancient Hebrews did make expressive imaginative occurrences conducted by their select god, through their own appealing imagination and ignorance of the world in which they lived in and had to endure.

    A factual observation drawn out from the writings in the Torah or bible

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    Believe me, there are plenty that know the facts but, for whatever reason, mainly fear of losing all social contacts and along with that one's sanity, we have just decided to go along with playing the WTBTS game.

    Oh, we know.... We definitely know.😕

    DY

  • sparrowdown
    sparrowdown
    The old "reptilian" part of the brain stops people from waking up, wow.
  • done4good
    done4good

    Doubtfully Yours - Believe me, there are plenty that know the facts but, for whatever reason, mainly fear of losing all social contacts and along with that one's sanity, we have just decided to go along with playing the WTBTS game.

    Oh, we know.... We definitely know.😕

    DY

    DY, this is not what I am referring to. I understand many have to play along for the sake of family and other contacts. Those folks are aware, and mentally awake. This is about those that are not awake, despite the intelligence to know better.

    d4g

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Harry Potter.....

    Not to Abraham. And it is not relevant in this discussion whether you believe the Bible or not (although the Bible is true) but that the Bible records that historical figures such as Abraham, Paul and others showed faith based upon evidence (fact) and not upon snake oil.

  • DesirousOfChange
  • SAHS
    SAHS

    Why even very intelligent people have arbitrary faith-based “beliefs” as opposed to just cold, hard facts seems to be a kind of coping mechanism. Analogous is that the very first phase of the “grieving process” is protecting oneself from uncomfortable feelings and internal sensations arising from inevitable unsavoury facts, especially as it pertains to ones own death or that of a loved one.

    In such case, the fanciful becomes the stalwart crutch of the fragile psyche of the advanced brain. As the OP brought out, “Belief can, and often does trump fact.”

    I believe that religion was something contrived by man as a way to satisfy specific needs emerging from the basic deficiencies, or weaknesses, of human character; namely, the need for fatherly security, redemption, and a primal sense of the “eternal.” I believe that Sigmund Freud was right in that the concept or notion of an almighty “God” is something invented by people to satisfy, or replace, an innately yearned-for “father figure,” which engenders an albeit false sense of survival and permanence.

    It is the old adage that “truth is stranger than fiction” – and any kind of profound comfort for the “soul” of the human condition becomes the only palatable goal of which is sought by all levels of intellect alike.

  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    SAHS,

    But we mustn't delude ourselves either due to a distaste for worship of deities.

    Religion is not always based around a cult of worship, nor do they all include deities or even an afterlife eschatology. Jainism for example is a humanist form of religion with no deity. The Jewish Sadducees as well many Jews today do not believe in an afterlife, and even those who do see no relevance in living with it as a goal in mind. Buddhism is a religion that seeks to free a person of all notions of and desires for eternity and has no central deity for worship.

    Religion is not the opposite of atheism. It is a cultural system built around a set of mores and convictions that are employed to find the reason or explain one's place in the universe. While often employing ritual, these systems can be void of deity worship or seeking for the eternal.

    Some who are (with good reason) done with religion often make general assumptions about religion as faulty as the credulous faith of some relgious people because of their failure to recognize that their own views can be subject to the same prejudices, ignorance, and/or simple emotion that in different forms can likewise cloud the thinking of "believers." When we fail to accept that being without religion cannot automatically prevent us from falling subject to the same process of self-delusion that is common to humanity, we might also fail to center our current state on a less than faulty conclusion.

    Believing and keeping in mind that there is always a possibility that we can presently be mistaken in our current convictions is what got not a few of us in trouble before. We should always be prepared to improve our views and refine them. While not implying that this makes those who have chosen atheism or a new relgion after leaving the Watchtower in a position where we must now change our current views once again, no set of conviction excuses us from believing we are suddenly free from being capable of deluding ourselves becuase we are not adopting this particular view or that other one.

  • TheOldHippie
    TheOldHippie

    But of course this is The Truth According To "Maslow's hierarchy of human needs"

    And who says Maslow's truth is The Ultimate Truth ......?

  • done4good
    done4good

    TheOldHippie- But of course this is The Truth According To "Maslow's hierarchy of human needs"

    And who says Maslow's truth is The Ultimate Truth ......?

    Actually, no one said that but you, (true to your apologist form, I might add. No surprises here...).

    First of all, Abraham Maslow was a psychologist. Psychology is a soft science, which means it is removed from "hard" scientific theory, (such as those that govern biology or physics), to a certain degree. Maslow's hierarchy merely serves as a framework to better understand several areas of human psychology, (including Festinger's dissonance theory and Freudian psychology), as well as hard science such as biology, and does compliment them well in this case. I make no reference to this being science in of itself at any level. This is my observation, thus why it does not even include cited references to external material. Unlike the WTS that you so valiantly defend, I know not to use ideas or concepts of others' work without citing them.

    Secondly, good science never uses the word "truth", let alone "Ultimate Truth"...whatever the hell that is.

    d4g

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit