Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The sky is falling...

The following text is an analysis of faith as it pertains to current concepts surrounding religion. This entry in no way reflects the opinions of all of the members of The Social Media Party except for the base concept of impartial neutrality I would hope. I can't make any promises though because the truth is, I don't know everyone's opinions here. Feel free to help me with that problem. I could really use an opposing view to my logic expressed in this post. Thank you for participating in the discussion. :-) I try really hard not to post opinion on my blog but it is way too long to post in the forum. Please feel free to discuss it there. Create a thread if none exists yet.

Speaking as a person that is neutrally scientific, agnostic and has Mormon heritage that I hold dear to me, I find that when people of religious upbringing, besides me, try to explain their personal concept of God to me, their sales pitch always ends with “well, you just need to have faith”. Well finally something we can all agree on. Believing in the concept of God takes a huge leap of faith.

The last person I spoke with this about was trying to solidify their point of view by stating that a “blind person needs faith” as a reaction to my statement that in my opinion, “religious faith is blind faith”. There is a difference in faith vs. blind faith and I will explain it from the point of view of said hypothetical blind person.

Reality is the third party perspective of the majority of the people that surround you. This is called group-think. In any one group of people, the highest truth for that group becomes reality for that group. A blind person has absolute concrete evidence that the sky is blue. He may not know what blue actually is but he does know that it is the normal color of the sky because close to, if not %100 percent of the people describing the color of the sky to him, say it is blue. This is true on a global level. The only discrepancy here is language. The word blue is not used on a global basis but most everyone can see the sky and describe it to others in proximity to them. He can now have faith that the sky is blue with a minimal margin of error,... practically none... He can have this faith without even knowing what blue is. This is not blind faith. It is actual faith. Now if only %75 percent of the people that describe the sky to him says it is blue, his belief that the sky was blue would require a %25 leap of faith towards the assumption that the sky is actually blue. Any “leap” of faith requires that you ignore any gap that is missing within the information being presented. You have to ignore the fact that there is information missing from the total equation. You simply gloss it over. Any “leap” of faith is blind faith in my opinion because you actually purposefully blind yourself to the fact that you don't have all of the facts. Chances are that the blind person will end up believing the sky is blue because it would be a greater leap of faith to align his point of view with the minority and say it is yellow or green.

So now I will equate this analogy to religion. The reason we have so many different religions on the planet is because nobody has a solid reference point of why or how we came to be on this planet. So the highest truth for the group-think at the time and place of discussion became the reality for that group and ideas based on that truth spread around on a regional basis. So that being said, people may think that being an agnostic person and not believing in God means you are not religious. On the contrary, I am religious. I just have a larger group-think tank is all. It resides on a global basis within Cyberspace. I am incapable of blind faith. So as a result, my religious group will need to be incapable of blind leaps of faith as well. Most religions congregate with like minded individuals. My religion requires that to believe in a deity, the concept of that “god” or deity must be as concrete on a global basis, meaning consensus among everyone, as the color of the sky. Which happens to be blue in English.

Since my views look towards the future and the incorporation of all mankind in the discussion towards the highest truth on a global basis, (the largest group-think tank), in my opinion, once everyone reaches an agreement on the highest truth on a global level in a peaceful manor, we will all know the color of God.

10 comments:

  1. That can be a trap, not a thinking trap but a communication trap, most religions rely on some form of the argument from Authority. "How do you know it's true?" "Because God told me." God didn't tell me, so how do I know that God told you?" "Because I said so." So you now have your own perception of reality and an argument from authority from someone who claims to be an authority. What do you do when the claimant to authority decides to use force in order to prove God really did tell him?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Turn the other cheek... That is what you do. Then you turn it again. Then, you keep practicing non-violent resistance until lives are in actual immediate life danger and then kill the attacker before he kills you or the individual you are protecting,..or the attacker gets smarter and realizes he is involved in abusive and oppressive behavior then stops and apologizes.

    I personally have former bullies that have become my friends by using this method.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For the record I have made friends with all of my former bullies at some point... Not lifelong though for obvious reasons. Good thing I haven't had to truly defend my life yet. It would involve the later of said method if it came to it...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also for the record... you must not kill the attacker until you have exhausted all available options of avoidance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only ground rule needed for any exchange is "get the thought".

    ReplyDelete
  6. I Ihink I must not have asked the right question as the answers are really unsatifying.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is a very large knot. I am not satisfied either. The use of force for any purpose is wrong. It doesn't matter who told you to do it. People who use god as a reason to use force are not taking responsibility for their own actions. The only way to change that is to teach by example and do the opposite in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, this last phrasing I can agree with..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Until we eradicate the savage behaviors within us on a personal level, (this concept is known as self government), we will never achieve, comprehend, stop looking for or know it when we see it true happiness. This value changes per individual. It is the basis of value concepts on earth... The only valuable question we all need to know has basic roots in customer service... "How may I be of service?"... It has roots in "What do you want?", "How can I help you?" etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm more concerned with the personal psychology. For example most disagreements start over differing values. You want more for you productive effort than I am able to pay but I need the product so I look for ways to get it at a lower price. I can take it when you aren't looking, I can use extoration.. " If you don't lower the price I will make something really bad happen to you" You injure me in someway so I want to get even, "Make it whole" but you don't have the resources available that will make things better so I damage you in turn" War is of this latter type "injury and revenge".

    But really I just want to make sure you don't injure me again... if I kill you then you can't injure me again.. this is the key to understanding "capital punishment, death penalty".

    To have the power "God Said, do such and such in such and such a situation, etc...

    ReplyDelete