Search the Community

This is essentially a conversation starter between you and I with the selfish goal of having members of this forum critique my thesis regarding the possibility that humanity is suffering a pandemic addiction to BELIEF, with all of the symptoms and effects generally categorized and recognized as such. And, that this addiction is so toxic that it has the potential to cause a mass extinction event in the near future. Since my book is written for the general public, but this forum is visited by those with powerful intellects, I would like to begin with a make-or-break section at the end; in the final chapter. The setting for the following few paragraphs: This is the final group session of the (make-believe) Central Jersey Chapter of the Belief System Therapy Center--a 23 week course of Belief Therapy. The first speaker is the instructor named Leon, with participants in the class making comments... “Here’s another question for you, Anders… More to the point of this discussion on System Justification Theory: What is the possibility that belief itself is a system that people feel compelled to justify? What if we refuse to consider other alternatives to those that belief provides because of our need to feel safe within a particular belief system? What if belief is so seamlessly integrated into our prevailing mindset, that, in the face of any contradictory evidence, we will automatically, and unconsciously, run the system justification sub-routine on the subject of the necessity of belief itself in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance connected to the possibility that our personal beliefs are invalid? Justifying the necessity of belief itself serves as a basis for justifying all high-level systems. Everybody believes in belief, right? ”Would someone like to tell us what the highest level system is; the one many of us spend so much energy to justify?” Roger takes this one on, and replies, “God”. “And what justifies this most significant system; what empowers it? What gives it life? What is the one thing without which this supreme system would not exist? Anyone?” Richard is ready for this one, and answers, “Belief!” “Since I have already shown that when belief in a god dies, the god dies", Leon continues, "which is fundamental—which cannot exist without the other?” “I decide to get into this discussion and reply, “God cannot exist without belief, and so belief is fundamental. God is only significant when belief is present.” “If our logic is correct, then belief is more fundamental than God! But that seems to contradict what was previously said about God being the highest level system, doesn’t it? “If belief is the pan-ultimate system, then IT should be given the reverence reserved only for God. Belief must be justified at all cost because without it even God doesn’t exist! IT should be most feared and respected; IT should take its rightful place on the throne as both the savior and the destroyer of humanity, wouldn’t you say, Anders?” Anders appears shaken, and there’s a hush over the class that I haven’t experienced till now that seems to be a mix of awe and confusion—as if the room has just been deluged with a series of thoughts like the heavy downpour from a thunderstorm. In order to bail the room of this unexpected gully wash, Leon returns to his notes and continues, “I’m sure that at this point in our therapy we will all admit that doubt and uncertainty are highly stressful and are powerful motivations to run the sub-routines that immediately and automatically relieve such stresses. But there are other more courageous methods to relieve stress. These have to do with engaging our thought processes—thinking things through, while coming to tentative solutions and approximate answers." <Forum, thank you in advance for your interest, your conversation, and your critique>

Listening to FDR2531 set the following train of thought in motion: Not all people are equally good at allocating their resources. Differences in intelligence and experience will cause some people to be better at this than others. People don't survive on their own, people survive in groups. In a group there will be people that are better at allocating resources than others. Since groups will be competing, evolution will favour those groups in which the assets are best allocated. Even if there was some kind of force involved. Creators with little social skills might find that their chances at survival are better in a group that has little respect for self ownership than in a group that perishes because they value self ownership. It might even be that the genome has this build in. Care to shoot any holes in this? PS: I am not defending the existence of a government. I fully subscribe to the NAP. I do see that governments exist, and I wonder what role they play in human evolution, and if we might be predisposed to accept a government.